長久以來，台灣人一直沒有管領過自己的鄉土，沒有主宰過自己的命運。

如今，黑暗將去，黎明在望，我們必須接受新時代的挑戰，建立以台灣主體性為基礎的新體制，證明我們有管領鄉土，主宰命運的能力。

讓我們一起為建立這樣的新台灣而努力，讓我們凝聚智慧，奉獻熱忱，為台灣人的子子孫孫點燃新希望。

台灣人走過荊棘，歷經熬練，已有足夠的能力做自己命運的主人。

只要我們發掘和培養更多的人才，不分族群，攜手合作，相信我們必定能為台灣創造更美好的明天。我們要抱著信心，迎接新時代，我們要做長期不懈的努力，讓台灣充滿新希望。

二十世紀眼看結束，台灣還沒有完成民主化，還沒有建立自主性的新體制以前，就要迎接新時代的挑戰。

台灣當然有不少優異的自然和人文條件，可是，有史以來，台灣人並沒有做過自己的主人，因此，也沒有機會主宰自己的命運，並安排一個可以讓自己的後代長治久安的環境。

我雖然在日本接受高等教育，留學加拿大和法國，在瑞典和美國流亡了二十三年，但從孩提到今天，我的心沒有一刻離開過台灣。

歷經多年的折磨與思索，我痛切領悟台灣人的優點和弱點，徹底明白我們只有結合更多同志的物力、智慧、熱忱、努力，才能讓台灣人更有尊嚴的生活在二十一世紀。

我誠懇地盼望每一位願意為台灣長遠的未來深思的朋友，跟彭明敏文教基金會一起，共同為新時代的新台灣創造新希望。

台灣自從脫離日本的殖民地統治以來，逐漸形成一個獨立的命運共同體。在這將近五十年的歷史上，彭明敏教授無疑是一位寂寞的先知。

他在1964年毅然發表「台灣自救宣言」，主張「一中一台」，「確認反攻大陸為絕不可能，團結一干二百萬人的力量，不分省籍，竭誠合作，建設新的國家」，因而被捕、坐牢、軟禁、偷渡、通緝、流亡，被追與心愛的台灣長期隔離。

然而，蔣介石父子去世，戒嚴解除，動員戡亂時期結束，歷史終究一步步向他早熟的主張逼近，他於是結束了二十三年的海外而亡生活，返回台灣。

彭明敏教授在還鄉後遍訪各地，鼓吹「確立台灣的主體性」，強調「台灣要為台灣而活，不要成為其他目的的工具」，呼籲建立台灣命運共同體。他深入考察政治、經濟、社會、文化變遷的面貌，迅速準確地掌握在台灣所要面對的新課題。他清楚地看到:儘管台灣的民主化已經有了雛型，但面對即將來臨的新時代，我們一方面必須克服舊時代留下來的積弊與陋習，另一方面還要適應前所未有的變局，迎接新時代的挑戰。如果我們不肯努力尋求嶄新的世界觀與宏遠的歷史視野，從事政治、經濟、社會、文化的重整，並設計以台灣主體性為基礎的新秩序結構，台灣不但無法積極參與後冷戰時代國際新秩序的形成，更無法為二十一世紀人類的終極和平與地球的共存共榮貢獻心力，連生存發展的機會都恐怕會被剝奪。

彭明敏教授的朋友學生，深切體會他的胸懷與畢生志業所在，希望獻出更多有形的財力與無形的熱情來支持他，使他的志業一步步地落實，在台灣這塊大地開花結果。因此，我們成立「彭明敏文教基金會」，準備結合國內外的學者、專家、政治社會文化工作者，乃至青年學生和一般民眾，共同思考台灣的未來，深入探討台灣所面臨的新課題，與台灣人共同迎接二十一世紀，替台灣點燃新希望。

一、宗旨

本會旨在研究教育、文化、社會、政經之新秩序結構，發展具有世界視野之新文明。

二、主要業務項目

(一)、舉辦座談會、公聽會、演講書及研討會 :對台灣所面臨之歷史新課題以及當前社會諸問題，進行各種 研究與討論，並舉辦溝通意見、凝聚共識的各種會議。

(二)、培育人才： 培育具有國際視野、有創造性之新時代青年，以養成台灣 社會各層面所需之人才。

(三)、促進國際文化及學術交流： 設立「台灣國際論壇」邀請世界各國人士來台，就台灣在 世界範圍之相關問題合作研究、發表演說、進行研討，以期 建立國際性論壇，以促進國際文化及學術交流，擴大國人之 國際視野，並促進世界各國對台灣之了解。

