保釣運動的回顧與反思
Reflections on the Diaoyutai Movement
薛化元教授／Hsue Hua-yuan, Professor
（政治大學台灣史研究所／Graduate Institute of Taiwan History, National Chengchi University, Taipei）
2001-04-23 
1975 Bird’s eye view of the Diaoyutai
一九六九年，一份由聯合國亞洲及遠東經濟委員會所作的報告指出：釣魚臺群島附近可能有巨量的石油蘊藏。不料這份報告卻引起台灣、中國、日本之間長達三十餘年的政治爭端。有關石油鑽探等經濟議題全然被擱置、甚且遺忘。而釣魚台主權之爭，乃至於台灣國際地位的適法性卻不斷地被端上檯面檢視與爭議，有些人甚至主張聯合中華人民共和國或所謂海外華人爭取釣魚臺主權，國家認同混淆不清的現象三十年來並無太多進步。本週特別邀請政大歷史系教授薛化元執筆，為我們剖析這個歷史事件的發生、後續及其影響。
In 1969, a report by the UN Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) indicated the possibility of large reserves of oil in the vicinity of the Diaoyutai Archipelago. To everybody’s surprise, this report set of a political dispute between Taiwan, China and Japan which has been going on now for over thirty years. The topic of oil exploration has been completely ignored, even forgotten. But the fight for sovereignty of the Diaoyutai, even to the extent of debating Taiwan’s international position and legitimacy, has been continuously examined and contended, with some people even advocating a United People’s Republic of China, or so-called Overseas Chinese, fighting together for the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai, and the phenomenon of a confused national identity has not advanced much in the past thirty-odd years. This week, we have invited Professor Hsueh Hua-yuen of the history department of National Chengchi University to write an analysis of this historical even, the follow-up, and its influence.
事件的發生及其遺緒
一九七一年四月九日美國國務院發表聲明，表示尼克森總統和日本首相佐籐榮作達成協議，美國將琉球以及包括釣魚臺列島在內的「南西群島」，於一九七二年交還給日本，此舉造成了臺灣社會（以大學生為主）強烈的反應，以及旅美僑界與留學生的抗議，而展開了海內外的保釣運動。影響所及，不但海外知識界出現了國家認同的轉向，國內至今也仍時有要求力爭釣魚臺主權的呼聲。如今三十年已過，回顧這段歷史，可以發現執政者的態度，以及國內教育內容導致的國家認同混淆，是保釣運動中對於臺灣（國家主權）發展方向的不利因素擴大的原因。
The incident and its legacy
On April 9, 1971, the U.S. State Department issued a statement that President Nixon and Japanese Prime Minister Sato Eisaku had reached an agreement, by which the U.S. would return Okinawa and the “South-western islands” which included the Diaoyutai [Senkaku in Japanese], to Japan, in 1972. This action provoked an intense reaction from Taiwan society (particularly among university students), and demonstrations from the Taiwanese community and overseas Taiwanese students in the U.S., and launched the Diaoyutai Movement both at home and abroad. The influence of this movement saw the appearance not only of a change of direction in national allegiance in intellectual circles outside Taiwan; even within Taiwan, there are still frequent calls to fight for sovereignty of the Diaoyutai. Today, looking back at this period in history thirty years ago, we can see that the attitude of those in power, and the contents of education in Taiwan at that time, led to confusion over national identity, and the cause of the growth of detrimental factors in the Diaoyutai Movement to the direction of the development of Taiwan’s national sovereignty.
