【CIA機密檔案~沒有“台灣光復節”】
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFNwcK61lfpAuJO2g4_ddOgGs5FNHZ3rm
http://www.taiwanus.net/news/press/2014/201405150932061239.htm — 
Background to WWII in the Pacific:
第二次世界大戰在太平洋之背景:
The U.S. entered the Pacific War against Japan on December 8, 1941. All military attacks against the four main Japanese islands and (Japanese) Taiwan were conducted by U.S. military forces, as confirmed in numerous published sources. The United States is the “conqueror” and hence will be the principal occupying power.
美國在1941年12月8日進入對日本的太平洋戰爭。如證實在許多公開發表的資料上,所有對四個主要日本列島和(日本)台灣的軍事攻擊,都是由美國軍隊執行的。美國是“征服者”,因此也將是主要佔領權國。
0:35 In other words, under international law, it is the USA which bears the responsibility for the military occupation (including “rebuilding,” “reconstruction,” etc.) of Taiwan.
換句話說,根據國際法,美國是負有對台灣的軍事佔領(包括“重新構建”,“重新改造”等)責任的國家。
0:48 In General Order No. 1, issued on September 2, 1945, General Douglas MacArthur gave directions to Chiang Kai-shek of the Republic of China to accept the surrender of Japanese troops in Taiwan. Since there was no functioning Chinese navy or air force in 1945, Chiang’s troops agreed to be transported to Taiwan on U.S. ships and aircraft. Thus, the era of the ROC in Taiwan began in October 1945 with the full assistance and tutelage of the United States.
於1945年9月2日所發出的一般命令第一號,麥克阿瑟將軍指示給中華民國的蔣介石,在台灣接受日軍投降。由於在1945年的時候,中國的軍隊本身沒有正常的海軍或空軍,於是蔣介石的軍隊同意讓美軍的艦艇和飛機運送到台灣。因此,中華民國在台灣的時代開始於1945年10月,並擁有美國的全力協助和指導。
1:22 Contrastingly, Chinese history books state that Chiang’s troops came to Taiwan on their own initiative, but that is simply a face-saving exaggeration. In fact, it is important to recognize that Chiang’s troops were exercising delegated administrative authority for the military occupation of Taiwan.
與此相反的,中國的歷史書指出,蔣介石的軍隊是自己主動來台的。但是,這其實只是一個挽回面子的誇張的說法。事實上,重要的是要認知,蔣介石的部隊只是在被軍事佔領下的台灣,行使委派的行政權力。
1:43 The following are an additional five items of proof to say that the leading allies did not recognize that October 25, 1945 was “Taiwan Retrocession Day”
下面是一個另外的五項證明,解釋說,主要的盟國並沒有承認1945年10月25日是“台灣光復節”
6.United Nations Commission proposal
6.聯合國委員會的建議
In preparation for the final drafting of the post-war peace treaty, the United States planned to encourage the members of the United Nations to thoroughly investigate Taiwan’s legal status and decide the best course for Taiwan’s future.
為了籌備戰後和平條約的最後草擬,美國計劃鼓勵聯合國各成員徹查台灣的法律地位,並決定為台灣的未來最佳的走向。
Memorandum: Secretary of State Acheson to Secretary of Defense Marshall
Date: November 11, 1950
Subject: The Question of Formosa
備忘錄:艾奇遜國務卿給國防部長馬歇爾
日期:1950年11月11日
主題:福爾摩莎的問題
2:23 The question of Formosa will shortly come before the Political Committee of the General Assembly. …Under the procedure we envisage, a United Nations commission would spend the first year in studying the problem, in bringing out all relevant factors and in providing an opportunity for a full exchange of views among the governments concerned. The commission would give careful consideration to the respective Chinese claims to Formosa, to the well-being and wishes of the Formosans themselves, and to the valid interest of the international community in promoting peace and security in the western Pacific area.