(四)、發行有聲及無聲出版品： 以定期或不定期之刊物及錄音帶、錄影帶以報導、傳播與 上述有關之各種活動及理念。

(五）、受託從事與本會宗旨有關之研究或公益活動。

相關連結：

彭明敏一九二三年八月十五日出生於台灣大甲鎮，就學於日治時期台北建成小學、大甲小學、東京北埔小學、高雄掘江小學、高雄中學、日本關西學院中學部，日本第三高等學校及東京帝國大學法學部。

第二次世界大戰後回台，畢業於國立台灣大學法學院，後出國留學，獲得加拿大麥基爾大學法學碩士、法國巴黎大學法學博士。一九五四年回台任教國立台灣大學法學院講授國際公法、航空法及太空法，兼任政治系主任，同時在國立政治大學外交系講授條約論，亦在東海大學、銘傳商專、軍法學校等授課。

一九六一年以台籍首任中華民國聯合國代表團顧問，並被選為第一屆「十大傑出青年」。一九六四年因與學生謝聰敏、魏廷朝擬發表「台灣自救宣言」被捕，依軍法判八年徒刑，入獄十三個月後被特赦，改處終身監禁。

一九七○年逃出台灣，受瑞典政治庇護。旋到美國密西根大學、賴特大學任教，其後則全心在海外投入台灣民主運動，遊說美國國會催生「台灣關係法」，努力使台灣移民美國名額增加為二萬名。在美國國會作證二次，要求解除戒嚴，台灣徹底民主化，經常巡迴全球各地演講為台灣而啟蒙和呼籲，曾任台灣獨立聯盟主席及台灣人公共事務會（FAPA）會長。

國民黨政府撤銷對其通緝後，結束其二十三年海外亡命，一九九二年十一月返台，備受熱烈盛大歡迎。一九九四年成立彭明敏文教基金會，一九九六年代表民進黨參選首屆總統民選。選後成立建國會，二○○○年陳水扁當選總統後，受聘總統府資政。

1923 　出生於台中大甲鎮

1936 　高雄中學《 1939 肄業》

1939 　日本關西學院中學部《 1940 畢業》

1940 　日本 ( 京都 ) 第三高等學校《 1942 畢業》

1942 　東京帝國大學法學部政治科《 1945 因戰亂肄業》

1946 　台灣大學政治系《 1948 畢業》

1953 　加拿大麥基爾 (McGill) 大學法學碩士

1954 　法國巴黎大學法學博士、台灣大學政治系副教授

1956 　美國哈佛大學國際事務研究中心研究

1957 　台灣大學政治系教授 ( 時年三十四為戰後最年輕的正教授 )

1960 　哈佛大學國際問題研究會研究 ( 於東京舉行 )、中美文化合作會議代表 ( 於美國西雅圖大學舉行 )

1961 　國家科學發展委員會國家講座《 1961-1962 》

「陽明山會議」代表《 1961-1962 》、第一屆十大傑出青年 ( 國際青商會主辦 )

台灣大學政治系主任、公法研究所主任《 1961-1962 》、聯合國大會中國代表團顧問

1964 　與謝聰敏、魏廷朝發表「台灣自救宣言」被捕

‧被判刑八年，同年十一月特赦出獄，遭軟禁在家，由情治單位二十四小時監控

1970 　秘密出境至瑞典，獲政治庇護、瑞典斯德哥爾摩人類博物館　亞洲部門資深研究員

美國密西根大學中國研究中心資深學術研究員 兼法學院訪問教授《 1970-1972 》

1972 　「台獨聯盟」總本部主席

1973 　美國俄亥俄州賴特 (Wright) 州立大學客座教授《 1973-1974 》

‧參與芝加哥、洛杉磯、休斯頓、紐約等地舉行的「台灣人民眾大會」，擔任主講人

‧率團遊說美國國會並在眾議院公聽會作證，為「台灣關係法」的國會立法催生

1981 　與海外同鄉籌組台灣人公共事務會 (FAPA)

1983 　在美國眾議院公聽會作證，要求台灣民主化，解除戒嚴令

1986 　台灣人公共事務會 (FAPA) 會長《 1986-1988 》

1989 　亞太民主協會理事長

1992 　11月1日返回闊別近二十三年的故鄉 ---- 台灣

1994 　成立彭明敏文教基金會並擔任董事長

1996 　3月代表民進黨參選首屆民選總統

4月成立建國會，任會長

2000 　5月總統府資政

擔任亞太自由民主聯盟〈亞盟〉秘書長

2001 　應捷克總統哈維爾之邀參加第五屆「公元兩千年論壇」

2002 　率團參加美國布希總統主持的「祈禱早餐會」

PUBLICATIONS:

