这不是企图分裂中国吗always ''2 china'' in the world
Topic: “一个中国”就是中华民国——抗议美国政府对“双橡园”升国旗的外交态度 (Read 1062 times)
这不是企图分裂中国吗 
“一个中国”就是中华民国——抗议美国政府对“双橡园”升国旗的外交态度
(博讯北京时间2015年1月11日 首发 - 支持此文作者/记者)
近日，中华民国驻美代表处在华盛顿“双橡园”举行升旗仪式引发中共当局不满而对美国提出抗议，美国国务院也对台北说出重话，表示“双橡园”升旗的做法违反美国的一个中国政策与美台非正式关係的长期谅解。
对此，我们作为大陆人对美国政府提出民间抗议！
我们认为，“一个中国”就是中华民国。美国政府对中华民国国旗的打压，忽视了中华民国政府的合法性，也违反了国际法和美国法。
众所周知，国际公认的中国疆土目前分裂为两个政区：自由地区与专制地区，存在着两个政府：民主政府与专制政府。其中的中华民国政府，曾经治理中国疆土的绝大部分，领导中国赢得了第二次世界大战的胜利，并颁行了符合民主国家标准、保障人民权利的民主宪法，随后举行了全民普选，获得了现代民主国家不可或缺的民意合法性。中共叛乱得势，使中华民国政府的治理范围缩减至台湾和少数外岛，也导致了持续多年的戒严，但即便是在戒严期间，中华民国政府管辖地区的人民也享有远远多于中共统治区的自由。解除戒严之后，中华民国政府再度全面施行了民主宪法，在其有效管辖地区获得人民民意授权并实现了政党轮替，巩固了民主制度。反之，中共发动叛乱、窃据中国大陆之后，厉行极权专制六十馀年，肆无忌惮侵犯人权，从未施行民主宪政，至今仍视宪政为洪水勐兽。所以，我们认为，中华民国政府是中国全部疆土上唯一的合法政府，中共只是依靠暴力对中国大陆行使有效统治的一个外来强盗集团而已。
美国政府出于国际政治和本国利益的考量而对中共当局予以外交承认，并在其要挟下断绝了与中华民国政府的外交关係，我们无奈地接受这一事实，同时也提醒美国政府，贵国国会发表过的报告称，美国关于台湾的“一个中国”政策仍保有一点模煳空间，华盛顿、台北和北京对其内涵也有不同解释。也就是说，美国不承认中共当局对台湾的主张，也不承认“台湾是主权国家”，但美国并没有把台湾等同于中华民国，也没有明白揭示一个中国就是“中华人民共和国”，而是对“一个中国就是中华民国”採取模煳化处理。
1949年中共建政以后，第一个承认“中华人民共和国”的苏联政府的电文中，明确表示承认的是一个新政府，而不是一个新国家。以后，绝大多数国家和政府对“中华人民共和国”的承认，一般在宣佈承认的外交电文中，有的说“法律的承认”，有的则说“承认中华人民共和国为合法政府”。所谓“法律的承认”就是承认为该国家主体的法律上的政府之简称，并没有国际法意义上中华人民共和国取代中华民国的法律意义，除了中共对内的意识形态欺骗之外。中共当局也试图把“中华人民共和国”打扮为既存的中华民国的延续，而不是国际法上的另一个新国家。中共当局用“中华人民共和国”对中华民国鸠占雀巢，用“中国”二字模煳二者，然后侵蚀夺舍。
所谓“一个中国是中华人民共和国”最大支撑点，就是联合国大会2758号决议。可是从联合国大会决议的法律效力来看，国际法学者都知道，联合国大会2758号决议是内部决议，不是国际法的渊源，不具有法律约束力。联合国大会通过的这类决议没有约束力，意味着所有国家都不是必须按照决议去做，与投赞成票、反对票或弃权票无关。国家主权无需联合国大会来决定。国家和主权在联合国之外，不在联合国之内。蒋介石决定中华民国退出联合国，也无关中华民国的存在和主权的完整。联合国2758号决议文并没有产生国家继承，甚至没有产生政府继承的国际法效果，因为这不是联合国大会决议这种内部决议能解决的。
美国和中共当局的建交公报仅仅是美国的外交政策，并不是双边协定，而且只经过白宫签字，没经过国会审议通过。中国大陆一批民间人士正在准备聘请律师，到美国国会要求否定中美建交公报，或者提起宪法审查，到联邦法院控告美国白宫。
我们认为，西方国家把对华外交政策押宝在中共“改革”之上，但“改革”就是一个骗局，把国民财富掠夺到五百家手上然后转移到国外，留一个焦土和动盪的局面给大陆人民。我们敦促西方国家预设后手，扩大中华民国的国际空间，并准备迎接中国大陆人民在大陆对中华民国的光复和中华民国的民主统一。
领衔发起：光复民国（大陆）工作委员会
已签名者：辛灏年、陈永苗、谢丹
民国104年（2015年）1月8日
签名链接：
http://goo.gl/forms/GispCHG7fH
The “One China” is the Republic of China-Letter of Protest to the US Government on its Diplomatic Stance over the Raising of ROC Flag at the Twin Oaks Estate
January 8, 2015
Recently, the communist regime in China protested to the United States over the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office’s raising of the Republic of China’s national flag at the Twin Oaks Estate in Washington, DC, and the US State Department subsequently expressed strong reactions to Taipei, condemning the flag raising incident for violation of the One-China Policy of the US and the long-standing understanding on the unofficial relationship between Taiwan and the US.
We, a group of mainland Chinese with no government ties, hereby protest the US government’s handling of the flag-raising incident!
We believe the “One China” is the Republic of China. The US government’s suppression of the ROC national flag reflected its disregard of the legitimacy of the ROC government and violated international laws and US laws.
It is well known that the internationally recognized territories of China are separated into two political regions—the free one with a democratic government – the Republic of China and an authoritarian one with a communist regime – the People's Republic of China. Among them, the ROC government, prior to 1949, had governed the vast majority of the Chinese territories, led China to glorious victory in the Second World War, adopted a democratic constitution that satisfied the common standards of democracy and protected the human