福爾摩莎的問題將在近期內(聯合國)的大會的政治委員會之前提出。 ...在我們設想的程序,一個聯合國委員會將用第一年的時間來研究此問題、指出所有相關因素、並提供有關的政府,使他們有充分的交流意見的機會。委員會將慎重考慮各中國對福爾摩莎主權的要求,也會慎重考慮台灣人自己的幸福以及意願。並且也將慎重考慮國際社會對促進在西太平洋地區的和平與安全的有效權益。
3:00 Draft Resolution on the Problem of Formosa
對福爾摩莎問題決議之草案
Noting…that no formal act restoring sovereignty over these territories to China has yet occurred; … [U.S. Dept. of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. East Asia and the Pacific, Volume VI (1950), page 554-5]
注意到...正式把這些地區的主權恢復給中國的行動都還沒有發生; [1950年,美國國務院的外交關係系。東亞和太平洋地區,第六卷(1950年),第554-5頁]
7.Statement to the Far Eastern Commission (3:12)
7.給遠東委員會的聲明
In September and October 1950, the United States proposed in a brief statement to the members of the Far Eastern Commission general principles for a Peace Treaty with Japan. Later, in an aide memoire dated December 27, 1950, the United States expressed the views that … 2. The Cairo Declaration of 1943 stated the purpose to restore ‘Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores to the Republic of China.’ That declaration, like other wartime declarations such as those of Yalta and Potsdam, was in the opinion of the United States Government subject to any final peace settlement where all relevant factors should be considered… [U.S. Dept. of State, Czyzak Memorandum, February 3, 1961].
在1950年九月和十月,美國向遠東委員會的成員提出了一份簡短聲明,提議與日本締結和平條約的一般原則。後來,在日期為1950年12月27日的備忘錄中,美國表示,...(第二點) 1943年的開羅宣言敘述了恢復“滿洲,台灣及澎湖列島給中華民國”的意見。這個宣言,像其他戰時的宣言,如雅爾達和波茨坦(Potsdam),是美國政府,在考慮任何所有相關因素及最終和平解決達成前的意見...[ 美國國務院,Czyzak備忘錄,1961年2月3日]。
4:36
On February 11, 1945, at Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin agreed that the USSR would enter the war against Japan on condition, among others, that the southern part of Sakhalin and all the islands adjacent to it “shall be returned to the Soviet Union” and that the Kurile Islands “shall be handed over to the Soviet Union.” The Yalta agreement, like the Cairo declaration, has been considered by the United States to be a statement of intention rather than as creating binding international commitments. [U.S. Dept. of State, Czyzak Memorandum, February 3, 1961]
於1945年2月11日的雅爾達會議上,邱吉爾,羅斯福和史達林同意了蘇聯將進入抗日戰爭的條件,其中包括了庫頁島島嶼的南部和所有與其相鄰的島嶼都“應當返還給蘇聯“。並且,千島群島 “應移交給蘇聯”。“雅爾達協議,如開羅宣言,一直被認為是美國的意向聲明,而不是一個建立具有約束力的國際承諾。 [美國國務院,Czyzak備忘錄,1961年2月3日]
8.General Douglas MacArthur’s Analysis (4:39)
8.麥克阿瑟將軍的分析
General Douglas MacArthur stated at a U.S. congressional hearing in May 1951, “Legalistically, Formosa is still a part of the Empire of Japan.” [New York Times, May 5, 1951, at A7; see also Y. Frank Chiang, One-China Policy and Taiwan, 28 Fordham International Law Journal 1, 16, n. 72 (2004)]
道格拉斯·麥克阿瑟將軍按1951年5月在美國國會聽證會上說,“按照法律,福爾摩莎仍是日本帝國的一部分。”[紐約時報,1951年5月5日,A7版;又參考弗蘭克江 (譯音),一個中國的政策與台灣,28福德姆國際法雜誌1,16,N。 72(2004)]
9.British Policy toward Formosa (4:58)
9.英國對福爾摩沙的政策
Some six months before the ROC central government relocated to occupied Taiwan, the United States Ambassador in the U.K. endeavored to verify British views on the Taiwan situation.