• Books：
  • In French：
    • Le Statut Juridique de l’Aeronef Militaire, Martinus Nijhoff, La Haye, 1957
  • In English：
    • A Taste of Freedom, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1972
  • In Chinese：
    • Public International Law, Taipei, 1962
    • Principles of International Law, Taipei, 1964
    • 【自由的滋味—彭明敏回憶錄】彭明敏文教基金會
    • 【彭明敏看台灣】遠流出版社，1994
  • In Japanese：
    • The Legal Status of Taiwan, Tokyo University Press, 1976
• Articles:
  • In French：
    • “Le vol a haute altitude et l’article l de la Convention de Chicago”, Revue du Barreau de la Provence de Quebec, avril, 1952; also Revue Francaise de Droit Aerien, Paris, 1952
    • “Les Bombardements Aeriens et al Population Civile Revue Generale de l’ Air, Paris, no. 4-5, 1952.
    • Le Definition de l’Aernonef Militaire”, Revue Francaise de Droit Aerien, no. 2, 1956.
  • In Japanese：
    • “Space Flight and the Aerial Jurisdiction of the State”, Journal of International Law and Diplomacy Tokyo University Faculty of Law, December, 1956.
  • In English：
    • “Tyranny in ‘Free’ Formosa”, The Progressive, December, 1967.
    • “Political Offenses in Formosa”, China Quarterly, London, vol. 47, July/September, 1971; also Akron Law Journal, Spring, 1973, University of Akron Law School.
  • In Chinese：
    • “The Legal Position of Air Space”, Journal of Social Science, National Taiwan University, vol. 2.
    • “An Introduction to Air Law”, Communication Review, vol. 2, no. 5
    • “State Sovereignty and Air Navigation”, communication Review, vol. 2, no. 6
    • “Private property and Air Navigation”, Communication News, vol. 4
    • “National Sovereignty and High Altitude Flight”, The Continent Magazine, vol. 8, no. 11
    • “On Liability for Damages on the Ground Caused by Aircraft: A Comparative Study”, Journal of Social Science, National Taiwan University, vol. 7
    • “The Fundamental Problems of Space Law”, Social Science of the Twentieth Century, 1962
    • “International Law and Space Exploration”, Tung-hai University Journal, vol. 5, no. 1
    • “The Sentimental Basis of Pan Africanism”, Apollo, 1963
    • “On ‘Five Freedoms’on Air Law”, Journal of Social Science, National Taiwan University, vol. 6
    • “International Legislation on International Air Transport”, Journal of Social Science, National Taiwan University, vol. 8

什麼是「台獨」？ [ 2007/2/10, 自由時報]

誰「變來變去，沒有誠信」？ [ 2006/3/5, 自由時報]

纏著台灣不放的魔咒 [ 2005/5/23, 自由時報 ]

序《李筱峰專欄》 [ 2004/7/23, 自由時報 ]

「競爭的倫理」是民主法治的基礎 [ 2004/4/14, 自由時報 ]

冷眼看大選大騷亂 [ 2004/4/1, 台灣日報 ]

「民主基金會」何錯之有？ [ 2004/3/19, 自由時報 ]

「兩岸和平、不要當兵」是投降者的口號 [ 2004/3/16, 自由時報]

「省籍」和「族群」 台灣社會的箍咒 [ 2003/12/25, 自由時報 ]

「委託民間談三通」的迷思 [ 2002/5/30, 自由時報 ]

「八吋晶圓廠爭議」有感 [ 2002/3/28, 自由時報 ]

「學術權威」沒有止境？ [ 2002/3/7, 自由時報 ]

剷除社會毒瘤 老包當仁不讓 [ 2001/12/28, 新台灣新聞週刊]

理想與現實----拜讀李遠哲院長大作有感 [ 2001/10/23, 自由時報 ]

「獨立」和「本土化」我解 [ 2000/11/27, 自由時報 ]

若無「意識形態」，哪裡有「政治」？ [ 2000/10/27, 自由時報 ]

誰是「中國人」？ [ 2000/6/5, 自由時報 ]

「台灣問題」就是「人權問題」 [ 2000/5/30, 自由時報 ]

話別李登輝 [ 2000/5/23, 新台灣新聞週刊 ]

不應讓「狂愚的邊緣人」浪費國家資源　[2000/1/16,彼得潘, 自由時報]