rights, and subsequently carried out democratic elections, obtaining popular legitimacy that is indispensable for a modern democracy. Unfortunately, the rebellion of the Chinese Communist Party have reduced the territories governed by Republic of China’s government to Taiwan and a few other islands, and resulted in many years of martial law in the ROC territories. However, even under the martial law, the people in territories governed by the ROC government still enjoyed much more freedom than those ruled by the communist regime of the PRC. After martial law was lifted, the democratic constitution was once again fully implemented, and the ROC government obtained mandate from the people of its effectively governed territories, achieved peaceful alternations of the governing party, and strengthened the democratic institutions. On the contrary, ever since CCP took control of the mainland of China through rebellion, the regime has been a totalitarian one for over 60 years, which has been ruthlessly violating the human rights, never been democratic, and still denounces constitutionalism. Therefore, we consider the ROC government as the only legitimate government for all the territories of China, whereas the communist regime of PRC is just a band of soviet-originated bandits that rules the mainland of China with brute force.
The US government has diplomatically recognized the communist regime in mainland China on grounds of international politics and US interests, and severed its diplomatic ties with the ROC government as coerced by the communist regime. We have no choice but to accept this fact. At the same time, we must remind the US government that according to the US Congress, the “One-China Policy” concerning Taiwan shall maintain some ambiguity, and Washington, Taipei, and Beijing all have different interpretations of this policy. In other words, the United States recognizes neither the Chinese communist regime’s claims over Taiwan nor Taiwan as a sovereign country. However, the United States has never treated Taiwan as the same as the Republic of China, never explicitly stated “the One China is the People’s Republic of China”, and been rather vague on whether “the One China is the Republic of China.”
After the Chinese communist regime was established in 1949, in the telegram of the first country recognizing the “People’s Republic of China,” the Soviet Union, it was explicitly stated what was being recognized was a new government and not a new country. Since then, most countries and governments recognized the “People’s Republic of China.” In their diplomatic telegraphs declaring the recognitions, some used the language of “legal recognition”, some declared “recognition of the People’s Republic of China as the legitimate government”. The so-called “legal recognition” simply means a recognition of a government as the country’s legal government and does not mean that the Republic of China shall be replaced by the “People’s Republic of China” in the sense of international law, except for the communist regime’s internal propaganda. The communist regime has attempted to portrait the “People’s Republic of China” as the successor of the still-existing Republic of China instead of a new state under international law. This is just the lowly regime’s shameless attempt to take over the highly respected international status of the Republic of China, using the term “China” to blur the difference between the two.