大約在中華民國中央政府遷往佔領台灣的六個月前,美國在英國的大使努力地來確認英國對台灣局勢的看法。
Memorandum: U.S. Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the U.S. Secretary of State
Date: May 25, 1949, London
Subject: Problems of Taiwan
備忘錄:美國駐英國大使(道格拉斯)給美國國務卿
日期:1949年5月25日,倫敦
主題:台灣問題
SIR: I have the honor to report that very little attention has been given in British official and unofficial circles to the various problems of Taiwan, such as the status of the island itself and the status of any Chinese Government which may be set up there, especially in view of the fact that much of China’s resources are reported to have been transferred to the island. There is also a report in London that Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and his two sons have left Shanghai for Taiwan but the British Foreign Office has not been able to confirm this. In view of the above facts, the Embassy has been endeavoring to obtain some indication of British thinking in regard to Taiwan, and the following are the results:
閣下:我榮幸地報告,英國官方和非官方的圈子對台灣的各種問題,如島嶼本身的狀態、以及任何可能在那裡設立政府的中國政府的地位。尤其是鑑於許多中國的資源都已轉移到島上,此報告的事實,卻很少得到關注。。還有一個在倫敦的一份報告說,蔣介石和他的兩個兒子都已經離開上海,前往台灣,但英國外交部一直無法證實這一點。鑑於上述事實,(美國)大使館一直努力著,以獲得一些表明英國有關於台灣的跡象的想法。下面是結果:
Official—Foreign Office (7:03)
官方 - 外交部
Mr. Dening, of the Foreign Office, stated that neither the British Cabinet nor officials of the Foreign Office have given much consideration to the problems of Taiwan, and no Foreign Office policy has been established as yet. He stated that should a refugee Chinese government or a Chinese government in exile be set up in Taiwan, which is not yet legally Chinese territory, it is probable that the British Government would simply appoint a British Consulate in Tamsui as an office of the British Embassy in China. His own opinions were that any Chinese government established in Taiwan would be in a very ambiguous position and would present difficult problems to the governments of the world and especially to the United Nations...
外交部的德寧先生說,無論是英國內閣,或是外交部的官員,都沒有深深的考慮到台灣的問題;並且,外交部政策也都還沒有成立。他說,如果有中國難民政府,或是中國流亡政府設在台灣,當台灣在法律上尚未是中國的領土時,英國政府有可能只會委任一名英國駐淡水的領事館,作為英國在中國的大使館的辦公室。他自己的意見是認為,任何中國政府若設在台灣,將會有一個很曖昧的地位,也將會向世界各國政府,特別是聯合國,引起困難的問題...
(7:08) …on May 5, Deputy Chairman Bowles (Labor), made the following statement: “Formosa, I realize, is the seat of the present Nationalist Government of China. But it is not China. I think it was part of Japan…Formosa is a part of Japan, and is not really China, though the Chinese government may be there.” …[U.S. Dept. of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Far East China Volume IX (1949), page 341-343]
5月5日,勞工黨的副主席鮑爾斯作出以下聲明:“我意識到,福爾摩莎,是中國目前的國民政府的所在地。但是福爾摩莎不是中國。我認為福爾摩莎曾是日本的一部分......福爾摩莎就是日本的一部分,也不是真正的中國,雖然中國政府或許在那裡。“...[美國國務院 / 美國外交關係部,1949年。遠東 中國 第九卷(1949年),第341-343頁]
10.The Status of the Chinese Nationalists in Formosa (7:29)
10.中國國民黨在福爾摩莎的地位
Certain questions regarding sovereignty issues were debated in the U.K. Parliament in 1955. An important part of the discussion involved Formosa and the Pescadores.