「省籍」和「族群」----台灣社會的箍咒 [ 2000/1/13, 自由時報 ]

打破「禁忌」 [ 1999/9/8, 自由時報 ]

應該「走出悲情」嗎？ [ 1999/9/4, 自由時報 ]

台灣的現實與中國的幻想 [ 1999/7/21, 自由時報 ]

被耍弄的人們---打開天窗談「禁忌」 [ 1999/4/29, 自由時報 ]

名乎？實乎？---民進黨「台灣前途決議案」有感 [ 1999/4/28, 自由時報 ]

選舉豈是攪革命？ [ 1999/3/11, 自由時報 ]

「黨紀」乎？大是大非乎？-----秋毫與輿薪----- [ 1998/10/7, 自由時報 ]

PENG MING –MIN

＊Educated in Japan, Taiwan, Canada, France and United States. LL.M.（McGill）, Doctor of law （Paris）.

＊Was Professor of international Law and Chairman of Political Science Department, National Taiwan University

＊Adviser to the Nationalist Chinese Delegation to the U.N.

＊Courtmartialed and jailed because of his writing “A Manifesto for the Taiwanese Self-Salvation ”.

＊Escaped to Sweden and granted political asylum. Since 1972,

＊Taught at the University of Michigan and other Universities.

＊Was President of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs and Chairman of the Association for Asian-Pacific Democracy.

＊Published the first volume of his memories “A Taste of Freedom ”＊Returned to Taiwan in 1992 after 23 years in exile.

＊Run for the President of Taiwan in 1996 representing the major opposition party in the first presidential election in Taiwan history.

＊Chairman of board, The Peng Ming-min Foundation.

＊President, The Nation-Building Union of Taiwan.

＊Senior Advisor to The President of Taiwan.

Born in Taiwan during the Japanese occupation period, Dr. Peng Ming-min first received his primary education in Taiwan before going to Japan for secondary school and university. During World War II, he studied law and political science at the Imperial Tokyo University. In 1945 he left Tokyo for the countryside in order to avoid the American bombing of Japan's capital. After reaching Nagasaki, Dr. Peng lost his left arm in a bombing raid and witnessed the atomic blast that destroyed Nagasaki. As a survivor of one of the most horrific chapters of world history, Dr. Peng has remained committed to peace throughout his life.

At the end of the World War II as the Kuomintang (KMT) army began arriving from China, Dr. Peng returned to Taiwan in October 1945. Dr. Peng witnessed the KMT's brutal month-long massacre which began on February 28, 1947. The looting and violence perpetrated by the KMT left a lasting impression on Dr. Peng and many Taiwanese. Subsequent decades of political oppression during the "White Terror" era of the 1950's and 1960's had subjected the Taiwanese living in fear. After completing his bachelor's degree at the Law School, the National Taiwan University, Dr. Peng went on to pursue a Master's degree at the Institute of International Air Law at the McGill University in Canada, later a doctoral degree in law at the University of Paris in 1954. During his studies, Dr. Peng wrote some of the first essays on international air law published in France, Canada and Japan. His publications attracted considerable international attention and distinguished Dr. Peng as a pioneer in the new field of international air law.

Upon his return to Taiwan, Dr. Peng embarked on a brilliant academic and public career. In 1957, at age 34 Dr. Peng became the youngest full professor at the National Taiwan University during the post-war period. While Dr. Peng was a professor and chairman of the Department of Political Science from 1961 to 1962, he attracted the attention of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and other KMT leaders. Chiang appointed Dr. Peng as the advisor to Taiwan's delegation to the United Nations, then the highest political position held by any Taiwanese, and hinted of future high-level governmental appointments.

Dr. Peng's appointment came at a time when the KMT government representation of China in the United Nations was losing international legitimacy due to KMT's opposition to Mongolia's admission into the U.N. To this day, the KMT government still claims territorial sovereignty over Mongolia despite the fact that Mongolia voted for independence in a 1945 Plebiscite. Sensing that the Nationalist government faced imminent expulsion from the UN and that the interests of the Taiwan people would be sacrificed, Dr. Peng's opposition to the KMT government grew. In July 1962, he wrote an article, entitled "The Sentimental Basis for Pan-Africanism, "which discussed the African emergence from colonialism and its struggle to attain independence, identity, and nationhood. Many local observers recognized his work as an allegory to the situation in Taiwan.

