美國國務院1971年〈台灣法律地位備忘錄〉 ■雲程譯

【縛雞之論】英文拷到 G / D 找中文翻譯
網友Silly提供以下資訊，特此感謝並予以翻譯。 According to the memorandum by DoS below, the status of Formosa and the Pescadores were not yet determined in 1971 at least, which was two decades after SFPT and Treaty of Taipei. Since 1971 no treaty in terms of legal status of Formosa and the Pescadores was been made as far as we know. The only exception would be the existence of a secret treaty between the US and ROC, which in breach of all international laws as well as the US constitution and its practices.
If not, logically, the status of Formosa and the Pescadores should be the same or unsettled.

有趣的是，聯合王國也採取相同立場，換言之，聯合王國等其他參戰國家對於福爾摩沙與澎湖的地位也有發言權。日本，至少具有相關當事人或證人地位。
備忘錄做成於1971年7月，是在2758號決議之前。
而更有趣的是，備忘錄在1952年之後20年做成的，這至少表示台灣在1971年仍舊地位未定，也就是1952年的中日和約並未移轉台灣主權給ROC。之後並無條約牽涉台灣的地位，因此邏輯上台灣地位至今繼續未定才是正解。

1971年7月13日「台灣法律地位」備忘錄　■雲程譯

美國國務院法律顧問辦公室 Robert I. Starr 律師為國務院中國事務科科長 Charles T. Sylvester 所準備

為向國會簡報之用，你們要求進一步分析有關台灣地位問題的分析備忘錄。附件是能符合此一目的的論文。這主要是在1961年2月3日「Czyzak備忘錄」，且不包含機密文件的敏感資訊。
根據盟軍最高司令簽發給日本帝國大本營的〈通令第一號〉，在福爾摩沙的日軍應向「代表美國、中華民國、聯合國、蘇聯」的蔣介石元帥投降。從那時起至今，中華民國政府已經佔領福爾摩沙與澎湖並行使管轄權。美國在1947年4月11日由代理國務卿艾奇遜致BALL參議員信函中的聲明，確立其對戰後中期的立場，即所謂將福爾摩沙的主權移轉給中國「並未正式給予」。
「我們要不是依據〈波茨坦宣言〉的條件給日本和平，就是盟國因該做什麼最後放棄而內訌，拒絕日本和平。顯然的，明智的方式是目前正在進行的，有關日本，將讓疑惑的解決留待未來本條約以外的國際解決，」
聯合王國代表團加註：「本條約同樣規定日本放棄對福爾摩沙與澎湖的主權。條約本身並未決定這些島嶼的前途。」 中華民國外交部長葉公超向立法院說明，在〈舊金山和約〉之下「並無（將這些島嶼）還給中國的規定。」他說：「基於這些領土原來就是我們的，以及現在被我們所控制，更加上日本已經在〈中日和約〉中放棄，因此，它們事實上還給我們。」
在其他事項上，外交部長葉公超說：「〈舊金山和約〉也都沒有條文要決定台灣與澎湖的前途。」
在立法院針對〈中日和約〉的質詢中，外交部長葉公超說：「福爾摩沙與澎湖的地位如何？」他說：「福爾摩沙與澎湖先前是中國的領土。當日本放棄對於福爾摩沙與澎湖的主張後，只有中國具有接管的權利。事實上，我們現在正在控制它，無可置疑的，它成為我們領土的一部份。但是，微妙的國際情勢讓它不屬於我們。在目前的情況下，日本無權將福爾摩沙與澎湖移轉給我們；日本即使想移轉，我們也不能接受…。在〈中日和約〉我們已經制訂條文表明包括福爾摩沙與澎湖合法的居民為中國國籍，此條文可能對未來任何福爾摩沙與澎湖歸還我們時的障礙稍做彌補。」
另一方面，當日本放棄對福爾摩沙與澎湖的一切權利、權利根據與主張時，對此事有補充，此權利根據並未轉讓給任何國家。在對杜勒斯國務卿完整說明此議題後，委員會決定此條約並無法解決對於福爾摩沙與澎湖的疑義。並同意本報告包括下列聲明：
參議院理解，本條約不得被解釋為影響或修改第六條（SIC）領土的法定地位或主權【譯註：應指〈中美共同防禦條約〉第六條：「為適用於第二條及第五條之目的，所有『領土』等辭，就中華民國而言，應指台灣與澎湖；就美利堅合眾國而言，應指西太平洋區域內在其管轄下之各島嶼領土。第二條及第五條之規定，並將適用於共同協議所決定之其他領土。」】換言之，就美國而言，第六條所言領土的法定地位，即福爾摩沙與澎湖，無論其法定地位如何，並未因本條約的簽署而有改變。
要加以注意的是有關外海島嶼即「金門與馬祖群」的特別地位，與此處所言的福爾摩沙與澎湖不同。外海島嶼一向被視為「中國」的一部份。1954年杜勒斯國務卿說明如下：
「其法理地位是不同的…，但根據事實技術上說福爾摩沙與澎湖的主權並未卻確定。這是因為〈舊金山和約〉僅僅牽涉日本放棄其對此島嶼的權利與權利根據。但未來的權利根據並未在〈舊金山和約〉中決定，也未在中活民國與日本簽定的和約中決定。」
因此，這些島嶼，即福爾摩沙與澎湖的法律地位，與那些外海島嶼【譯註：金門馬祖】的法律地位是不同的，後者一向是中國的領土。」「在〈舊金山和約〉與〈台北和約〉中台灣的法理地位1951年9月8日簽署的〈舊金山和約〉第二條，讓日本『放棄對福爾摩沙與澎湖的一切權利、權利根據與主張』，一字不差的文字在1952年4月28日中華民國與日本簽署的〈台北和約〉第二條中重現。任一個和約，日本並未割讓此一區域給任何特定實體。台灣與澎湖並未包含在任何國際處分中，這一區域的主權是個為確定的議題，要由國際來決定。」http://tktw.blogspot.com/2009/04/starr-memo-and-mas-uncomfortable.html

