網頁

2015-07-14

20150714:佔領見流亡,如何安身命

文章引述:「杜勒斯說,關於台灣,中華民國的身分事實上是一個處於異地的流亡政府,就像美軍佔領琉球一樣,是一個佔領當局。同理,中華民國也無權透過中日和約來改變台灣主權。」

美國講過很多次類似言論,但這樣明顯(實句引述),不知出處何在?

無論如何,作者的文章出現「流亡」與「佔領」,這是正視了歷史事實的必然結果。

下一步,就是理解與拆解:「佔領」「與流亡」,如何在台灣疊影演出而不矛盾?

這要先拋開固定成見:毋意、毋必、毋固、毋我,才能有所發現。


2 則留言:

  1. 網路上抄來的7/14/2015 11:49:00 上午

    "It speaks of territories of the parties but it uses that term not as indicating necessarily sovereignty any more than the United States has the sovereignty, for example, over the Ryukyus, which are also a subject of this treaty......the United States has not the power alone by this treaty to convey title, because title is not in the United States. Nor does it purport to do so. Therefore in my opinion the status of the Republic of China in relation to Formosa is for all practical purpose unchanged and unaltered by this treaty......Chiang theoretically I suppose has a government in exile still sitting in an alien land of Formosa......The words used here are carefully chosen words when we speak about the “territories of” which indicate that we do not intend necessarily to imply sovereignty. Of course we do not have sovereignty over the Ryukyus, which are also covered......We are dealing at the moment with an occupying power, an occupant, just as we are an occupant in the Ryukyus......"

    Executive Sessions Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Historical Series). Vol. VII, Eighty-Four Congress, First Session, 1955. Washington D.C.: United States Government Publishing Office. 1978: pp. 316, 318, 325, 330

    回覆刪除

請網友務必留下一致且可辨識的稱謂
顧及閱讀舒適性,段與段間請空一行