In 1964, Dr. Peng and his students issued "A Manifesto to Save Taiwan" with three objectives: To affirm that recovering Mainland China is absolutely impossible; To rewrite the constitution to guarantee human right and genuine democracy; To participate in the UN as a new member and to establish diplomatic relations with other countries working together for world peace. While revolutionary at the time, many of the proposals in the Manifesto have become government policy today, leading many observers to hail Dr. Peng as the "Father of Democracy and Independence" in Taiwan.

Before the Manifesto could be distributed, Dr. Peng and his students were arrested. Dr. Peng was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment by a military court. His case attracted worldwide attention prompting Amnesty International, Professor John K. Fairbank, Dr. Henry Kissinger and many others to express their concern to the KMT regime. Bowing to the increasing international pressure, Chiang Kai-shek released Dr. Peng from military prison 14 months later, but placed him under house arrest for life with strict surveillance.

In January 1970, Dr. Peng dramatically escaped to Sweden where he was granted political asylum. Despite strenuous objections from the KMT government, the United States granted Dr. Peng a visa and he arrived in Michigan in August 1970. During his two decades of exile Dr. Peng had lectured at the University of Michigan, Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, and the University of London. In 1972 in addition to serve as Director of Formosan Studies in New Jersey, Dr. Peng also published a personal memoir entitled A Taste of Freedom which was later translated into Chinese. His book has become a major source of hope and inspiration for many Taiwanese around the world.

During his time in the United States, Dr. Peng continued to be a leading figure in Taiwan politics and American foreign policy issues. In 1981, he co-founded the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA'S), a Taiwanese lobbying organization based in Washington D.C. Dr. Peng served as FAPA's president from 1986 to 1988 and chaired the Asia-Pacific Democracy Association in 1989. He also testified on Taiwan issues before the US Congress on several occasions.

In 1990, Dr. Peng was invited to attend the National Affairs Conference in Taiwan in which scholars and politicians from all political factions sat down for the first time to discuss future policies for Taiwan. However, Dr. Peng refused the invitation because there was still a warrant outstanding for his arrest in Taiwan. When President Lee Teng-hui finally granted a general amnesty for political offenders in 1992, Dr. Peng made immediate plans to return to Taiwan. After 23 years of exile abroad, Dr. Peng returned to Taiwan on November 1, 1992.

In 1994, Dr. Peng established the Peng Foundation for Culture and Education which sponsored seminars and lectures to raise awareness about Taiwan identity. On September 28, 1995, after an arduous two-tiered nomination process involving 49 public debates around Taiwan, the Democratic Progressive Party nominated Dr. Peng as the candidate for Taiwan's first presidential elections in March 1996. In sharp contrast to other presidential candidates, Dr. Peng is committed to implementing genuine democracy, guaranteeing fundamental human rights, and protecting Taiwan's current independent sovereignty. Dr. Peng's vision and direction was and still is much needed during the time of Taiwan's historic and difficult transition.

After the election, Dr. Peng formed The Nation-Building Union of Taiwan and has served as its president. On May 20, 2000, when the people of Taiwan finally elected the nation's president from the opposition party (DDP) for the first time since KMT control, Dr. Peng became Senior Adviser to President Shui-bian Chen.

Since then, he was invited to participate in the 5th Forum 2000 Conference hosted by the President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic. He was also twice the chief delegate of Taiwan to the "National Prayer Breakfast" hosted by the President of the U.S.A. Since 2000, he also serves as the Secretary General of the Asian Pacific League for Freedom and Democracy(APLFD).

1923 　Born in Taichung, Taiwan.

1936-1939 　Kaohsiung High School

1939-1942 　High School in Japan.

1942-1945 　Tokyo's Imperial University major in law and political science.

1945 　Returned to Taiwan from Japan.

1948 　BA in Political Science from National Taiwan University

1953 　LL.M from McGill University(Canada),

1954 　Ph.D. in law from the University of Paris(France),

1954-1955 　Associate Professor of Political Science, National Taiwan University

1956 　Fellow at the Institute for International Relations, at Harvard University.

1957 　Full Professor of Political Science, National Taiwan University

1961-1962 　Chairman, Department of Political Science, National Taiwan University

1961-1962 　Director of the Public Law Research Institute

1962 　Adviser to the Republic of China's delegation to the United Nations.

1964 　Issued the "Manifesto to Save Taiwan" with students, Hsieh Tsong-min and Wei Ting-chao, subsequently arrested.

1965 　Sentenced to eight years in prison, later commuted to house arrest. Placed under 24-hour surveillance by security operatives.