Memorandum July 13, 1971 To: EA/ROC – Mr. Charles T. Sylvester From: L/EA – Robert I. Starr

Subject: Legal Status of Taiwan
You have asked for a comprehensive memorandum analyzing the question of the legal status of Taiwan in terms suitable for Congressional presentation. Attached is a paper that should serve this purpose. It is drawn mainly from the February 3, 1961 Czyzak memorandum, and contains no sensitive information or reference to classified documents.
Pursuant to Japanese Imperial General Headquarters General Order No. 1, issued at the direction of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), Japanese commanders in Formosa surrendered to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek “acting on behalf of the United States, the Republic of China, the United Kingdom and the British Empire, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” Continuously since that time, the Government of the Republic of China has occupied and exercised authority over Formosa and the Pescadores. The view of the U.S. in the intermediate post-war period was typified by a statement on April 11, 1947 of then Acting Secretary of State Acheson, in a letter to Senator Ball, that the transfer of sovereignty over Formosa to China “has not yet been formalized.
“We had either to give Japan peace on the Potsdam Surrender Terms or deny peace to Japan while the allies quarrel about what shall be done with what Japan is prepared, and required, to give up. Clearly, the wise course was to proceed now, so far as Japan is concerned, leaving the future to resolve doubts by invoking international solvents other than this treaty.”11
The delegate of the United Kingdom remarked: “The treaty also provides for Japan to renounce its sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores Islands. The treaty itself does not determine the future of these islands.”12
Explaining this provision to the Legislative Yuan, Foreign Minister Yeh of the Republic of China stated that under the San Francisco Peace Treaty “no provision was made for the return [of these islands] to China.”
He continued: “Inasmuch as these territories were originally owned by us and as they are now under our control and, furthermore, Japan has renounced in the Sino–Japanese peace treaty these territories under the San Francisco Treaty of Peace, they are, therefore, in fact restored to us.”16
At another point, Foreign Minister Yeh stated that “no provision has been made either in the San Francisco Treaty of Peace as to the future of Taiwan and Penghu.”17
During the interpellations of the Sino–Japanese Peace Treaty in the Legislative Yuan, the Foreign Minister was asked, “What is the status of Formosa and the Pescadores?” He replied: “Formosa and the Pescadores were formerly Chinese territories. As Japan has renounced her claim to Formosa and the Pescadores, only China has the right to take them over. In fact, we are controlling them now, and undoubtedly they constitute a part of our territories. However, the delicate international situation makes it that they do not belong to us. Under present circumstances, Japan has no right to transfer Formosa and the Pescadores to us; nor can we accept such a transfer from Japan even if she so wishes…In the Sino–Japanese peace treaty, we have made provisions to signify that residents including juristic persons of Formosa and the Pescadores bear Chinese nationality, and this provision may serve to mend any future gaps when Formosa and the Pescadores are restored to us.”18
On the other hand, reference was made to the fact that while Japan renounced all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores, such title was not conveyed to any nation. After full exploration of this matter with Secretary Dulles, the committee decided that this treaty was not a competent instrument to resolve doubts about sovereignty over Formosa. It agreed to include in its report the following statement: It is the understanding of the Senate that nothing in the present treaty shall be construed as affecting or modifying the legal status or the sovereignty of the territories referred to in article VI. (SIC) “In other words, so far as the United States in concerned, it is our understanding that the legal status of the territories referred to in article VI, namely, Formosa and the Pescadores—whatever their status may be—is not altered in any way by the conclusion of this treaty.”21
It may be well to note the special status of the offshore islands, the Quemoy and Matsu groups, in contrast to that of Formosa and the Pescadores as described here. The offshore islands have always been considered as part of “China.” As Secretary Dulles explained in 1954:
“The legal position is different…, by virtue of the fact that 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 Republic of China and Japan.
Therefore the juridical status of these islands, Formosa and the Pescadores, is different from the juridical status of the offshore islands which have always been Chinese territory.” “Legal Status of Taiwan as Defined in Japanese Peace Treaty and Sino–Japanese Peace Treaty “Article 2 of the Japanese Peace treaty, signed on September 8, 1951 at San Francisco, provides that ‘Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.’ The same language was used in Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace between China and Japan signed on April 28, 1952. In neither treaty did Japan cede this area to any particular entity. As Taiwan and Pescadores are not covered by any existing international disposition, sovereignty over the area is an unsettled question subject to future international resolution.

11 Record of the Proceedings of the Conference for the Conclusion and Signature of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, at p. 78, Dept. State Publication 4392 (1951). 12 Id., at p. 93. 16 Despatch No. 31 from the American Embassy in Taipei to the Department of State, July 23, 1952, Enclosure 2, at p. 1. 17 Id., at p. 2. 18 Id., Enclosure 3 at p. 4. 21 101 Cong. Rec. 1381 (1955). http://tktw.blogspot.com/2009/04/starr-memo-and-mas-uncomfortable.html