海內外抗議聲四起
實際上，針對釣魚臺的問題，早在一九七○年九月當時的行政院長嚴家淦即公開表示中華民國政府決心維護釣魚臺群島應有的權益，而臺灣省議會也通過動議，要求政府維護釣魚臺群島的主權。美日達成協議後，臺灣除了外交部發言人發表聲明，表示堅決反對之外，四月十四日政治大學學生在校內遊行，召開座談會，而臺灣大學為主的學生亦赴日本大使館呈遞抗議書，正式揭開了保釣運動的序幕。而在六月十七日美國和日本正式簽訂移交包括釣魚臺群島在內的琉球群島等美軍佔領地的正式文書前十二小時，臺北再次爆發以臺大學生為主的數千名抗議遊行，並分別向美國及日本大使館遞交抗議文書。
Voices of protest rise up in Taiwan and abroad
In fact, as early as September 1970, the then-premier, C.K. Yen, publicly expressed that, regarding the Diaoyutai issue, the R.O.C. was determined to preserve the interests it ought to have in the Diaoyutai Archipelago, and the Taiwan Provincial Assembly also passed a motion demanding that the government preserve the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai. After the U.S.-Japanese agreement, Taiwan not only made a statement through a spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, expressing Taiwan’s determination to oppose this, and on April 14, students from National Chengchi University held a demonstration on campus, and a symposium, and students headed by a group from National Taiwan University (NTU) delivered a letter of protest to the Japanese embassy, and formally opened the prologue to the Diaoyutai Movement. On June 17, 12 hours before the U.S. and Japan formally signed the official documents transferring the U.S. Armed Forces-occupied territory of the Ryukyu Islands, including the Diaoyutai chain, another protest demonstration broke out in Taipei, led by students from NTU, and protest letters were handed over to the U.S. and Japanese embassies respectively.
政府態度模糊，國家認同轉向中國大陸
不過，這只是當時國內外保釣運動的一環而已，以美國地區為主的留學生也由於對美國將釣魚臺群島交給日本的不滿，進行大規模的串連及抗議活動，蔚成海內外保釣運動的高潮。但是，中華民國政府的決心、作為及其成果，並無法說服大量的海內外知識份子，特別是在美國本土發表一系列保釣運動的留學生及旅美華人，面對政府無力扭轉大局，而中華人民共和國以民族主義相號召的狀況下，政治立場發生轉變，有的甚至回歸中國大陸，使得當時原本在國際舞臺上遭到一連串打壓挫折的中華民國，承受了更大的壓力。事後回顧此一歷史，我們可以清楚發現，保釣運動不僅反應當時國人對美國與日本處理釣魚臺事件的強烈不滿，也由於當時中華民國政府沒有力量扭轉此一國際的現實，加上中華人民共和國當時高唱民族主義，使得來自臺灣的海外留學生在政治立場上也有相當部份發生改變。
Government attitude unclear, national identity shifts towards mainland China
However, this was just the first episode in the Diaoyutai Movement inside and outside Taiwan, which was largely led by Taiwanese students studying in the U.S., who, because of their dissatisfaction with the U.S. handing the Diaoyutai chain, carried out large-scale link-ups and protest activities, and grew into the crescendo of the Diaoyutai Movement. But the resolve, actions and achievements of the R.O.C. government were not able to persuade a large number of intellectuals both here and abroad, particularly those students and residents in the U.S. who came up with their own series of Diaoyutai Movement activities, in face of the government’s inability to reverse the situation. With the PRC using nationalism as an appeal, the political position changed, and some people even went so far as to return to mainland China, putting the R.O.C., which had already encountered a string of frustrating setbacks on the international stage, under even more pressure. Looking back at this period, we see that the Diaoyutai Movement was not simply a reaction of fierce dissatisfaction by people in Taiwan to the way in which the U.S. and Japan were dealing with the Diaoyutai incident. It was also because the R.O.C. government of the time didn’t have the strength to reverse this international reality, and on top of this, the PRC was making loud nationalistic noises, which led to overseas students from Taiwan making significant changes in their political position.