1970 　Escaped to Sweden and granted political asylum.

1970-1972 　Senior researcher at the University of Michigan,

China Research Center Visiting Professor at University of Michigan, School of Law

1972 　Chairman, the World United Formosans for independence(WUFI).Published "A Taste of Freedom," a personal memoirs

1973 　Visiting professor at the Wright University, Ohio.

1980 　Headed a delegation to the U.S. Congress and testified at a house of Representatives hearing for

the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act.

1981 　Co-founded the Formosan Association for Public Affairs(FAPA)

1983 　Testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, urging democratization and the end to marshal law in Taiwan.

1986-1988 　President of FAPA

1989 　Chairman of the Asia-Pacific Democracy Association

1992 　Returned to Taiwan after 23 years of exile.

1994 　Established the Peng Foundation for Culture and Education.

1995 　On February 28, became a member of the Democratic Progressive Patty.On March 30,

formally announced candidacy for the DPP presidential primary.

On September 28, nominated as the DPP presidential Candidate.

1996 　Candidate for Presidency of Taiwan, representing the major opposition party (Democratic Progressive Party)

1997 　President, The Nation-Building union of Taiwan.

2000 　Senior Adviser to The President of Taiwan.

2000 　Secretary General, The Asian Pacific League for Freedom And Democracy

2001 　Participant of the Fifth Forum 2000 Conference hosted by the President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic

2002 　Chief delegate of Taiwan to the "National Prayer Breakfast" hosted by the President George Bush of the U.S.A.

The word "Taiwan" seems to draw mixed and complex reactions. On one hand, it evokes the image of a country which is an important partner in world trade and its rapid and successful political reform and democratization; on the other hand, it also reminds the difficult relationship it has with China, which provokes recrimination, controversy and embarrassment.

Indeed Taiwan is where exists the real danger of military confrontation breaking out. This is also another example of the plights the inhabitants of the island unwittingly found themselves thrust into not for the first time in their tortuous history which is continuous international disputes as to who has the right to own and govern this island, and in which the inhabitants themselves have never had any saying on their fate, being always a pawn in the world power politics.

In early 17th century, Dutch and Spanish once occupied parts of Taiwan. Japanese, American and French too showed interests in the island. But China's Chin dynasty, with its geopolitical advantages, secured its predominance at the end of 19th century by proclaiming Taiwan its province in 1885. Nevertheless, throughout those centuries, no country had ever exercised effective control of the whole island. Only after 10 years after Chin's above proclamation, she was defeated in the war with Japan and ceded the island "perpetually" to Japan in 1895, thus making the latter the first Asian colonial empire.

For 50 years, Japan ruled Taiwan ruthlessly and efficiently, turning this backward land into one of the most developed and industrialized area in Asia. When the Second World War ended in 1945, the Allied Supreme Commander issued the "Order Number One" directing the Nationalist Chinese army to proceed to Taiwan to accept Japanese army's surrender on behalf of Allied Powers. What started as military occupation, has been turned into permanent rule by the Chinese Nationalist Party, but the Allied Powers, too absorbed in innumerable enormous post-war problems, were unable to pay attention to the situation is Taiwan.

In 1949, defeated in the civil war against communist, the Nationalist Chinese went into exile in Taiwan, and immediately declared martial law over the island, which lasted nearly 4 decades, a longest in modern history. Under the harsh military rule, all civil rights were suspended, the dissidents mercilessly exterminated. It was not until the deaths of Chiang Kai-shek and his son Chiang Chin-kuo that the martial law was lifted and democratization began.

As the communist regime was consolidated in China, it began to claim sovereignty over Taiwan and threaten with increasing militancy to use force to annex it. What is the basis of Chinese claim on Taiwan? She say:(1) the majority of the island's inhabitants are ethnically "Chinese";(2) before 1895, the island was a "province" of the China's Chin dynasty and (3) during the second world war, the Cairo declaration of 1943 and Potsdam declaration of 1945 both stated that if the Allied Powers won the war, Taiwan would be given to China.

It is true that since 16th century, inspite of the repeated prohibitions of the Chin government the poor peasants and fishermen of southern China began to migrate to Taiwan at the great risk to their lives. The nature of this migration was by no means to expand Chinas' sovereignty but to escape the misery of life in China and seek a new life. Despite four centuries of those migrants' extensive intermarriages with the native aborigines, the Taiwanese population still conserves traditional Chinese ethnic and cultural characteristics. Nevertheless with Dutch and Spanish occupations and half a century of Japanese rule, the Taiwanese has undergone experiences totally different from those in China mainland, and have thus developed their unique identity. It may be said the Taiwanese today is "Chinese" about as American is British. In 1895 when Japan took over Taiwan, the new Japanese government accorded the islanders the freedom to choose either Chinese or Japanese nationality. Over 99.99% of the population opted to become Japanese subjects, that is, identified themselves with Taiwan. The majority of the islanders today are the descendants of those "Taiwanese".

