2009.08.02分別從陸委會與國台辦的網站上察看「兩岸」所簽署的「協議」（陸委會稱「兩岸協議」，國台辦稱「兩岸有關協議」），陸委會列出9項，從2008.11陳雲林以來的幾項協議完全闕如。相對的，國台辦則認為是15項。陸委會的闕如，可以視為官僚紀律鬆弛，菁英主義作祟，但也可能是「難言之隱」。

Central Library of ROC have "quoted" Oppenheim's International Law that a "Press Communiqué" is valid even it has NOT been signed or initialed.
It is a fake or at least misled by something.
Indeed, the simplified Chinese Oppenheim's International Law p.630 has printed as such. However, if you look at the note 44 of the paragraph you will see it 100% contrarily. The note 44 said ... since the "Joint Communiqué" is not signed or initialed it is NOT valid...
Be careful, the Central Library...

One of the points is the US DoS keep claiming political issue principle in the court to deny its obligation under international treaty of peace, which means the US's abandon of uti possidetis. That will leads to unpredictable situations.

重點之一是：因為短視遂引用政治問題原則迴避和平條約責任，造成放棄uti possidetis（因戰爭的佔領事實）的「重大後果」。

誰，是馬應九口中的「我國」，而和巴拿馬建交呢？

與巴拿馬建交的是「中國政府」，是在北京的「大清帝國政府」。1912.02.12接受「大清帝國政府」權力移轉的北京「中華民國政府」，這時還沒個影子。

1909年與巴拿馬相互「國家承認」＋「政府承認」的，是「中國」。

當時的台灣已經是日本的一個「外地」，並非國家，也無外交權。

這是「中國」的業績，不是台灣的。

中國，是「國家」（state）。

大清帝國、中華民國、中華人民共和國，是「政府」（government）。

馬英九，是「政權」（administration or regime）。

看到「國」就以為是state的話，那蔣經國，是哪一「國」？

http://www.president.gov.tw/php-bin/prez/shownews.php4?Rid=15453

Unfairness was one of the reasons why the western powers asked the extraterritorial jurisdiction or the consular jurisdiction from Chinese authority.
They asked it not only in China but in many countries as well.

Can Taiwan ask the jurisdiction? I do not think so. What Ma is going to do besides playing with words?

這篇〈台灣人應直接和中國接觸〉，是從Ajin的〈凡事有時！〉有感而來。

台灣與中國的關係中，最令人費解的是「何以台灣人如此敵視中國」？

大清時代固然不論，即使在日治時期身為日本國民時，台灣人也從未敵視中國，頂多是察覺兩者文明發展層次有別罷了。台灣人之所以敵視中國，全因為戰後蔣介石佔領統治（包括二二八及長期戒嚴統治等貪污暴虐）的移情作用；加上黨化教育的順水推舟所致。「台灣人敵視中國」的淵源並非基於歷史經驗，也不是理性思考的判斷，而是受國民黨強行移植之結果。

Professors expect the ECFA will be examined by WTO members. One said should be while the other said will be. It is no need to worry right now.

That might be true. However, what about Hong Kong and China? Did CEPA been reviewed under WTO? Does the status of the Separate Customs Territory under WTO means the same thing under identified sovereignty?

Since MYJ's inauguration of 2008, pro-Taiwan groups held three protests, which are 830, 1025 and 517. The three are about the same size, according to my site observations.

The point is combination. A decade ago, there were only middle age people who attended protests. Since 2004 "228 Hand-in-Hand" the couples, especially young females attended the protests as carnivals. 830, 1025 and 517 follows the tradition.

中時說：〈兩岸共識 我以觀察員參與WHA〉，外交部常次也言之鑿鑿。但在WHO憲章（組織法）中並未發覺「觀察員」的地位規定，只有「副會員」。
難道有其他可能性？如「逐年邀請（才算數）的貴賓」而不是可主動參加的正式資格？ 一年一簽，算是「聘僱」不算「佔缺」。外表看起來一樣，但沒有退休金。
假使是這樣，比「中國的副會員」，好還是不好？

「無懈號」事件，若根據1982年聯合國〈海洋法公約〉，當然，美國並非簽約國。

中方的依據是：…

First, we feel sorry and pay our respect to the death of Harvey Feldman.

TRA or Taiwan Relations Act is one of the kinds in the world. It regulates diplomatic or in fact consul relations with foreign country under the jurisdiction of a municipal law. Yet Taiwanese has no consul rights in 30 years practice under TRA. The US has to bear its responsibility, especially Ma's regime is about to sign CECA with China unilaterally.

It is a big, mega question for us to evaluate...

Senior journalist Wang Jing-Hong wrote an article, based on a report of John J. Czyzak in 1961, concluded that Taiwan status is yet determined. My research, based on the induction and the deduction method, also tell the same result. Wang also cited five possible scenarios of the future of Taiwan. He preferred the plebiscite one.
However, ...