我們可以發現許多基本的問題，首先，保釣運動發生後政治轉向的問題是因為當時國人對國家認同相當模糊（實際上至今依然如此），因此雖然以民族主義相號召，可是此種民族主義的國家認同卻混淆不清，導致在保釣以後掀起的民族主義風潮，演變成以海外中華人民共和國為代表的國家認同的新方向（當然也包括國內的部份人士）。而三十年後，仍然時有國人持續參與或發動保護釣魚臺主權的行動，但也正與三十年前國家認同混淆不清的現象相似，甚至寧願採取與中華人民共和國合作，作為保護釣魚臺的象徵，如此是否真正維護了國家主權的利益，自然大有商榷的餘地。換言之，保釣運動在當時對於中華民國政府已經造成相當程度的傷害，不過，經歷三十年，就此部份而言，目前的政府也沒有提出有力的應對方式。
We can identify many basic problems. First, after the Diaoyutai movement took shape, politics shifted direction because at that time, national identity in Taiwan was very unclear (and is, in fact, to this day), and so although people were appealing to nationalism, the national identity of this particular brand of nationalism was very confused. This meant that the wave of nationalism which rose up in the wake of the Diaoyutai Movement evolved into a new direction of national identity with the PRC (of course this also included a number of people within Taiwan). Thirty years later, there are still people in Taiwan who continue to participate in or start up actions to protect the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai, but with the same phenomenon of mixed up national identity as thirty years ago, to the extent that they prefer to cooperate with the PRC as an symbol of their wish to defend the Diaoyutai. Naturally, there is plenty of latitude for discussion over whether or not they are really safeguarding the interests of national sovereignty in this way. In other words, the Diaoyutai Movement had already caused a certain degree of harm to the R.O.C. government, but thirty years on, the current government has yet to come up with a forceful way to deal with this.
錯失爭取釣魚台主權的關鍵期
就形成釣魚臺主權的歷史原因而言，二次大戰以後日本領土的接收是最關鍵的因素。原本釣魚臺群島在日治時期隸屬於臺北州，只是在二次大戰結束以後，美軍佔領了琉球群島與釣魚臺列島，而接收臺灣的國民政府卻沒有立即對美方提出主權的要求，直到釣魚臺群島附近發現可能有巨量的石油蘊藏，其重要性才日漸凸顯，而隨著美國與日本針對琉球群島歸還問題舉行談判，釣魚臺主權的爭議也才正式浮上檯面。在這個過程中充分展現了中華民國政府對釣魚臺主權相對冷漠的態度，直到一九七○年代前後，才正式面對釣魚臺主權的爭議。縱使如此，進一步分析可以發現，不僅過去政府對釣魚臺，直到今日政府在回應釣魚臺相關主權爭議時，仍然沒有做好適當的準備工作，特別是在處理中華人民共和國主權宣示方面，如此，不僅可能持續國內原有的國家認同問題，而且在其影響下，亦可能造成政府對此問題的錯誤回應。
Missing the crucial period in which to fight for the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai
As for the formation of the historical factors behind the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai, the most important one was the acceptance of Japanese territories after the Second World War. Originally, during the Japanese occupation of Taiwan, the Diaoyutai Archipelago came under the jurisdiction of Taipei Prefecture. After the close of the Second World War, when U.S. troops were stationed on the Ryukyu and Diaoyutai Archipelagoes, the KMT government which had received Taiwan did not immediately demand that that the U.S. give them sovereignty, until it was discovered that there might be huge reserves of oil in the region of the Diaoyutai Archipelago. Its importance only then became apparent, and it was only when the U.S. and Japan then held talks to discuss the issue of handing the Ryukyu Archipelago back that the dispute over sovereignty formally surfaced. During this process, the R.O.C. government’s detached attitude towards sovereignty of the Diaoyutai came to the fore, and it wasn’t until the 1970s that there was officially controversy over the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai. Even so, if we go a step further and make an analysis, we find that it is not just the government’s past attitude towards the Diaoyutai; even the present government has yet to make appropriate preparations in answering the dispute over the Diaoyutai and their sovereignty, particularly in dealing with the sovereignty pronouncements of the PRC. So, there is not only the possibility that the original problem of national identity with Taiwan will continue: under its influence, it’s quite possible this will cause the government to make the wrong reactions to this problem.
Diaoyutai movement spreads fervently among students.
