了解歷史 讓台灣、沖繩共免戰爭

一九七二年五月十五日美日於一九七一年六月十七日簽訂的沖繩大東協定換文生效，美國將依舊金山和約第三條取得的沖繩行政管理權轉移日本。雖在條約上並無「歸還」或「返還」文字，很多敘述會使用此等字眼。實質上在軍政方面，美國依此協定仍維持在沖繩的軍事基地。

因最近台海情勢緊張，沖繩人民唯恐台灣有事，沖繩直接有事，在五月十五日前夕紛紛有沖繩去軍事化的呼籲。台媒在報導此事時，會引述舊金山和約第三條，但對「託管」沒有仔細了解，以為美國二戰後在沖繩的統治狀態屬「託管」，美國有扶持沖繩獨立的責任，但美國未如此進行。這種說法很可能來自學界，因學界著作常見此說。由於舊金山和約第三條「託管」的正確了解攸關當前亞太安全，在此依歷史與國際法加以說明。

在舊金山和約擬定過程中，美國軍方與國務院針對沖繩安排有不同看法。國務院認為沖繩離美國太遠，文化差異又大，收入領土，統治的財政負擔大，希望遵守大西洋憲章、開羅宣言關於不謀求領土擴張的原則和承諾。但麥克阿瑟和軍方反對，因琉球戰略地位十分重要，要確立美國的排他性戰略統治權。盟國有些主張主權歸美國；有些主張應完全歸還日本。面對分歧，美國認為最好的辦法就是保留日本的殘餘主權，同時使其在聯合國託管制度下，由美國為管理當局。

舊金山和約第三條規範的在由美國託管前美國享有的行政管理權，與國際法上的軍事占領有關。軍事占領地是戰爭期間，由交戰國實際控制的敵國領土。該領土主權不隨占領而變更。所以美國並沒有做出與大西洋憲章「盟國不在戰後藉戰爭擴張領土的原則」不一致的安排，也因為宣言沒有完全的法律約束力，也不能說是違約。至於日本對沖繩的「殘餘主權」一詞首次出現在一九五七年六月岸信介訪美時發表的聯合聲明中。但日美兩國或美國內部對該詞具體內容並未達成共識。

聯合國未如舊金山和約第三條「在聯合國託管制度下，由美國為管理當局」進行相關討論。除了一九五○年代因蘇聯因素美國對此議案能否通過沒把握外，一九七二年沖繩移轉日本前夕，也有中華人民共和國反對如此安排，因為如果美國對沖繩的影響減少，將方便其與蘇聯赤化日本，乃至台灣。

聯合國託管制度是依聯合國憲章第十一條建置，託管者有扶持被託管者獨立的責任。因以上背景，至少在一九七七年以前，聯合國託管的領土不包括舊金山和約第三條所涉及之領土。所以美國有關舊金山和約第三條行政管理權之行使皆不能說之為「託管」。

以上發展來自在一九四五年四月到六月發生的沖繩戰役。在該戰役前美國原本有反攻台灣的計畫，後因台灣防衛森嚴而改攻沖繩。沖繩戰役延續了八十天，那霸幾乎盡成焦土，這場戰役是美軍在太平洋戰爭中傷亡最大的一場戰爭，俘虜的日軍也相對較多，沖繩約四十五萬人口中有七點五萬人死傷。

盟軍的太平洋戰役進行到一九四三年十一月一日，也就是開羅宣言公布前的一個月，整個西太平洋地區及中國的半壁江山都還在日本控制之下。是因蔣中正主席爭取開羅會議的召開，才有中華人民共和國之擁有今天的領土及聯合國安理會席次。了解這些歷史與法理，將可使沖繩與台灣人民共免戰爭威脅。

Okinawa Was Not a Trust Territory:

Understanding History So Taiwan and Okinawa Can Avoid War

2024-05-18 02:55 United Daily News

Lin Man-houng, Adjunct Researcher, Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica

The Okinawa-Daitō Agreement signed by the United States and Japan on June 17, 1971 came into effect on May 15, 1972. The United States transferred administrative rights over Okinawa, which it obtained through Article 3 of the Treaty of San Francisco, to Japan. Though absent from the treaty itself, many later descriptions contain the words “return” and “reversion.” With respect to military and political concerns, the agreement allowed the United States to maintain its military base in Okinawa.