英國議會於1955年有辯論關於主權問題的某些問題。其中討論的有一個重要部分涉及台灣及澎湖列島。
Oral Answer: Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robin H. Turton)
Date: May 4, 1955
Subject: Far East (Formosa and the Pescadores)
口述回答:外交事務的聯合副國務卿(羅賓·H.特頓先生)
日期:1955年5月4日
主題:遠東(台灣及澎湖列島)
(8:32) The case of Formosa is different. The sovereignty was Japanese until 1952. The Japanese Treaty came into force, and at that time, Formosa was being administered by the Chinese Nationalists, to whom it was entrusted in 1945, as a military occupation. In 1952, we did not recognize the Chinese Nationalists as representing the Chinese State. Therefore this military occupancy could not give them legal sovereignty, nor, equally, could the Chinese People’s Republic, which was not in occupation of Formosa, derive any rights from occupation of that territory.
福爾摩莎的情況是不同的。直到1952年,(它的)主權是日本的。當日本條約生效時,在那個時候,福爾摩莎正由中國國民黨,於1945年被委託作為一個軍事佔領,所管理。 1952年當時,我們並不承認中國國民黨為中國國家的代表。因此,這個軍事佔領不能讓他們(中國國民黨)擁有法律主權,或因佔領該領土而衍生任何權利。同樣的,福爾摩莎的法律主權也不可以給中國人民共和國,因為中國人民共和國並沒有佔領福爾摩莎。
[Official Report, 4th February, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 159.] …The fact is that Formosa is not under Chinese sovereignty. That does not mean that the Chinese Nationalists have no right to be there. Their presence springs from their military occupancy in which they were placed by the Allied Powers in 1945, pending future arrangements. [Hansard 1803-2005 Commons Sitting, 04 May 1955 East Asia and the Pacific, vol 540 cc1865-74]
[官方報導,1955年2月4日;第536卷,c. 159。] ...事實是福爾摩莎並不屬於中國的主權。這並不意味著,中國國民黨無權在那裡。他們 (中國國民黨) 在那裡的原因由自於他們是被盟軍於1945年安置,以待未來的軍事安排。[議事錄1803年至2005年下議院,1955年5月4日東亞和太平洋地區,第540 卷, cc1865-74]
Summary for Items 1-10 (8:54)
項目1-10的摘要
United States Secretary of State John Foster Dulles told the Senate in December 1954, “[the] technical sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores has never been settled. That is because the Japanese peace treaty merely involves a renunciation by Japan of its right and title to these islands. But the future title is not determined by the Japanese peace treaty, nor is it determined by the peace treaty which was concluded between the [ROC] and Japan.” [Dept. of State Bulletin, December 1954, at 896; see also Y. Frank Chiang, One-China Policy and Taiwan, 28 Fordham International Law Journal 1, 36, n. 164 (December 2004); Lung-chu Chen and W.M. Reisman, Who Owns Taiwan: A Search for International Title, 81 Yale L.J. 599, 644 (1972)]
美國國務卿約翰·福斯特·杜勒斯在1954年12月告訴參議院,“台灣及澎湖列島的主權從未被解決。這是因為日本的和平條約僅僅涉及日本放棄對這些島嶼之權利和所有權。但未來的所有權並不是由日本和平條約來決定的,也不是由[中華民國]和日本之間的和平條約決定後所得出的結論來決定的。“[國務院通報,1954年12月,在896;又參考華弗蘭克江的一個中國的政策,台灣 ,28福德姆國際法雜誌1,36,N. 164(2004年12月);陳龍珠 (譯音)和W.M.賴斯曼的誰擁有台灣:一個搜索國際標題,81耶魯法律雜誌,第599卷,644(1972年)]
Conclusion: There was no “Taiwan Retrocession Day.”