One of the strongest pivots of the claim that “the One China is the People’s Republic of China” is the Resolution 2758 of the United Nations General Assembly. However, as well known to scholars of international law, resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly are internal resolutions and not origins of international law, and hence are not legally binding. This means countries are not compelled to follow the resolutions, regardless of how they voted in the UN General Assembly. Sovereignty of a nation never has to be determined by the UN General Assembly. States and Sovereignties are not under UN's jurisdiction. Mr. Chiang Kai-Shek’s decision to withdraw the Republic of China from the UN has no effect whatsoever on the existence of the Republic of China and the integrity of its sovereignty. UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 didn’t produce a succession of states and not even had the effect of government succession in the sense of international law, because this is not what an internal resolution of the UN General Assembly can resolve.
The Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China was just a diplomatic policy of the US and not a bilateral treaty, and was only signed by the White House without ratification by the US Congress. A group of people in mainland China are planning on retaining legal counsel in the US to petition the US Congress for overturning the Joint Communiqué, to call for a constitutional review, or to litigate in an US federal court against the White House.
We believe western countries have staked their diplomatic policy toward China on the communist regime’s “reform.” However, the “reform” is a scam, through which the regime has transferred China’s national wealth into the hands of a few hundred families of privileges and then out of China, leaving ruins to the Chinese people. We urge western countries to set up an alternative in advance by helping to expand the Republic of China’s space in the international arena, and to get ready for the Chinese people’s glorious restoration the Republic of China in the mainland and democratic unification of the Republic of China over all Chinese lands.
Issued by: Working Council for Restoring ROC in Mainland
On behalf of many supporters in mainland China and throughout the world
[博讯首发,转载请注明出处]- 支持此文作者/记者 (Modified on 2015/1/11) (Modified on 2015/1/11) (博讯 boxun.com)
1360558
(博讯北京时间2015年1月11日 首发 - 支持此文作者/记者)
近日，中华民国驻美代表处在华盛顿“双橡园”举行升旗仪式引发中共当局不满而对美国提出抗议，美国国务院也对台北说出重话，表示“双橡园”升旗的做法违反美国的一个中国政策与美台非正式关係的长期谅解。
对此，我们作为大陆人对美国政府提出民间抗议！