If every nation on earth begins to claim, as China does, the territorial right on a foreign land simply based on ethnic origin of the land's inhabitants, or merely on the fact that the land had once belonged to it long time ago (more than one hundred years ago in Taiwan's case), then there would be countless claims and counter-claims and the world would plunge in endless wars or total chaos.

As to the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and Potsdam Declaration of 1945, first, they were no more than wartime statement of the expectation of the four Allied Powers at the time when the war was still going on and its outcome uncertain, with Japan still in firm possession of Taiwan; they could have no legal effect unless it were incorporated into peace treaty with Japan; secondly, the basic assumption of the Allied Powers at that time was that the people of Taiwan desired to be incorporated into China, but the civil war in China following the end of the Pacific War, the establishment of the Chinese communist regime in 1949 and the open island-wide revolts of the Taiwan's inhabitants against the Chinese Nationalist Government after its taking over of the island brought about a basic change which compels a reappraisal of the whole situation. The involvement of Taiwanese people in the Chinese civil war was never forseen or even contemplated by the co-signers of above Declarations. This is a typical case in which the principle of rebus sic stantibus is bound to be invoked as a basis for re-examination of an existing international agreement; thirdly, the Peace Treaty signed between Japan and the Allied Powers in 1951, and the Peace Treaty signed between the Chinese Nationalist Government and Japan in 1952 merely stated that Japan renounced "all right, title and claim" to Taiwan, and nowhere did these legal documents specify the beneficiary of the Japanese renunciation, thus Taiwan was "detached" from Japan but "attached" to no one. On the other hand, the Atlantic Charter of 1941 stated that there should be "no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned". The article 1 of the United Nations Charter provides that "the principle of equal rights and self-determination of people" should be a basic guiding principle of international relations, and the Charter further stipulates in the article 103 that for the members of the United Nations in the event of conflict between the obligations under the Charter and obligations under any other international agreements, the obligations under the Charter shall prevail. Therefore so far as Taiwan is concerned the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations not only lack legal effect, they violate the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter (and subsequent international treaties on basic human rights) and must be regarded as superseded by the latters. The British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden pointed out at the House of Common on Feb. 5, 1955:" in September 1945, the administration of Formosa was taken over from the Japanese by Chinese forces at the direction of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, but this was not a cession, nor did in itself involve any change of sovereignty….Under the peace treaty of 1952 Japanese renounced all right, title and claim to Formosa and Pescadores, but again this did not operate as transfer to Chinese sovereignty, whether to the People's Republic of China or to the Chinese Nationalist authorities….Formosa and the Pescadores are therefore ….territory, the de jure sovereignty over which is uncertain or undetermined" (U.S. Department of State, Digest of International Law, vol. 3, p.505, 1965.) The above will lead to conclusion that the People's Republic of China, which has never ruled Taiwan one single day, has no basis whatsoever to claim sovereignty on Taiwan. At the same time, one has to admit that the current regime in Taiwan has acquired its legitimacy by holding periodic general suffrage to let people elect its president, all levels of legislature and local administrative heads.

The United States recognized the People's Republic of China in 1979 and ended its official relationship with Taiwan. At the same time, the U.S. Congress passed a law called "Taiwan Relations Act", the main thrusts of which are as follows:(1) the peace and security in the western Pacific are in the interests of the U.S.A. and of international concern, (2) any attempt to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means including boycott or embargoes will be considered as a threat to the peace and security of the Pacific and of a grave concern to the U.S.(3) U.S. will provides Taiwan with arms of defensive characters (4) U.S. will maintain the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security or social or economic system of people on Taiwan (5) the preservation and enhancement of human rights of the all people on Taiwan are the U.S. objectives.

With China's continuous open threat to use force to annex Taiwan and the U.S. firm opposition and resistance to it, one sees the two big powers are engaged in collision course.

China's challenge to the U.S. resolve in upholding the principle of peaceful solution of Taiwan issue culminated in 1996 during the final weeks of the first presidential election in Taiwan's history. China fired missiles to the sea adjacent to Taiwan (22 miles to 32 miles), one example of crude ways China often uses to intimidate the Taiwanese people. The U.S. reacted by sending two fleets of aircraft-carriers to the area. The tension was eased, but the basic conflicts and the risk of actual military confrontation remain.