結論:沒有“台灣光復節”。

【CIA機密檔案~沒有“台灣光復節”】
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFNwcK61lfpAuJO2g4_ddOgGs5FNHZ3rm
http://www.taiwanus.net/news/press/2014/201405150932061239.htm
Background to WWII in the Pacific:
第二次世界大戰在太平洋之背景:
The U.S. entered the Pacific War against Japan on December 8, 1941. All military attacks against the four main Japanese islands and (Japanese) Taiwan were conducted by U.S. military forces, as confirmed in numerous published sources. The United States is the “conqueror” and hence will be the principal occupying power.
美國在1941年12月8日進入對日本的太平洋戰爭。如證實在許多公開發表的資料上,所有對四個主要日本列島和(日本)台灣的軍事攻擊,都是由美國軍隊執行的。美國是“征服者”,因此也將是主要佔領權國。
0:35 In other words, under international law, it is the USA which bears the responsibility for the military occupation (including “rebuilding,” “reconstruction,” etc.) of Taiwan.
換句話說,根據國際法,美國是負有對台灣的軍事佔領(包括“重新構建”,“重新改造”等)責任的國家。
0:48 In General Order No. 1, issued on September 2, 1945, General Douglas MacArthur gave directions to Chiang Kai-shek of the Republic of China to accept the surrender of Japanese troops in Taiwan. Since there was no functioning Chinese navy or air force in 1945, Chiang’s troops agreed to be transported to Taiwan on U.S. ships and aircraft. Thus, the era of the ROC in Taiwan began in October 1945 with the full assistance and tutelage of the United States.
於1945年9月2日所發出的一般命令第一號,麥克阿瑟將軍指示給中華民國的蔣介石,在台灣接受日軍投降。由於在1945年的時候,中國的軍隊本身沒有正 常的海軍或空軍,於是蔣介石的軍隊同意讓美軍的艦艇和飛機運送到台灣。因此,中華民國在台灣的時代開始於1945年10月,並擁有美國的全力協助和指導。
1:22 Contrastingly, Chinese history books state that Chiang’s troops came to Taiwan on their own initiative, but that is simply a face-saving exaggeration. In fact, it is important to recognize that Chiang’s troops were exercising delegated administrative authority for the military occupation of Taiwan.
與此相反的,中國的歷史書指出,蔣介石的軍隊是自己主動來台的。但是,這其實只是一個挽回面子的誇張的說法。事實上,重要的是要認知,蔣介石的部隊只是在被軍事佔領下的台灣,行使委派的行政權力。
1:43 The following are an additional five items of proof to say that the leading allies did not recognize that October 25, 1945 was “Taiwan Retrocession Day”
下面是一個另外的五項證明,解釋說,主要的盟國並沒有承認1945年10月25日是“台灣光復節”
6.United Nations Commission proposal
6.聯合國委員會的建議
In preparation for the final drafting of the post-war peace treaty, the United States planned to encourage the members of the United Nations to thoroughly investigate Taiwan’s legal status and decide the best course for Taiwan’s future.
為了籌備戰後和平條約的最後草擬,美國計劃鼓勵聯合國各成員徹查台灣的法律地位,並決定為台灣的未來最佳的走向。
Memorandum: Secretary of State Acheson to Secretary of Defense Marshall
Date: November 11, 1950
Subject: The Question of Formosa
備忘錄:艾奇遜國務卿給國防部長馬歇爾
日期:1950年11月11日
主題:福爾摩莎的問題
2:23 The question of Formosa will shortly come before the Political Committee of the General Assembly. …Under the procedure we envisage, a United Nations commission would spend the first year in studying the problem, in bringing out all relevant factors and in providing an opportunity for a full exchange of views among the governments concerned. The commission would give careful consideration to the respective Chinese claims to Formosa, to the well-being and wishes of the Formosans themselves, and to the valid interest of the international community in promoting peace and security in the western Pacific area.