我们认为，“一个中国”就是中华民国。美国政府对中华民国国旗的打压，忽视了中华民国政府的合法性，也违反了国际法和美国法。
众所周知，国际公认的中国疆土目前分裂为两个政区：自由地区与专制地区，存在着两个政府：民主政府与专制政府。其中的中华民国政府，曾经治理中国疆土的绝大部分，领导中国赢得了第二次世界大战的胜利，并颁行了符合民主国家标准、保障人民权利的民主宪法，随后举行了全民普选，获得了现代民主国家不可或缺的民意合法性。中共叛乱得势，使中华民国政府的治理范围缩减至台湾和少数外岛，也导致了持续多年的戒严，但即便是在戒严期间，中华民国政府管辖地区的人民也享有远远多于中共统治区的自由。解除戒严之后，中华民国政府再度全面施行了民主宪法，在其有效管辖地区获得人民民意授权并实现了政党轮替，巩固了民主制度。反之，中共发动叛乱、窃据中国大陆之后，厉行极权专制六十馀年，肆无忌惮侵犯人权，从未施行民主宪政，至今仍视宪政为洪水勐兽。所以，我们认为，中华民国政府是中国全部疆土上唯一的合法政府，中共只是依靠暴力对中国大陆行使有效统治的一个外来强盗集团而已。
美国政府出于国际政治和本国利益的考量而对中共当局予以外交承认，并在其要挟下断绝了与中华民国政府的外交关係，我们无奈地接受这一事实，同时也提醒美国政府，贵国国会发表过的报告称，美国关于台湾的“一个中国”政策仍保有一点模煳空间，华盛顿、台北和北京对其内涵也有不同解释。也就是说，美国不承认中共当局对台湾的主张，也不承认“台湾是主权国家”，但美国并没有把台湾等同于中华民国，也没有明白揭示一个中国就是“中华人民共和国”，而是对“一个中国就是中华民国”採取模煳化处理。
1949年中共建政以后，第一个承认“中华人民共和国”的苏联政府的电文中，明确表示承认的是一个新政府，而不是一个新国家。以后，绝大多数国家和政府对“中华人民共和国”的承认，一般在宣佈承认的外交电文中，有的说“法律的承认”，有的则说“承认中华人民共和国为合法政府”。所谓“法律的承认”就是承认为该国家主体的法律上的政府之简称，并没有国际法意义上中华人民共和国取代中华民国的法律意义，除了中共对内的意识形态欺骗之外。中共当局也试图把“中华人民共和国”打扮为既存的中华民国的延续，而不是国际法上的另一个新国家。中共当局用“中华人民共和国”对中华民国鸠占雀巢，用“中国”二字模煳二者，然后侵蚀夺舍。
所谓“一个中国是中华人民共和国”最大支撑点，就是联合国大会2758号决议。可是从联合国大会决议的法律效力来看，国际法学者都知道，联合国大会2758号决议是内部决议，不是国际法的渊源，不具有法律约束力。联合国大会通过的这类决议没有约束力，意味着所有国家都不是必须按照决议去做，与投赞成票、反对票或弃权票无关。国家主权无需联合国大会来决定。国家和主权在联合国之外，不在联合国之内。蒋介石决定中华民国退出联合国，也无关中华民国的存在和主权的完整。联合国2758号决议文并没有产生国家继承，甚至没有产生政府继承的国际法效果，因为这不是联合国大会决议这种内部决议能解决的。
美国和中共当局的建交公报仅仅是美国的外交政策，并不是双边协定，而且只经过白宫签字，没经过国会审议通过。中国大陆一批民间人士正在准备聘请律师，到美国国会要求否定中美建交公报，或者提起宪法审查，到联邦法院控告美国白宫。
我们认为，西方国家把对华外交政策押宝在中共“改革”之上，但“改革”就是一个骗局，把国民财富掠夺到五百家手上然后转移到国外，留一个焦土和动盪的局面给大陆人民。我们敦促西方国家预设后手，扩大中华民国的国际空间，并准备迎接中国大陆人民在大陆对中华民国的光复和中华民国的民主统一。
领衔发起：光复民国（大陆）工作委员会
已签名者：辛灏年、陈永苗、谢丹
民国104年（2015年）1月8日
签名链接：
http://goo.gl/forms/GispCHG7fH
The “One China” is the Republic of China-Letter of Protest to the US Government on its Diplomatic Stance over the Raising of ROC Flag at the Twin Oaks Estate
January 8, 2015
Recently, the communist regime in China protested to the United States over the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office’s raising of the Republic of China’s national flag at the Twin Oaks Estate in Washington, DC, and the US State Department subsequently expressed strong reactions to Taipei, condemning the flag raising incident for violation of the One-China Policy of the US and the long-standing understanding on the unofficial relationship between Taiwan and the US.
We, a group of mainland Chinese with no government ties, hereby protest the US government’s handling of the flag-raising incident!
We believe the “One China” is the Republic of China. The US government’s suppression of the ROC national flag reflected its disregard of the legitimacy of the ROC government and violated international laws and US laws.