台灣與釣魚台群島的地緣與歷史關係
就釣魚臺群島的主權爭議而言，主要是攸關釣魚臺是附屬於臺灣或是附屬於琉球群島的問題。就大陸礁層角度來看，釣魚臺群島與臺灣是屬於連結的狀態，而與琉球群島之間則有相當深浚的海溝加以阻絕，就此而言，或許不足以充分證明釣魚臺主權屬於臺灣，然而搭配歷史的證據，以及日治時代的行政區劃，正可以證明，縱使在日本統治期間，日本政府也認為釣魚臺群島在行政區劃上亦屬於臺灣，這些都是政府在捍衛主權時相當強而有力的證據。相對地，中華人民共和國對此並無主張的權利，除非承認臺灣是中華人民共和國的一部份，否則便沒有主張與其合作，向日本爭取釣魚臺主權的可能。這是政府與國人在面對釣魚臺群島主權爭議時，必須特別留意的。
Geographical and historical connections between Taiwan and the Tiaoyutai
As for the dispute over sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Archipelago, the main issue is whether the Diaoyutai are attached to Taiwan or to the Ryukyu Archipelago. Looking at it from the perspective of the continental shelf, the Diaoyutai Archipelago and Taiwan are connected, but the Ryukyu and Diaoyutai Archipelagoes are separated from one another by a very deep oceanic trench. This perhaps is not sufficient evidence that the Diaoyutai should belong to Taiwan, but if we arrange the historical evidence, and the administrative divisions of the Japanese occupation, then we can prove that even during the period of Japanese rule, the Japanese government also believed that the Diaoyutai Archipelago belonged, by administrative district, to Taiwan. These are powerful pieces of evidence that the government can use to defend Taiwan’s sovereignty of the Diaoyutai. Conversely, the PRC has no rights or interests that it can argue for when it comes to this, unless they acknowledge that Taiwan is part of the PRC, otherwise the PRC has no standpoint from which it could work together with Taiwan and fight for the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai from Japan. This is something that the government and the people of Taiwan must watch out for when faced with the Diaoyutai dispute.
捍衛國家主權還是使國家失去主權？當然，釣魚臺主權的爭議囿於國際的現實，又不能採用武力方式解決，勢必需要冗長的國際舞臺抗爭才能得到較合理的解決，但是，此一問題如果變成日本與中華人民共和國的問題，則根本上並不符合我國的國家利益，也不合歷史的事實。就地理關係，就歷史關係而言，釣魚臺群島究竟應附屬於琉球群島或是臺灣才是問題的關鍵。相對的，凡是主張中國擁有釣魚臺群島主權的訴求，或是聯合中華人民共和國或所謂海外華人爭取釣魚臺主權，其前提便是以臺灣為中華人民共和國一部份，中華人民共和國有權代表臺灣對外爭取主權的印象。如此，究竟是捍衛國家主權還是使國家失去主權？這是攸關臺灣定位及利益的重大問題。回首三十年來釣魚臺的爭議，無論是政府或是人民務必要釐清釣魚臺主權歸屬的本質，否則輕率的選擇可能影響了國家長遠的發展，值得重視。
Defending national sovereignty or causing the nation to lose its sovereignty?Obviously, the dispute over sovereignty of the Diaoyutai is limited to international realities, and it cannot be solved by resorting to arms, and it will require long, drawn-out stands being made on the international stage before a relatively reasonable solution can be reached. However, if this issue becomes an issue between Japan and the PRC, then it will fundamentally not fit in with Taiwan’s national interests, nor the facts of history. As far as the geographical and historical connections are concerned, the Diaoyutai Archipelago, the key question is, in the final analysis, whether the Diaoyutai should be attached to the Ryukyu Archipelago or Taiwan. And conversely, whatever demands China makes arguing that it owns the Diaoyutai, or if the United People’s Republic of China or the so-called overseas Chinese fight for sovereignty of the Diaoyutai, their prerequisite is that Taiwan is a part of the PRC, and the PRC has the right to represent Taiwan’s foreign sovereignty struggles. In this way, in the end, is it defending national sovereignty or making the nation lose sovereignty? This is a weighty question for Taiwan’s position and its rights and interests. Looking back over this thirty-year long dispute over the Diaoyutai, it is imperative that the government and the people of Taiwan clear up the essence of whose authority the Diaoyutai should come under, otherwise a rash choice could influence the country’s long-term development: this is worth taking seriously.
Edited by Tina Lee/ translated by Elizabeth Hoile
(李美儀編輯／何麗薩翻譯)