The positions of the major parties concerned may be summarized as the followings:

Taiwan, officially callled the Republic of China, considers itself an independent, sovereign, democratic nation with its president, legislature and administrative heads popularly elected, all citizens fully enjoying all civil rights. Against the disparaging remark that less than 30 nations recognized its existence, it will invoke the international norm as reconfirmed in the article 12 of the Charter of the Organization of American States:" the political existence of the States is independent of recognition by other States. Even before being recognized, the State has the right to defend its integrity and independence". It has no intention nor ability to threat anyone, only wanting to live in peace with all nations in the world. It wants to open on equal basis dialogue with China without any pre-condition, and even agrees to accept the China's stance of " One China" as one of the items to be discussed in the dialogue. It wants to be admitted to the United Nations and other international organizations. It considers its exclusion from those organizations a great injustice, national humiliation and clear violation of the principle of the "universality" of the United Nations. It also believes that it is the basic human right of the Taiwan's citizens to freely choose the form of their own government, to define their status in the world community and to decide freely their own political future.

China insists on its intention to annex Taiwan, includes Taiwan as its "territory" in its constitution and openly threats to use force to achieve this purpose. It deploys 400 missiles across Taiwan Straight, all targeting Taiwan, its number increasing by 50 every year, and frequently holds military exercises aiming at Taiwan. It refuses any dialogue with Taiwan unless the latter agrees in advance to be a part of "One China".

The United States is committed to the peaceful solution of the issue and bound by the Taiwan Relations Act to oppose and resist any attempt to use force against Taiwan. It is also obliged by the law to supply Taiwan with arms of defensive nature.

For European nations, Taiwan is apparently a delicate and sometimes embarrassing issue. They are under heavy pressure and intimidation from China and offered supposedly vast market and trade opportunities in exchange for excluding Taiwan from international community. China's tactic seems working well. Few Taiwan's high officials are allowed to visit Europe (Mr. Chen Shui-bien, democratically elected president of Taiwan was not permitted to come to Europe to receive the Liberty International's award). But inspite of the European timidity, Taiwanese formed certain degree of relationships with the European countries. It maintains 22 offices in Europe and the latter 18 offices in Taiwan, all dealing with tourism, trade, educational, cultural and other non-political matters. Taiwan is the 11th largest trade partner of Europe, the total volume of trade between two sides is about 35.5 billions U.S. dollars. In 1991, the European Parliament formed a Taiwan Friendship Group. Since then, it has on several occasions expressed its interest in and concern with the Taiwan issue. During the above mentioned missile crisis, the European Parliament expressed its opposition to the use of force. In the past 12 months it has passed several resolutions appealing to the parties concerned to safegard the peace of the area, again opposing the use of force, supporting Taiwan's admission to WHO, urging China to remove the missiles from the coast facing Taiwan, supporting the lifting of the restriction on Taiwanese officials' visit to Europe, etc. Obviously friendliness and desire for closer relations with Taiwan exist in Europe. The only question is : dare European governments stand up to China? The world became too cynical to talk about fairness and justice in world power politics, but even in earnest pursuite of self-interests, to disregard or deny the obvious reality would be self-defeating.

What is the reality about Taiwan? It is about the size of Holland with 23 millions people, the 21st in number in the world. After long struggles and tremendous sacrifices, it has rapidly and successfully democratized and became a free, independent, sovereign nation. The people insists on the right to freely choose their own government, define their status in the world and decide their own political future. In the world, their GNP ranks the 20th, per capita income (about 14000 U.S. dollars) the 25th (20 times that of China), volume of foreign trade the 14th, volume of products in computer and high-tech communication fields the 4th (needless to say those ranks being subject to change from period to period). Taiwan has been willing and able to contribute to the world community, for instance, by extending agricultural and medical assistances to Africa and South America. It has also contributed to humanitarian aids in time of natural disasters. Taiwan believes over all it is more qualified to be member of the U.N. and other international organizations than other 160 some countries.

Its geopolitical, strategic and military importance aside, the ocean surrounding Taiwan, bordering Japan, Korea, China and Philippines has become a life-line not only for Asian but for wider international economy as well. Every 24 hours, hundreds of cargo ships carrying oil and other essential industrial materials sail through this sea. Any tension or conflict there or its falling under control of dictatorial regime ignoring civilized codes of international behavior would constitute fatal menace to the entire world economy. The lasting peace and real security of this area and that vital sea-lane would not be assured unless all parties concerned accept the universal human values of civilized nations, that is, democracy, human rights, principle of self-determination and no-use of force as the basis of their mutual relationships.