It is well known that the internationally recognized territories of China are separated into two political regions—the free one with a democratic government – the Republic of China and an authoritarian one with a communist regime – the People's Republic of China. Among them, the ROC government, prior to 1949, had governed the vast majority of the Chinese territories, led China to glorious victory in the Second World War, adopted a democratic constitution that satisfied the common standards of democracy and protected the human rights, and subsequently carried out democratic elections, obtaining popular legitimacy that is indispensable for a modern democracy. Unfortunately, the rebellion of the Chinese Communist Party have reduced the territories governed by Republic of China’s government to Taiwan and a few other islands, and resulted in many years of martial law in the ROC territories. However, even under the martial law, the people in territories governed by the ROC government still enjoyed much more freedom than those ruled by the communist regime of the PRC. After martial law was lifted, the democratic constitution was once again fully implemented, and the ROC government obtained mandate from the people of its effectively governed territories, achieved peaceful alternations of the governing party, and strengthened the democratic institutions. On the contrary, ever since CCP took control of the mainland of China through rebellion, the regime has been a totalitarian one for over 60 years, which has been ruthlessly violating the human rights, never been democratic, and still denounces constitutionalism. Therefore, we consider the ROC government as the only legitimate government for all the territories of China, whereas the communist regime of PRC is just a band of soviet-originated bandits that rules the mainland of China with brute force.
The US government has diplomatically recognized the communist regime in mainland China on grounds of international politics and US interests, and severed its diplomatic ties with the ROC government as coerced by the communist regime. We have no choice but to accept this fact. At the same time, we must remind the US government that according to the US Congress, the “One-China Policy” concerning Taiwan shall maintain some ambiguity, and Washington, Taipei, and Beijing all have different interpretations of this policy. In other words, the United States recognizes neither the Chinese communist regime’s claims over Taiwan nor Taiwan as a sovereign country. However, the United States has never treated Taiwan as the same as the Republic of China, never explicitly stated “the One China is the People’s Republic of China”, and been rather vague on whether “the One China is the Republic of China.”
After the Chinese communist regime was established in 1949, in the telegram of the first country recognizing the “People’s Republic of China,” the Soviet Union, it was explicitly stated what was being recognized was a new government and not a new country. Since then, most countries and governments recognized the “People’s Republic of China.” In their diplomatic telegraphs declaring the recognitions, some used the language of “legal recognition”, some declared “recognition of the People’s Republic of China as the legitimate government”. The so-called “legal recognition” simply means a recognition of a government as the country’s legal government and does not mean that the Republic of China shall be replaced by the “People’s Republic of China” in the sense of international law, except for the communist regime’s internal propaganda. The communist regime has attempted to portrait the “People’s Republic of China” as the successor of the still-existing Republic of China instead of a new state under international law. This is just the lowly regime’s shameless attempt to take over the highly respected international status of the Republic of China, using the term “China” to blur the difference between the two.
One of the strongest pivots of the claim that “the One China is the People’s Republic of China” is the Resolution 2758 of the United Nations General Assembly. However, as well known to scholars of international law, resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly are internal resolutions and not origins of international law, and hence are not legally binding. This means countries are not compelled to follow the resolutions, regardless of how they voted in the UN General Assembly. Sovereignty of a nation never has to be determined by the UN General Assembly. States and Sovereignties are not under UN's jurisdiction. Mr. Chiang Kai-Shek’s decision to withdraw the Republic of China from the UN has no effect whatsoever on the existence of the Republic of China and the integrity of its sovereignty. UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 didn’t produce a succession of states and not even had the effect of government succession in the sense of international law, because this is not what an internal resolution of the UN General Assembly can resolve.
The Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China was just a diplomatic policy of the US and not a bilateral treaty, and was only signed by the White House without ratification by the US Congress. A group of people in mainland China are planning on retaining legal counsel in the US to petition the US Congress for overturning the Joint Communiqué, to call for a constitutional review, or to litigate in an US federal court against the White House.
We believe western countries have staked their diplomatic policy toward China on the communist regime’s “reform.” However, the “reform” is a scam, through which the regime has transferred China’s national wealth into the hands of a few hundred families of privileges and then out of China, leaving ruins to the Chinese people. We urge western countries to set up an alternative in advance by helping to expand the Republic of China’s space in the international arena, and to get ready for the Chinese people’s glorious restoration the Republic of China in the mainland and democratic unification of the Republic of China over all Chinese lands.
Issued by: Working Council for Restoring ROC in Mainland
On behalf of many supporters in mainland China and throughout the world
[博讯首发,转载请注明出处]- 支持此文作者/记者 (Modified on 2015/1/11) (Modified on 2015/1/11) (博讯 boxun.com)
1360558
Jump to: