1990.09.12〈有關德國最終解決條約〉vs. 1972.12.21〈兩德基礎條約〉

【Comment】

對於台灣地位馬英九總是避免提及和平條約的權威，

即美英法蘇四國於1990年9月12日的〈有關德國最終解決條約〉(Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany)。

其中包括

茲承認：且基於德國統一為民主與和平的國家，有關柏林與德國之四強一致解除其權利與責任；

第1條 (1) 統一的德國應包含德意志聯邦共和國、德意志民主共和國之領土以及完整的柏林。其疆界應為德意志聯邦共和國與德意志民主共和國之邊界，且應為從本條約生效日之確實現狀。

第7條
(1)  法蘭西共和國、蘇維埃社會主義共和國聯邦、大不列顛與北愛爾蘭聯合王國和美利堅合眾國在此終止對於柏林以及對於完整德國之權利與責任。相對於此，終止四方之相關協定、決策和慣例所有四強之相關組織組織亦解散。

(2)  統一的德國應因此擁有其對內與對外事務之完整主權。

因此，馬無法洗刷政治騙子的指謫。

總統府針對特定媒體引用德國之聲中文網報導之回應○總統府 (2014.09.25) http://www.president.gov.tw/Default.aspx?tabid=131&itemid=33259&rmid=514

總統：歐洲從整體來看，因為在許多歷史、政治及經濟方面的發展，提供了我們很多參考的經驗。譬如說，德國處理兩個德國的經驗對於我們處理兩岸關係，也提供了一個相當不錯的參考架構。譬如說，德國人在1972年簽的「兩德基礎關係條約」，以及這個條約背後的理念，就是「一個德意志，兩個國家」，還有「主權」跟「治權」分離，都給我們帶來許多有意義的參考價值。另外就是在60年代到70年代，北海的沿岸國家透過和平的協商，還有法律的訴訟解決了有關海域石油的爭議，使得各方可以合作開發而產生了世界名牌布蘭特原油，像這些是我們在提出東海和平倡議時一個參考的對象。1969年對德國與其他西歐國家「北海大陸礁層案」訴訟的判決是一個成功的例子，因為促成大家可以一起合作探採原油，這對我們來說是很好的經驗。

記者：回到兩岸關係。您曾以德國的例子與兩岸關係作比較。而東西德是在經過長時間討論後決定互設代表處。

總統：是的。

記者：所以，您任內可見到兩岸互設辦事處？

總統：我想可以。兩岸已建立互設辦事處的共識，但作法與兩德並不相同。當時，東德於西德設使館，但西德於東德僅為常設辦事處，以避免產生互相承認對方主權之印象。檢視1972年兩德「基礎條約」，並無使用Souveränität一詞而是以Hoheitsgewalt—統治高權—取代。我認為兩德在「基礎條約」中互相承認對方領土而不碰觸主權問題是正確的決定。雖條約中並未使用主權一詞，西德總理布蘭特 (Willy Brandt) 於條約附函東德部長會議主席，表明條約所載並不影響兩德統一。正由於這封信，「基礎條約」得於憲法法庭獲得通過。我想說的是，這需要精密的操作。而即便借鏡兩德，我們並未採取「一德兩國」模式，因其不合於我國憲法。所以我們採「一中各表」的說法。在此基礎上，兩岸得以過去六年的經驗持續發展。是極為重要的。

President: And also, we have actually learned a lot from the experience, especially in history, politics and economy from European countries.  For example, Germany has provided us with a great reference in dealing with the two Germanys, so when we deal with the cross-strait affairs, we actually learn from the experience of Germany.  For example, in 1972 the two Germanys signed the Basis of a Relation's Agreement, and also the ideas behind it have provided us with great inspiration. Also, we have learned a lot from the Ein Deutschland, zwei Staaten, as well as the separation of sovereignty of the government authority, and these have provided us with great examples. Also, from the 1960s to 70s, the countries surrounding the North Sea cooperated to use peaceful negotiations and legal actions to resolve the oil dispute in the North Sea, and all parties concerned could work together to jointly develop their resources, thereby coming up with Brent crude oil, or Brent crude.  And also when we proposed the East China Sea Peace Initiative, we actually emulated the spirit of the countries in Europe, and that is a very important source of inspiration. Also, Germany along with some other West European countries participated in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases in 1969.  It was a very successful example because you worked together to promote the exploration of oil, and that has been a very good experience for us.

Reporter:  Can I come back to the mainland issue?  This year you just mentioned the example of Germany, and that you drew on the example of the two states theory.  Germany also had this model of a representative office in each other's country, and this has been in discussion for a long time, I believe.

President: Yeah.

Reporter: So, do you think you will still see that in your presidency?

President:  I think so.  I think we are having a lot of consensus in establishing the offices in each other's places.  And that would be very different from the one that was adopted by the two Germanys back in 1972 because East Germany set up an embassy in West Germany.  But for West Germany, they set up a chancellor's representative office in East Germany to avoid the impression that they recognized each other's sovereignty.  I'm sure if you check the language on the 1972 Grundlagenvertrag, you don't see the word Souveränität, but rather the word Hoheitsgewalt.  That's a term... Hoheitsgewalt means supreme power, to replace the idea of soverignty.  The 1972 agreement went so far as to recognize the territory of East and West Germany, but they went short of recognition of sovereignty.  I think that's a good move, and even though they haven't used the word sovereignty, Chancellor Brandt wrote a letter to his East German counterpart, attached to the agreement, saying that whatever was said in the agreement would not affect the eventual unification of the two Germanys.  And that letter saved the agreement when it was submitted to the German constitutional court, and the judges eventually said it's okay.  So what I'm trying to say is that this is a very delicate maneuver, and though we consult, we use that as a reference, but we have so far not used the idea of Ein Deutschland, zwei Staaten, one Germany, two states, because that will also have a constitutional problem in my country.  So we use one China with respective interpretations because each side is allowed to express their idea of what that China is, but in that basis, no matter how fragile it is, it is very, very critical to make what happened in that last six years happen.