e02_twnews_title舊金山和平條約與臺灣地位未定論
The San Francisco Peace Treaty and the lack of conclusions on Taiwan’s international status

林呈蓉/Lin Cheng-jung
(淡江大學歷史系副教授)
(Deputy Professor, Department of History, Tamkang University)

2001-09-10


e02_20010910_0910The ceremony accepting Japan’s surrender of “the Chinese Theater’s Taiwan Province," attended by representatives from the Nationalist government on October 25, 1945 represented only a temporary taking of control by the military.

 

 


  提到戰後台灣的歸屬問題,一般人多半會想起《開羅宣言》與《波茨坦宣言》的聲明內容,然此二宣言發佈時,日本尚未投降且合法擁有台灣,真正決定戰後台灣歸屬問題的國際法是1951年的《舊金山條約》。台灣地位歸屬問題一直是台灣主權與外交憂戚相關的重要議題,值此「兩國論」與「一中各表」的唇槍舌戰在兩岸間如火如荼的進行之際,「台灣歷史之窗」特別邀請淡江大學歷史系副教授林呈蓉為我們分析此一歷史懸案的來龍去脈及其影響。

  Mention the issue of the jurisdiction of since the end of the Second World War and most people will think of the contents of the Cairo Declaration or the Potsdam Declaration, yet at the time when these two declarations were announced, Japan had yet to surrender to the Allies, and it still had legitimate possession of Taiwan. The document which truly decided the question of Taiwan’s jurisdiction after the war was the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, recognized by international law. The issues of Taiwan’s status and under whose jurisdiction Taiwan should come are important topics closely related to Taiwan’s sovereignty and diplomatic woes, and while the war of words rages across the straits over the “special state-to-state relationship" and “one China, according to individual interpretation," Taiwan News has invited deputy professor Lin Cheng-jung from Tamkang University’s department of history to analyze the roots and subsequent development of this unsettled issue of history, and future prospects.


對日合約遲未簽訂

  1945年8月15日,隨著日本向盟軍宣告無條件投降,長期以來熙攘紛亂的第二次世界大戰終告結束。雖然早在1947年3月,盟軍最高司令官麥克阿瑟將軍即主張應儘早締結對日和約,但是在當時美蘇對立關係白熱化、以及海內外各種情勢的消長下,對日講和工作一直延宕,直到1950年才開始緊鑼密鼓地動起來。其中一個關鍵因素即是1950年6月25日所爆發的朝鮮戰爭,它促使強權美國試圖爭取日本成為太平洋反共陣線的成員,因此更加積極推動對日和約的工作。

Delays in concluding and signing a peace treaty with Japan

  On August 15, 1945, following Japan’s declaration of unconditional surrender to the Allied Forces, the long and eventful Second World War came to an end. Although the Allied Powers’ Supreme Commander, General MacArthur, had, as early as March 1947, advocated concluding a treat with Japan as soon as possible, U.S.-Soviet antagonism was heating up to boiling point at this time, and with the ebb and flow of various situations within the U.S. and overseas, the task of concluding peace with Japan was continually put off until 1950, when preparations finally started in earnest. One key factor in this was the Korean War, which broke out on June 25, 1950, and pushed the powerful U.S. to try to persuade Japan to become a member of the Pacific anti-communist front. Consequently, the U.S. increased their active advances for a peace treaty with Japan.


中國合法政權之變化

  1951年9月5日,在英、美等強權主導下,二次大戰中的同盟國成員在舊金山召開了對日和平會議。雖然主導中國軍區的蔣介石軍事委員長,在戰爭期間擔任盟軍亞洲地區最高統帥;而終戰那一年的10月25日,蔣氏也派員來臺,以代表盟軍舉行「中國戰區台灣省」受降典禮,並暫時接管日本總督府離開之後的台、澎地區,但是中國代表卻被排除在對日和平會議之外。箇中原因在於,二次大戰結束後不久,中國內部國民黨與共產黨之間的軍事衝突重新啟動,這種情勢到了1949年10月以後顯然進入了另一階段,即共產黨政權在北京正式舉行了「中華人民共和國」的開國典禮,相反地蔣介石所代表的國民黨政權卻在中國全面性地潰敗,並輾轉流亡到法律地位尚未被確定的台、澎地區。而中國內戰的結果,也導致同盟國之間對於代表中國合法政權立場與態度,分歧不一。

China’s legitimate changes in political power

  On September 5, 1951, under the leadership of such super powers as the United Kingdom and the U.S., the members of the Second World War Allies convened in San Francisco for a conference on peace with Japan. Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the Chinese military region, had been the Supreme Allied Commander in the Asia Region during the war; on October 25 1945, Chiang sent representatives to Taiwan, and represented the Allied Forces at the ceremony accepting Japan’s surrender of “the Chinese Theater’s Taiwan Province," and temporarily took over control of Taiwan and the Penghu region after the departure of the Japanese Taiwan Governor’s Office. However, Chinese representatives were excluded from the San Francisco Peace Conference. One of the reasons for this was that not long after the end of the Second World War, military conflicts had broken out afresh between the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) inside China, and this situation clearly entered a new phase after October 1949, when the CCP regime held a formal ceremony in Beijing for the founding of the “People’s Republic of China," while the KMT regime, represented by Chiang Kai-shek made a comprehensive retreat from China, ending up in exile in Taiwan and Penghu, a region whose legal status had not been decided. The outcome of the civil war in China resulted in a lack of consensus among the Allies as to which regime was the legitimate representative of China.