Due to tensions in the Taiwan Strait, Okinawans worry that if something happens to Taiwan, Okinawa will quickly follow. On the eve of May 15, there were calls for the demilitarization of Okinawa. When reporting on this matter, the Taiwanese media has cited Article 3 of the Treaty of San Francisco. These reports, however, reflect a misunderstanding of the word “trusteeship.” The media believes that US rule over Okinawa after World War II was a “trusteeship” and that the United States had a legal responsibility to support Okinawan independence. This was not actually the case. This media position most likely comes from academia, as it is often seen in academic works. Since a correct understanding of “trusteeship” as described in Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty is relevant to current Asia-Pacific security, it is explained here through history and international law:

During the drafting of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the US military and State Department had different positions on the arrangements to be made for Okinawa. The State Department believed that Okinawa was too far from the United States, that cultural differences were too great and that the acquisition and governance of the territory would create a huge financial burden. Hence, the State Department advocated forgoing territorial expansion, following the principles of the Atlantic Charter and the Cairo Declaration. However, the military opposed the State Department because of the important strategic position of Okinawa. They wanted to establish strategic US control. Among the other Allies, some thought that sovereignty over Okinawa should reside with the United States; others maintained that it should be returned entirely to Japan. Faced with this divergence, the United States believed that the best way out forward was to grant residual sovereignty to Japan while placing the islands under the United Nations trusteeship system with itself as the administrative authority.

Article 3 of the Treaty of San Francisco describes the administrative rights held by the United States before it established the trusteeship, which was military occupation under international law. Occupied territories are enemy territories that are controlled by an opposing country during a war. The sovereignty of the territory does not change with occupation. Thus, the United States did nothing inconsistent with the Atlantic Charter's principle that “their (the Allies’) countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other.” Also, because this declaration was not legally binding, the US trusteeship could not technically compose a breach of treaty. Reference to Japan's “residual sovereignty” over Okinawa first appeared in a joint statement issued by Nobusuke Kishi during his visit to the United States in June 1957. However, there was no consensus between Japan and the United States or within the United States on the specific meaning of this term.

The United Nations held no discussions related to Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, even though the treaty stipulated that “the United States shall be the administering authority under the United Nations trusteeship system.” In the 1950s, the United States was unsure whether a motion for the trusteeship would be approved by the United Nations due to likely opposition from the Soviet Union. The People's Republic of China also welcome plans for Okinawa's transfer to Japan in 1972, because if US influence on Okinawa was reduced, it would be easier for China to work with the Soviet Union to turn Japan and Taiwan communist.

The United Nations trusteeship system was established according to Chapter 12 and Chapter 13 of the Charter of the United Nations, and administering states were responsible to support the final independence of trust territories. At least before 1977, the territories mentioned in Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty were not part of United Nations trusteeship system. Therefore, US exercise of administrative powers under Article 3 of the Treaty of San Francisco cannot be described as a “trusteeship.”

The above developments all followed the Battle of Okinawa, which took place from April to June 1945. Originally, the United States planned to stage an attack on Taiwan, but changed its plan due to strong defenses there. The Battle of Okinawa lasted for eighty days, and Naha was almost completely reduced to scorched earth. The US military suffered heavier casualties here than any other battle in the Pacific War, and a large number of Japanese soldiers were captured. Of Okinawa’s civilian population of around 450,000, 75,000 people were killed or injured.

On November 1, 1943, almost two years after the beginning of the Allies’ Pacific War and one month before the Cairo Declaration was issued, the entire western Pacific region and half of China were still under Japanese control. It is because Chiang Kai-shek secured a position in the Cairo Conference that the People's Republic of China has its current territory and seat on the United Nations Security Council. Understanding these historical and legal principles will help the people of Okinawa and Taiwan avoid the threat of war.