台灣英社 UKFS

Nature 是一份英國期刊，在國際學術界享有崇高的地位，可惜竟然把台灣列為中國的一省，當台灣駐英代表處去函為台灣正名時，遺憾的是，此期刊的編輯以輕忽的態度回函 (請看內文) ，辯稱那是該刊長期以來遵守聯合國決議的對台政策，也就是不承認過去的疏失，而且暗示未來將繼續堅持台灣是中國一省的做法。

Nature期刊在國際上具有不可忽視的影響力，因此我們應該繼續努力，寫信抗議該期刊不當的做法，以正視聽!   

英社提供一封英文信，供網友參考(如下) ，請一起寄信給Nature雜誌， 表達台灣人民的聲音!

寄抗議信方式

1.請點選  corres@nature.com

2.貼上英社的信函 (如下) 或自己寫信

3.寄出 

前因後果:

a. 台灣駐英代表處的抗議信函

指出Nature誤把台灣列為中國一省的不當，而且描述台灣不屬於中國的原因，並舉例說明

SIR — In your News Feature “Forward planning” (Nature 440, 987–989; 2006),
you published a map of East Asia in which Taiwan and China are both coloured yellow, indicating that they comprise one country. Yet Taiwan and China have been governed separately since 1949, when the Chinese communists ousted the nationalists from the mainland in a civil war. 

Since then, Taiwan (officially called the Republic of China) has undergone a complete process of democratization, while China (officially called the People’s Republic of China) has continued under single-party communist rule. This is a reality that cannot be ignored. If a reporter from Nature needed to visit Taiwan on assignment, for example, he or she could not apply for a visa at the Chinese embassy.

I hope that in future Nature will take into account the fact that Taiwan and China are governed separately as two distinct countries. 

By Michael Chen

Taipei Representative Office in the United Kingdom, 50 Grosvenor Gardens, London SW1W 0EB, UK

 b. Nature 編輯的輕忽回應

 編輯說; Nature期刊，長期以來遵守聯合國的政策---台灣是中國的一省。

Nature’s long-standing policy is to abide by the United Nations’ position on the status of Taiwan — Editor, Nature.

英社要求Nature更正的信函重點: 

根據聯合國憲章的精神，台灣與中國一邊一國的事實的確受到聯合過憲章的保障，至於聯合國現在的對台政策，是被國際強權所扭曲的結果，Nature不應該助紂為虐，選擇性跟隨國際社會錯誤的政策，而應該根據聯合國憲章的精神，將台灣視為一個與中國有所區隔的獨立國家。 

Dear Sir or Madam

In the previous response to Mr. Chen regarding Nature’s mistaken understanding of Taiwan’s legal status, the editor of Nature justified “Nature’s long-standing policy is to abide by the United Nations’ [UN] position on the status of Taiwan” (Nature 442, 132; 2006). According to the Charter of the UN, Nature’s reply, in fact, reflected the editor overlooking and misunderstanding the true spirit of the UN position on Taiwan.

To identify whether nor not Taiwan is a sovereign state, what we shall rely on is international law instead of power politics. Both the Montevideo Convention and the European Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee (ECOBAC) sustain Taiwan’s qualifications for statehood. First, Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention affirms that “a defined territory, permanent population, government and the capacity to enter into relations with the other states” are the only requirements for a sovereign state. Second, the ECOBAC asserted that “a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority.” Third, the declaratory theory of state creation points out that “an entity becomes a state as soon as it meets the minimal criteria for statehood.” Based on the principles of international law, Nature’s “long-standing” policy appears at odds with the principles of international law.

The editor argued that Nature’s policy towards Taiwan and China is in consistent with the stance of the UN. However, the policy is apparently contradictory to the following principles of the UN. Preamble of Charter of the United Nations points out that “[w]e the people of the United Nations determined to … and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, …”. As demonstrated above, international law supports Taiwan as a country identified differently from China. Thus, the principles of “justice and respect” of the UN, in accord with international law, reverses Nature’s “long-standing policy” once again. 

In addition, Article 2 (2) of Charter of the UN also suggests that “[t]o develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, …”. It is a fact that Taiwan conducted its first presidential election in 1996. Since then, all the representatives of the Taipei government are elected by the people of Taiwan. Each democratic election not only carries out the right of self-determination of Taiwanese people, but also reveals the determination of Taiwanese people to maintain Taiwan’s independent status. Should not Nature respect the democratically demonstrated reluctance of the people of Taiwan to be a part of China?     

Most importantly, Nature should not follow the wrong decision-making of the UN, but rather firmly abide by the principles of justice, equal rights and self-determination of peoples of the UN.  The international community has made two mistakes on the sovereignty dispute between Taiwan and China since 1949. Both governments should have been seated at the UN since 1949. Before 1971 the Beijing government was not seated at the UN, but the Taipei government was. However, the international community made another mistake on the same issue since 1971 when they decided to accept the Beijing government but oust Taiwan from the UN. Can the editor tell Nature’s readers why Taiwan was regarded as a country before 1971 but not the Beijing government? Can the editor explain to Nature’s readers why the Beijing government was given legal international status in 1971, but Taiwan’s legal status was denied after 1971? These mistakes were due to power politics instead of the principles of justice, equal rights and self-determination of peoples laid down in the Charter of the UN. Should Nature keep its improper policy towards Taiwan unchanged? 

The people of Taiwan and the readers of Nature are not convinced with the editor’s justification. If Nature really abides by the principles of the UN and international law, in particular the principles of justice and self-determination, Nature should accordingly mark Taiwan a different colour from the one of China (yellow for China as shown in the map of Nature 440, 987-989; 2006). 

(英社活動組, 特別感謝社員 Daniel 提供資料)