  另一方面,兩個各自主張是代表中國合法政權者同時存在,以及國際間在中國問題上無法達成共識,對戰敗國日本而言自然也造成了某種程度的困擾,因為中國受日本的侵略最為長久且深刻,倘若中日之間無法藉此機會簽訂和平協定,則中日戰爭無法正式終結,而戰後的各種後續處理工作也會被延宕而無法進行。

  Another aspect was that while two regimes which both claimed to be the legitimate representatives of China existed, there was no way that an international consensus on the China question could be reached, and this situation naturally created a certain level of difficulty for the defeated Japan, because China was deeply affected by having been invaded by Japan, and if there was no way to conclude and sign a peace treaty between China and Japan, then the Sino-Japanese war would not formally come to an end, and all kinds of post-war follow-up work would also have to be put off.


各國立場不一,日本自行決定

  在同盟國成員中,基本上蘇聯站在共產國際的立場,絕對支持中共政權成為中國唯一合法政府;另外,在西方陣營中,英國為了其在香港、九龍的權益,早早便與中共政權建交,並認為對日和約中中國的代表權應由參加遠東委員會各國的三分之二多數所承認者來代表簽署;美國則對於正在侵略朝鮮的中共政權,堅持主張反對其共同參與簽署的立場。到底日本方面應該與哪一個中國政權簽署和平條約,在以英、美兩國為首而與其他各盟國成員的相互折衝下,乃決定由日本自行選擇一方的政府,並以將來另行個別簽訂和平條約的方式處理。

With each nation taking a different position, Japan makes its own decision

  Among the Allies, the Soviet Union took the Comintern position, with absolute support of the PRC regime as the only legitimate government of China. Among the Western camp, Britain built diplomatic relations with the PRC very early on, in view of its interests in Hong Kong and Kowloon. Britain also thought that the whoever represented China in signing the peace treaty with Japan should be approved by more than two thirds of the nations which took part in Far East Committee. The U.S. were against the PRC regime, which was in the process of invading Korea, taking part in and signing a treaty. So while Britain, the U.S. and the other members of the Allies bickered among one another, the question of which government of China Japan ought to sign a peace treaty with was decided by Japan, and handled in the way that future signings of other peace treaties would be dealt with.


  日本政府在當時的各種內外壓力下,不得不選擇以蔣介石政權所代表的國民黨政府,作為締結和平條約的對象。不過,在美、日的共同認知下,該和約並非將國民政府視為代表中國唯一合法的政府,因此該和約將僅適用於國民政府當前或將來其所統治下之區域。

  At that time, the Japanese government was under pressure from all kinds of internal and external sources, and had no choice but to choose the KMT government, represented by Chiang Kai-shek’s regime, with whom to conclude a peace treaty. However, with U.S. and Japanese mutual recognition, the treaty did not really view the Nationalist government as representing the only legitimate government of China, and so this treaty simply applied to the regions under the control of the Nationalist government at that time or in the future.


台灣地位未定,有賴住民自決

  於是在臺灣地位歸屬上,根據《舊金山對日和平條約》第二條規定「日本放棄對台灣、澎湖群島的所有權利、權限與請求權」。其所埋下的伏筆是,台灣最終的歸屬尚未被決定。理論上,將來台灣問題之解決,應該依照聯合國憲章的目的與原則,在住民自決的原則下,透過公民投票的方式,詢問該地區住民的意願導向,才能下結論。

Taiwan’s status undecided, dependent on the self-determination of its residents

  As a result, the question of Taiwan’s status and jurisdiction, Article 2 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty stipulates that “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores." Foreshadowed here is the fact that the final question of whom Taiwan belongs to remains undefined. Theoretically, the future resolution of the Taiwan issue should be carried out, according to the aims and principles of the UN Charter, and under the principle of self-determination by its inhabitants, by means of a public referendum, which would ask about the direction desired by the inhabitants of the region, before a verdict can be reached.


  1952年4月28日,國民政府與日本之間根據《舊金山和平條約》的規定,簽署了《中日和平條約》。中日和平條約在領土問題的處理上,係就其第二條之規定,僅再次確認《舊金山和平條約》的聲明,即「茲承認依照公曆1951年9月8日在美利堅合眾國舊金山市所簽訂之對日和平條約第二條規定,日本業已放棄對於台灣、澎湖群島、以及南沙群島及西沙群島之一切權利、權限與請求權」。於是,台灣最後的歸屬問題在中日和平條約的內文中依然沒有被觸及。

  On April 28, 1952, in accordance with the stipulations of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan (also known as the Treaty of Taipei) was signed between the Nationalist government and Japan. The Treaty of Taipei, in dealing with the question of territory, stipulates in its Article 2 a reconfirmation of the statement in the San Francisco Treaty, saying: “It is recognised that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley [sic] Islands and the Paracel Islands." So the question of whose jurisdiction Taiwan ultimately comes under is still not touched upon in the content of the Treaty of Taipei.