福爾摩莎的問題將在近期內(聯合國)的大會的政治委員會之前提出。 ...在我們設想的程序,一個聯合國委員會將用第一年的時間來研究此問題、指出所有相關因素、並提供有關的政府,使他們有充分的交流意見的機會。委員會將 慎重考慮各中國對福爾摩莎主權的要求,也會慎重考慮台灣人自己的幸福以及意願。並且也將慎重考慮國際社會對促進在西太平洋地區的和平與安全的有效權益。
3:00 Draft Resolution on the Problem of Formosa
對福爾摩莎問題決議之草案
Noting…that no formal act restoring sovereignty over these territories to China has yet occurred; … [U.S. Dept. of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. East Asia and the Pacific, Volume VI (1950), page 554-5]
注意到...正式把這些地區的主權恢復給中國的行動都還沒有發生; [1950年,美國國務院的外交關係系。東亞和太平洋地區,第六卷(1950年),第554-5頁]
7.Statement to the Far Eastern Commission (3:12)
7.給遠東委員會的聲明
In September and October 1950, the United States proposed in a brief statement to the members of the Far Eastern Commission general principles for a Peace Treaty with Japan. Later, in an aide memoire dated December 27, 1950, the United States expressed the views that … 2. The Cairo Declaration of 1943 stated the purpose to restore ‘Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores to the Republic of China.’ That declaration, like other wartime declarations such as those of Yalta and Potsdam, was in the opinion of the United States Government subject to any final peace settlement where all relevant factors should be considered… [U.S. Dept. of State, Czyzak Memorandum, February 3, 1961].
在1950年九月和十月,美國向遠東委員會的成員提出了一份簡短聲明,提議與日本締結和平條約的一般原則。後來,在日期為1950年12月27日的備忘錄 中,美國表示,...(第二點) 1943年的開羅宣言敘述了恢復“滿洲,台灣及澎湖列島給中華民國”的意見。這個宣言,像其他戰時的宣言,如雅爾達和波茨坦(Potsdam),是美國政 府,在考慮任何所有相關因素及最終和平解決達成前的意見...[ 美國國務院,Czyzak備忘錄,1961年2月3日]。
4:36
On February 11, 1945, at Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin agreed that the USSR would enter the war against Japan on condition, among others, that the southern part of Sakhalin and all the islands adjacent to it “shall be returned to the Soviet Union” and that the Kurile Islands “shall be handed over to the Soviet Union.” The Yalta agreement, like the Cairo declaration, has been considered by the United States to be a statement of intention rather than as creating binding international commitments. [U.S. Dept. of State, Czyzak Memorandum, February 3, 1961]
於1945年2月11日的雅爾達會議上,邱吉爾,羅斯福和史達林同意了蘇聯將進入抗日戰爭的條件,其中包括了庫頁島島嶼的南部和所有與其相鄰的島嶼都“應 當返還給蘇聯“。並且,千島群島 “應移交給蘇聯”。“雅爾達協議,如開羅宣言,一直被認為是美國的意向聲明,而不是一個建立具有約束力的國際承諾。 [美國國務院,Czyzak備忘錄,1961年2月3日]
8.General Douglas MacArthur’s Analysis (4:39)
8.麥克阿瑟將軍的分析
General Douglas MacArthur stated at a U.S. congressional hearing in May 1951, “Legalistically, Formosa is still a part of the Empire of Japan.” [New York Times, May 5, 1951, at A7; see also Y. Frank Chiang, One-China Policy and Taiwan, 28 Fordham International Law Journal 1, 16, n. 72 (2004)]
道格拉斯·麥克阿瑟將軍按1951年5月在美國國會聽證會上說,“按照法律,福爾摩莎仍是日本帝國的一部分。”[紐約時報,1951年5月5日,A7版;又參考弗蘭克江 (譯音),一個中國的政策與台灣,28福德姆國際法雜誌1,16,N。 72(2004)]
9.British Policy toward Formosa (4:58)
9.英國對福爾摩沙的政策
Some six months before the ROC central government relocated to occupied Taiwan, the United States Ambassador in the U.K. endeavored to verify British views on the Taiwan situation.
