Te Pieng So
最近有關東奧正名的一個爭執點就是，如果不由根本推翻中華民國體制，只是對外的時候用大家比較可以接受的名稱，是不是反而改善了中華民國體制，讓它更延年益壽，反而不利於推翻中華民國體制？
認識我夠久的網友大概還記得「三分鐘護台灣」運動，也被我動員過很多次，「三分鐘護台灣」運動是當國外網站、機構、教科書稱我們為台灣、中國的一省的時候，發動網友一人一信請他們正名，稱呼我們為台灣，這個運動成功為台灣正名許多次，但是自從2008年後，我就沒有再發動過「三分鐘護台灣」運動了，大家知道為什麼嗎？
因為國家地理雜誌的編輯回了我這一封信。
信有點長，但是重點只有三個：
第一、雖然台灣的中華民國政府實質控制台灣，但是中華民國政府從來沒有宣稱台灣是一個獨立於中國的國家，反而宣稱台灣是中國的一部分。
第二、聯合國與絕大部分的國家也不認為台灣是一個獨立的國家。
第三、2008立法院與總統大選的結果讓國家地理雜誌相信，台灣更不可能獨立。所以他們決定保持把台灣的地圖跟中國畫成同一個顏色。
為什麼這封信讓我不再發起「三分鐘護台灣」運動？原因有兩個：
第一、一如這位編輯所說的，台灣在國際上一再被稱為中國的一省，有一大部分原因是台灣內部自己的選擇，而不是別人的錯誤。
第二、不檢討反思台灣內部的選擇，只要求外國網站、機構、教科書幫我們正名有己願他力的問題。
所以之後我的立場就調整為，對台灣不友善的其實不是這些外國的網站、機構、教科書。對台灣最不友善的其實是中華民國。
至於這個經驗怎麼運用在東奧正名？至少有一點是，國家地理雜誌編輯信中所提到的中華民國政府與體制的這些問題不解決，國際奧會只要複製貼上這封信就好了。
Thank you for your letter; it came to me because I was the map editor for the China supplement. Our policy on Taiwan went through considerable discussion, taking into account statements from the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China. Below is a summary of our policy:
National Geographic has long maintained a de facto cartographic policy; that is, to portray to the best of our judgment the world as it is, as opposed to as any individual or organization might claim it to be. National Geographic strives to be apolitical, to consult multiple authoritative sources, and to make independent decisions based on extensive research.
The issue of the sovereignty of Taiwan (Republic of China) as distinct from mainland China (People’s Republic of China) is complex. The People's Republic of China claims sovereignty over Taiwan and regards it as a province of China. The United Nations and most countries, including the U.S., acknowledge that Taiwan is part of China and recognize the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China.
The National Geographic Society’s map policy on recognizing independent nations is based on three main principles:
It claims independence
It controls the territory it claims
It has international recognition
It controls the territory it claims
It has international recognition
Relative to these principles, Taiwan 1) does not claim independence; 2) it does control the territory it claims; 3) very few countries have formal diplomatic relations with it. In essence, Taiwan meets only one of our three criteria common to independent countries.
As reflected in its formal name, the government of Taiwan (Republic of China) considers itself to be part of China. In 1991 the Republic of China acknowledged on a constitutional level “that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are under separate rule.” This means that Taiwan considers itself part of a historic and traditional China—but not part of the People’s Republic of China. There is one China, but there are two separate entities.
In short, while Taiwan functions independently, its government has never formalized independence, and Taiwan is not recognized as independent by the UN and most countries. I would note that the results of recent legislative and presidential elections indicate that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is less likely to assert its independence in the near future.
Hope this helps. Thanks for writing National Geographic.
Sincerely yours,
David
----------------------------
David B. Miller
Senior Editor & Category Manager
National Geographic Maps
1145 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036-4688
David B. Miller
Senior Editor & Category Manager
National Geographic Maps
1145 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036-4688
沒有留言:
張貼留言