  然而,提及戰後台灣的歸屬問題,人們多半會想起《開羅宣言》與《波茨坦宣言》的聲明內容。雖然1943年《開羅宣言》中確曾提及日本應該將「滿州、台灣、澎湖群島歸還給中華民國」;並在1945年《波茨坦宣言》中要求日本無條件投降,且再次強調「《開羅宣言》之條款必須實施」,然而這些「宣言」僅止於戰爭中的立場或表述,雖有宣誓的作用存在,卻不具有任何法律效力。

  However, mention the issue of whose jurisdiction Taiwan has been under since the end of the war, and most people will think of the contents of the statements of the Cairo or Potsdam Declarations. Although the 1943 Cairo Declaration does mention that all of the territories “such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China" by Japan; the 1945 Potsdam Declaration demanded that Japan surrender unconditionally, and once again emphasized that “The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out." However, these “declarations" only state positions and wishes during the war, and although function of the declarations remains, they do not have any legal potency.


歷史懸案的兩個結論

  《舊金山和平條約》以及《中日和平條約》對於台灣的法律地位,皆沒有明確的規定,導致台灣的歸屬問題就這樣懸而未決地延宕至今日。每當中國對台灣文攻武嚇或台灣在外交拓展上遇到瓶頸時,「台灣地位未定論」自然會被提出來討論。但是從此一歷史懸案的來龍去脈中,可以明確地推衍出兩個結論:

The two inferences to be made from this unresolved case from history

  Neither the San Francisco Peace Treaty and the Treaty of Taipei clearly stipulate the legal status of Taiwan, with the result that the question of whose jurisdiction Taiwan should come under has never to this day been resolved. Each time China launches a war of words on Taiwan, or Taiwan hits some bottleneck in developing diplomatic relations, the “theory that the status of Taiwan is still undecided" comes up for discussion as a matter of course. But from the beginnings and subsequent development of this historical unresolved case, we can clearly infer two conclusions:


  (一)伴隨時空環境的轉變,中國所要面對的已非僅止於國民黨單一政權統治下的台灣,而是含括代表台灣在地政權執政下的台灣。以當前的情況而論,台灣的歸屬問題將逐漸演變成兩個來自中國的勢力,即從未統治過台灣的中華人民共和國政權,和因流亡而寄生在台灣島上的泛國民黨政權,與台灣島上住民所自主結構而成的在地本土政權,三者之間的領土爭奪戰。

  (1) In the wake of changes in both time and space, the Taiwan China is up against is no longer limited to the Taiwan under the political control of the KMT, but now includes the Taiwan ruled by a government which is representative of Taiwan. With the current situation, the question of whose jurisdiction Taiwan comes under has gradually evolved into two forces, both of which came from China — the PRC government, which has never governed Taiwan, and the KMT government, which parasitically attached itself to the island of Taiwan as a result of going into exile – and a third force, the local, native government, autonomously constructed by the residents of the island of Taiwan. It’s a territorial struggle between these three.


  (二)以美國為首的西方陣營勢力,在台灣的歸屬問題上,有意無意地埋下了一個伏筆,成為預留空間。因為從歷史、地理角度觀之,台灣絕對是亞太地區繁榮、安定的關鍵所在。海峽兩岸若以和平統一的方式來終結台灣的歸屬問題,則另當別論。但是,倘若台灣是被中國以武力的方式所兼併,姑且不論島內的反彈、衝突如何,對整個亞太地區,包括美國、日本、韓國與東南亞諸國而言,則代表「中國威脅論」將會直接浮上檯面。因為長久以來扮演緩衝空間角色的台灣已經不在了。

  (2) The Western forces, headed by the U.S., intentionally or unintentionally sowed the seeds for future problems with Taiwan’s jurisdiction, creating an undetermined space. Because viewed from historical and geographical angles, Taiwan is a prosperous and stable key location in the Asia-Pacific region, if the two sides of the Strait were to unify peacefully to conclude the question of whose jurisdiction Taiwan comes under, then that would be another issue. But if Taiwan was annexed by China using military force, let’s not for the moment go into the question of the reaction and clashes that would arise within Taiwan, as far the countries of the entire Asia-Pacific region, including the U.S., Japan, Korea and Southeast Asia would be concerned, this would represent the “China threat theory" coming directly to the surface, because the Taiwan which has long played the role of buffer zone would have ceased to exist.


Edited by Tina Lee/ translated by Elizabeth Hoile
李美儀編輯/何麗薩翻譯