大約在中華民國中央政府遷往佔領台灣的六個月前,美國在英國的大使努力地來確認英國對台灣局勢的看法。
Memorandum: U.S. Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the U.S. Secretary of State
Date: May 25, 1949, London
Subject: Problems of Taiwan
備忘錄:美國駐英國大使(道格拉斯)給美國國務卿
日期:1949年5月25日,倫敦
主題:台灣問題
SIR: I have the honor to report that very little attention has been given in British official and unofficial circles to the various problems of Taiwan, such as the status of the island itself and the status of any Chinese Government which may be set up there, especially in view of the fact that much of China’s resources are reported to have been transferred to the island. There is also a report in London that Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and his two sons have left Shanghai for Taiwan but the British Foreign Office has not been able to confirm this. In view of the above facts, the Embassy has been endeavoring to obtain some indication of British thinking in regard to Taiwan, and the following are the results:
閣下:我榮幸地報告,英國官方和非官方的圈子對台灣的各種問題,如島嶼本身的狀態、以及任何可能在那裡設立政府的中國政府的地位。尤其是鑑於許多中國的資 源都已轉移到島上,此報告的事實,卻很少得到關注。。還有一個在倫敦的一份報告說,蔣介石和他的兩個兒子都已經離開上海,前往台灣,但英國外交部一直無法 證實這一點。鑑於上述事實,(美國)大使館一直努力著,以獲得一些表明英國有關於台灣的跡象的想法。下面是結果:
Official—Foreign Office (7:03)
官方 - 外交部
Mr. Dening, of the Foreign Office, stated that neither the British Cabinet nor officials of the Foreign Office have given much consideration to the problems of Taiwan, and no Foreign Office policy has been established as yet. He stated that should a refugee Chinese government or a Chinese government in exile be set up in Taiwan, which is not yet legally Chinese territory, it is probable that the British Government would simply appoint a British Consulate in Tamsui as an office of the British Embassy in China. His own opinions were that any Chinese government established in Taiwan would be in a very ambiguous position and would present difficult problems to the governments of the world and especially to the United Nations...
外交部的德寧先生說,無論是英國內閣,或是外交部的官員,都沒有深深的考慮到台灣的問題;並且,外交部政策也都還沒有成立。他說,如果有中國難民政府,或 是中國流亡政府設在台灣,當台灣在法律上尚未是中國的領土時,英國政府有可能只會委任一名英國駐淡水的領事館,作為英國在中國的大使館的辦公室。他自己的 意見是認為,任何中國政府若設在台灣,將會有一個很曖昧的地位,也將會向世界各國政府,特別是聯合國,引起困難的問題...
(7:08) …on May 5, Deputy Chairman Bowles (Labor), made the following statement: “Formosa, I realize, is the seat of the present Nationalist Government of China. But it is not China. I think it was part of Japan…Formosa is a part of Japan, and is not really China, though the Chinese government may be there.” …[U.S. Dept. of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Far East China Volume IX (1949), page 341-343]
5月5日,勞工黨的副主席鮑爾斯作出以下聲明:“我意識到,福爾摩莎,是中國目前的國民政府的所在地。但是福爾摩莎不是中國。我認為福爾摩莎曾是日本的一 部分......福爾摩莎就是日本的一部分,也不是真正的中國,雖然中國政府或許在那裡。“...[美國國務院 / 美國外交關係部,1949年。遠東 中國 第九卷(1949年),第341-343頁]
10.The Status of the Chinese Nationalists in Formosa (7:29)
10.中國國民黨在福爾摩莎的地位
Certain questions regarding sovereignty issues were debated in the U.K. Parliament in 1955. An important part of the discussion involved Formosa and the Pescadores.
英國議會於1955年有辯論關於主權問題的某些問題。其中討論的有一個重要部分涉及台灣及澎湖列島。
Oral Answer: Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robin H. Turton)
Date: May 4, 1955
Subject: Far East (Formosa and the Pescadores)
口述回答:外交事務的聯合副國務卿(羅賓·H.特頓先生)
日期:1955年5月4日
主題:遠東(台灣及澎湖列島)
(8:32) The case of Formosa is different. The sovereignty was Japanese until 1952. The Japanese Treaty came into force, and at that time, Formosa was being administered by the Chinese Nationalists, to whom it was entrusted in 1945, as a military occupation. In 1952, we did not recognize the Chinese Nationalists as representing the Chinese State. Therefore this military occupancy could not give them legal sovereignty, nor, equally, could the Chinese People’s Republic, which was not in occupation of Formosa, derive any rights from occupation of that territory.
福爾摩莎的情況是不同的。直到1952年,(它的)主權是日本的。當日本條約生效時,在那個時候,福爾摩莎正由中國國民黨,於1945年被委託作為一個軍 事佔領,所管理。 1952年當時,我們並不承認中國國民黨為中國國家的代表。因此,這個軍事佔領不能讓他們(中國國民黨)擁有法律主權,或因佔領該領土而衍生任何權利。同 樣的,福爾摩莎的法律主權也不可以給中國人民共和國,因為中國人民共和國並沒有佔領福爾摩莎。
[Official Report, 4th February, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 159.] …The fact is that Formosa is not under Chinese sovereignty. That does not mean that the Chinese Nationalists have no right to be there. Their presence springs from their military occupancy in which they were placed by the Allied Powers in 1945, pending future arrangements. [Hansard 1803-2005 Commons Sitting, 04 May 1955 East Asia and the Pacific, vol 540 cc1865-74]
[官方報導,1955年2月4日;第536卷,c. 159。] ...事實是福爾摩莎並不屬於中國的主權。這並不意味著,中國國民黨無權在那裡。他們 (中國國民黨) 在那裡的原因由自於他們是被盟軍於1945年安置,以待未來的軍事安排。[議事錄1803年至2005年下議院,1955年5月4日東亞和太平洋地區,第 540 卷, cc1865-74]
Summary for Items 1-10 (8:54)
項目1-10的摘要
United States Secretary of State John Foster Dulles told the Senate in December 1954, “[the] technical sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores has never been settled. That is because the Japanese peace treaty merely involves a renunciation by Japan of its right and title to these islands. But the future title is not determined by the Japanese peace treaty, nor is it determined by the peace treaty which was concluded between the [ROC] and Japan.” [Dept. of State Bulletin, December 1954, at 896; see also Y. Frank Chiang, One-China Policy and Taiwan, 28 Fordham International Law Journal 1, 36, n. 164 (December 2004); Lung-chu Chen and W.M. Reisman, Who Owns Taiwan: A Search for International Title, 81 Yale L.J. 599, 644 (1972)]
美國國務卿約翰·福斯特·杜勒斯在1954年12月告訴參議院,“台灣及澎湖列島的主權從未被解決。這是因為日本的和平條約僅僅涉及日本放棄對這些島嶼之 權利和所有權。但未來的所有權並不是由日本和平條約來決定的,也不是由[中華民國]和日本之間的和平條約決定後所得出的結論來決定的。“[國務院通 報,1954年12月,在896;又參考華弗蘭克江的一個中國的政策,台灣 ,28福德姆國際法雜誌1,36,N. 164(2004年12月);陳龍珠 (譯音)和W.M.賴斯曼的誰擁有台灣:一個搜索國際標題,81耶魯法律雜誌,第599卷,644(1972年)]
Conclusion: There was no “Taiwan Retrocession Day.”
結論:沒有“台灣光復節”。

文章標籤
創作者介紹

bibi2009pc的部落格

bibi2009pc 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()