「未來之國」或「現在之國」？A state-to-be or A nation-present by 雲程

蔡總統以〈堅韌之國前進世界〉為題發表國慶演說，除拒絕「一國兩制」外，還暢談「中華民國台灣」70年的歷史。

President Tsai Ing-wen delivered an address entitled "Nation of Resilience, Forward into the World" in the ROC's 108th Double Tenth National Day Celebration.  Besides her refusal of "Two Systems in One State," she talked about the history of the "Republic of China (Taiwan)" for over seven decades.

聯合報為文：如此一來，1945到1949間的228事件與威權統治，不能怪罪國民黨；並且不能要求國民黨賠償或補償。這是見錢眼開，窮斯濫矣。

The United Daily commented that if it is the story, the Nationalist Party Kuomingtang(KMT) should not be blamed for the 228 Massacre and the authoritarian rule from 1945 to 1949. And above all, KMT should not take the responsibility of reparation or compensation. Well, it is merely “money-talks” thinking.

陳耀昌醫師為文，述及1867年10月10日美國駐廈門總領事李仙得（Charles Le Gendre）與下瑯嶠十八社大股頭卓杞篤簽署條約（南岬之盟），翌年2月28日補簽文字約定；加上提議「治理台灣原住民地域」，證實：清帝國並未統治「全台灣」，故也不擁有「全台灣」的主權，且美國以外交手段承認了原住民國。

Chen Yao-chang, a famous doctor of hematology, wrote in which he pointed that Charles Le Gendre, the U.S. Consul-General in Xiamen, had a verbal agreement with Tokitok, an aboriginal leader of southern Formosa on October 10th, 1867, and concluded a written treaty on February 28, 1868.  The conclusion of the treaty implied that the Qing Empire did not rule the whole of Formosa, and consequently had no sovereignty over Formosa as a whole.  The U.S. recognized the said aboriginal territory as a nation.

另一方面，國慶演說中「中華民國台灣」，引起劉進興與朱孟庠對於「中華民國是否為台灣」的不同見解。

On the other hand, the word of "Republic of China (Taiwan)" in Tsai’s address led to a controversial debate by Prof. Liu Jin-shing and Prof. Ju Meng-shiang. They are both seen as pro-Taiwan agitators.

劉文著眼於動態觀點，認為中華民國有新舊，中華民國與台灣國的錯離現象，可透過時間獲得解決。朱文則植基於名義，認為「中華民國在台灣」原在凸顯荒謬，現被操作為「中華民國台灣」，將有合理化中華民國之疑慮。朱也以黨綱「建立台灣共和國」為基礎，呼籲拋棄一中框架，向台灣國家正常化邁進。

Based on the evolutional approach, Prof. Liu indicated that there are two ROCs, old and new.  The discrepancy between the new ROC and Taiwan could be matched through time.  Based on the terminological viewpoint, Prof. Ju insisted that unlike the term “ROC on Taiwan” was invented to emphasize the absurdity; the term "Republic of China (Taiwan)" might contrarily legitimize the unreasonableness of the former.  Ju then called for giving up the framework of One China and moving toward a normal state of Taiwan.

兩文都在憧憬台灣的國格，基本差異是：劉文認為國格「正在建立中」，有「現在之國」；朱文則認為國格「尚未建立」，是「未來之國」。

Though two authors foresee Taiwan’s statehood, they have a fundamental contrast.  While Liu regarded Taiwan is a nation-present, with the statehood is establishing; Ju indicated Taiwan is a state-to-be, the statehood is yet to acquire.

有趣的是，劉文雖意在台灣是「現在之國」，卻在文末僅以「手段上應內外有別」，委婉承認台灣為「未來之國」；朱文則反之在期待「未來之國」的同時，又以「台商回國投資」、「國家前景」等語，默認台灣是「現在之國」。

Ironically, suggesting Taiwan a nation-present, Liu admitted indirectly Taiwan a state-to-be in the final part of his article by saying that we should separate the usage of Taiwan as a nation domestically and internationally.  Expecting a state-to-be, Ju Taiwan a nation-present by using the words as Taiwanese businessmen invest home state, the view of the state, etc.

兩種論述不精準的根源，在疏忽：中華民國其實是「政府」，不是國；領土台灣尚未取得「國格」。於是，根本不可能出現「政府（中華民國）主權獨立」等表述。只有「國」能享有領土的主權；非國的話，領土主權信託在外部管理當局手中。

The theories and terms by Liu and Ju are ambiguous.  That is because they confused with the concepts of government and state: ROC is a government and Taiwan is a territory, yet to become a state.  Only the state enjoys territorial sovereignty.  It is illogical to describe “the independent sovereignty of ROC, a government.”  The sovereignty of territory yet to become a state is trusted to an administering authority exterior to the territory.

新舊中華民國說，需放在戰後政治重建的脈絡，與「自治領」（Dominion）的概念，才能豁然開朗，並使「台灣當局」取得統治正當性。關鍵是：舊者在1949年10月1日已滅亡，新者要待1952年4月28日簽署〈台北和約〉而被承認後始成立，台灣並因此進入政治重建階段。兩者之間有楚河漢界—名義雖一致卻非同一個東西。

The theory of new ROCs can only be explained in the context of the post-war political reconstruction and be interpreted by the examples of Dominion.  The legitimacy of the Taiwan Governing Authorities, with the name of the new ROC, can be a logical consequence.  Under the above understandings, we realize that the old ROC was dissolved on October 1st, 1949; while the new ROC was established and recognized on the day when the Treaty of Taipei was concluded on April 28, 1952.  There was a lag of three years more lag between the new and the old ROC, which shared the same title but not the identical one.

【孿生文章】

中華民國政府 台灣國

【相關閱讀】

阿拉伯．中華台灣共和國．中華民國台灣 歐瑋群＠自由 20191016