東亞冷戰下的對日和約與臺灣地位問題

Peace Treaty with Japan and Legal Status of Taiwan under the Situation of Cold War in East Asia

本文透過東亞冷戰與地緣政治背景，探討對日和約推進過程以及臺灣地位問題如何被考量與處理。筆者闡述1949年中華人民共和國成立、東亞冷戰態勢嚴峻，美國政府決定復興日本以防止共產主義擴散，因此必須加速推動和約、結束對日佔領狀態。同時，美國政府不願臺灣落入敵對陣營之手，又因韓戰爆發後第七艦隊介入臺海須要取得法理依據，因此決定在對日和約中凍結臺灣主權歸屬。
國民黨政府方面，因在內戰中失敗，對日和約推進過程只能配合美方主張，甚至主動提議日本只須在和約中聲明放棄臺澎、不必明定主權歸屬，希望以拖待變。美中雙方在各自利益盤算下，逐漸形成在和約中凍結臺灣地位的共識。
但是英國在遠東的利益不同於美國，英國主張落實開羅宣言、將臺灣歸還中華人民共和國。美英兩國在中國代表權與臺灣問題上立場嚴重衝突，經過不斷協商，終於在1951年6月達成「杜勒斯—莫里森協議（Dulles-Morrison agreement）」，重點之一就是和約不決定臺灣未來。簡言之，在臺灣地位問題上，對日和約其實就是「凍結臺灣地位之和約」、「廢棄開羅宣言之和約」。
在美國政府壓力下，日本選擇與中華民國締結雙邊和約，並且在「中日和約內容須與舊金山和約相同」、「條約僅只適用於國民黨政府控制範圍」的兩大原則下進行。雖然國民黨政府曾經企圖在草約中規定臺灣主權為其所擁有，但立即遭美國發現並制止。中日和約第10條規定中華民國國民包括臺澎居民，但中日雙方都強調與主權歸屬無關。

This article traces the peace settlement with Japan and how Taiwan’s status was considered and dealt with in the context of the East Asian Cold War and geopolitics. Following the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the Cold War in East Asia escalated, and the US government decided to revive Japan to curb the spread of Communism. For this reason, accelerating negotiations on the peace settlement to end the occupation of Japan was necessary. At the same time, the US did not want Taiwan to fall into the hands of hostile camps, and the Seventh Fleet needed to have a legal ground for its intervention in the Taiwan Strait after the outbreak of the Korean War, it was thus decided in the San Francisco Peace Treaty that Taiwan’s sovereignty ownership would remain‘frozen’or undetermined.
Owing to its defeat in the civil war, the Kuomintang government could only side with the propositions of the US, and even proposed that Japan needed only to renounce Taiwan and Penghu without specifying the ownership of sovereignty in the peace treaty. Despite harboring varied interests, both China and the US gradually came to a consensus to freeze Taiwan’s legal status in the peace treaty.
However, with interests different from those of the US, the UK advocated the return of Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China in accordance with the Cairo Declaration. These two powers had serious conflicts over China’s representation and the Taiwan issue. After continuous negotiations, they finally reached the“Dulles-Morrison Agreement”in June 1951. One of the key points in the Agreement was Taiwan’s future remaining undetermined in the peace treaty. In short, the San Francisco Peace Treaty‘froze’Taiwan’s legal status and abrogated the Cairo Declaration.
Pressured by the US, Japan chose to conclude a bilateral peace treaty with the Republic of China under two principles. One was that the contents of the peace treaty must be the same as those of the San Francisco Peace Treaty; and the other was that the treaty was applicable only to the area under the control of the Kuomintang government. Although the Kuomintang government had attempted to stipulate their ownership of Taiwan’s sovereignty in the draft treaty, it was immediately discovered and opposed by the US. Article 10 of the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty stipulated that nationals of the Republic of China include residents of Taiwan and Penghu, but both China and Japan emphasized that this has nothing to do with the ownership of sovereignty.