"Taiwangate" was a scandal which erupted in the world press in April 2002, involving a huge US$ 100 million "slush fund" put together by the ROC government. The fund was reportedly used to finance a wide variety of lobbying , propaganda, and influence peddling schemes, with the goal of manipulating U.S. policy on arms sales to the Republic of China Ministry of National Defense (ROC MND) on Taiwan."Taiwangate"是一個在2002年4月爆現在世界新聞輿論上的醜聞，涉及一個由中華民國政府籌設的一億美元之巨大"賄賂基金"。據報導，該基金是運用來資助各種遊說，宣傳和影響販售的計劃，目標在於操縱美國對中華民國國防部（台灣）軍售的政策。
As reported in the media, the fund's major concern was to obtain expanded military sales to Taiwan, including the acquisition of newer models of fighters, attack helicopters, submarines, frigates, missiles, radar, and other military hardware. A secondary concern was to keep the operations of the ROC MND out of the line of U.S. Congressional inquiry.據媒體上的報導，該基金主要關注的是獲得擴大對台軍售，包括收購較新型戰鬥機，攻擊直升機，潛艇，護衛艦，導彈，雷達以及其他硬體軍備。次要關心的是使中華民國國防部的運作超出美國國會的審查。
Media reportage regarding Taiwangate cooled off considerably after three years, only to begin simmering again in the summer of 2013, with the revelations of the mistreatment and even torture of new draftees in Taiwan. Increasing numbers of disclosures on social media websites stimulated Taiwan and U.S. reporters and investigators to begin delving into the operations of the ROC MND in more detail. Some of their important findings are summarized in this video for the benefit of the English speaking audience.有關Taiwangate的報導，於三年後大大冷卻了，但因新役男被不當對待及虐待之事件的揭發，此醜聞才在2013年夏天開始再度爆發。越來越多的相關新聞在社會媒體網站上被揭露，促使了台灣和美國記者和調查人員開始探索中華民國國防部的運作的更多細節。他們的一些重要的發現都總結在這部影片裡，有利於講英語的觀眾來觀看。
The ROC in Taiwan has mandatory military conscription for males aged 19 and above. Estimates of the number of new draftees called up for this mandatory military conscription exceed 155,000 per year. According to the best information available, mandatory military conscription by the ROC regime in Taiwan began in 1949, the same year that the ROC moved its central government to Taiwan.中華民國在台灣強制對19歲及以上的男性徵兵。估計每年超過155,000新役男因強制性徵兵被召集。根據可獲得的最佳信息，中華民國政權在台灣強制徵兵開始於1949年，同年，中華民國將它的中央政府遷至台灣。
In 1949, Taiwan was still under military occupation. Is it permissible for the governing authorities in occupied territory to impose military conscription policies over the people residing within their territorial boundaries? Article 51 of the Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War confirms that the answer to this question is "No."1949年，台灣仍處於軍事佔領。治理當局在被佔領的領土對其居住於領土範圍內的人民施以徵兵政策是被允許的嗎？「日內瓦第四公約關於戰時對平民之保護第51條」證實了這個問題的答案是"否"。
Did Taiwan later become de jure Chinese territory? As most people know, Japanese sovereignty over Taiwan only ended with the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) of April 28, 1952. However, Taiwan was not awarded to China. In speaking of the SFPT, U.S. Dept. of State documents of Oct. 14, 1954 stated that: 之後台灣有在法律上成為中國領土嗎？如同大多數人都知道，日本對台灣的主權是在1952年4月28日的舊金山和平條約（舊金山和約）生效才結束。但台灣並沒有給予中國。在談到在舊金山和約，1954年10月14日的美國國務院文件指出：
"Japan has renounced its own right and title to the islands, but their future status was deliberately left undetermined, and the U.S. as a principal victor over Japan has an interest in their ultimate future." 日本已放棄自己對這些島嶼的權利和所有權，而且其未來地位是故意留下未定的。而美國作為打敗日本的主要勝利者，在台澎的最終未來裡有其利益存在。
By moving its central government outside of China's national territory in December 1949, the ROC had become a government in exile, which is by definition, a non-sovereign entity. Moreover, international law does not recognize any actions, methods, or procedures whereby a government in exile can become recognized as the lawful government of its current locality of residence. 中華民國於1949年12月將其中央政府遷出中國國土，即已成為一個流亡政府，很明顯的是一個非主權實體。此外，國際法不承認一個流亡政府藉由任何動作，方法或程序，使其成為目前居住所在地所承認的合法政府。
Is it permissible for non-sovereign nations to impose military conscription policies over the people residing within their territorial boundaries? U.S court decisions have confirmed that the answer to this question is "No."非主權國家對其居住於領土範圍內的人民施以徵兵政策是被允許的嗎? 美國法院的判決已確認，這個問題的答案是"否"。
The historical background to these court decisions is given as follows: 這些法院判決的歷史背景如下：
In America before 1862, combat duty was always voluntary. When President Lincoln enacted a military draft in 1863, it had let to riots, and Chief Justice Taney drafted an opinion (never delivered; there was no case before the Court) denying that such legislation was constitutional. Taney reasoned that the Constitution did not give Congress the authority to draft men into service. Instead, in the Chief Justice's view, the Constitution said the Congress could raise and regulate armies, and it gave the federal government authority over the states' militias in certain circumstances. As the Continental and Confederation Congresses had raised armies by requisitions on the states and through economic inducements, Taney reasoned, that was the extent of Congress's power to "raise" armies. 在美國，1862年之前，戰鬥職責總是自願的。當林肯總統於1863年頒布了徵兵制度，造成了暴動，且首席大法官托尼寫了一份意見書（後來並未發表過;由於沒有相關案例在法院受審）認為，這樣的立法是不符合憲法的。托尼的理由是憲法沒有賦予國會對人徵兵的權力。首席大法官反而認為，憲法說，國會可以招集和規範軍隊，在特殊情況下，它給了聯邦政府支配各州民兵部隊的職權。如早期殖民時代 "大陸國會" 和 "聯邦國會" 過去因需要並透過經濟誘因在各州招集軍隊，托尼認為這就是國會對招集軍隊的權力範圍。
In the Selective Draft Law Cases (1918), the defendants made arguments similar to Taney's. They also made reference to the Thirteenth Amendment, which had been ratified since Taney's death and which said that only convicts could be subjected to involuntary servitude. 在 "選擇性徵兵法律案件"（1918年），被告提出的論點與托尼的相似。他們還參考了美國憲法第十三條修正案，此修正案在托尼死後被批准，提到是只有罪犯者可受到非自願奴役。
Chief Justice Edward D. White's decision for the Court used a very expansive interpretation of the Constitution to argue that because foreign governments conscripted soldiers, this power was obviously one of the attributes of a national sovereign government. White said that citizenship entailed the "supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation."結果，首席大法官愛德華•D•懷特非常廣泛地詮釋憲法，給了一個結論，就是由於外來政府徵召士兵，所以這種力量顯然是一個國家主權政府的屬性之一。懷特大法官說，保護國家的權利和榮譽是公民所應承擔之至上和崇高的職責。
This was modified somewhat by a 1971 United States Supreme Court decision, Gillette v. United States, which established comprehensive criteria for being classified as a conscientious objector. 後來，此論點在1971年美國最高法院對吉列特訴美國的案件所做的判決裡稍微被修改，此判決給歸類有良心的拒絕者一個全面的標準。
The ROC in Taiwan is a government in exile, and not a sovereign nation. Moreover, as Taiwan was not awarded to the ROC in the post WWII SFPT of 1952, and as Taiwan has never been incorporated into ROC national territory via the procedures in the ROC Constitution (see Article 4), it would be very difficult to say that military conscription laws in Taiwan, based on the authority of the ROC Constitution, are legal. 在台灣的中華民國是一個流亡政府，而且不是一個主權國家。此外，因在1952年二戰後舊金山和約並沒有將台灣授予中華民國，且因從沒通過中華民國憲法（見第4條）程序將台灣併入中華民國國土，所以依據中華民國憲法的權利，徵兵法在台灣，很難說是合法的。
Indeed it can be argued that there are no clauses in the SFPT, the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint PRC-USA Communiques, the One China Policy, or any pronouncements or Executive Orders issued by the U.S. Commander in Chief since the late 1940s up to today which can be interpreted (1) to authorize the operations of a Republic of China government structure in Taiwan, or (2) to respect the Republic of China Constitution as the true "organic law" of Taiwan. 事實上，我們可以說，在舊金山和約，台灣關係法，中美三個聯合公報，一個中國政策，或自1940年代末至今由美國三軍總司令所發出的任何聲明或行政命令沒有任何條款可以被用來解釋（1）授權架構一個 "中華民國政府" 在台灣運作或（2）視中華民國憲法為台灣真正的"組織法"。
This are very serious issues. The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) stipulates that the United States should "provide" or "make available" military hardware to the Taiwan governing authorities. For a non-sovereign entity like Taiwan, it would make sense for the United States to provide all necessary personnel and military hardware directly, and to establish U.S. military bases throughout the island. Such arrangements could be based directly on Article 4(b) of the SFPT, which gives a U.S. federal agency, the United States Military Government (USMG), de jure jurisdiction over Taiwan. A strong U.S. military presence in Taiwan would also protect U.S. interests in the western Pacific area. 這些是非常嚴重的問題。台灣關係法（TRA）規定，美國應該"提供"或"可供使用的"軍事硬體給台灣執政當局。像台灣這非主權實體，由美國直接提供一切必要的人員和軍事裝備以及建立整個島嶼的美軍基地是最有道理的。這樣的安排是可以直接按照舊金山和約第4條（b），其中規定美國一個聯邦機構 "美國軍事政府（USMG）"，對台灣擁有法理上的管轄權。一個強大的美國軍事力量於台灣，也會保護美國在西太平洋地區的利益。
"As one example of the activities of the ROC's Ministry of National Defense that threaten the economic interests and foreign relations of the United States, the Spratly Islands' dispute may be mentioned. All of the Spratly Islands are claimed by the People's Republic of China and Vietnam; parts of them are claimed by Malaysia and the Philippines. The interests of the United States in avoiding a military conflict in this area, and/or in negotiating the peaceful settlement of territorial claims of the different nations are continually frustrated by the fact that the ROC regime on Taiwan claims sovereignty over these islands as well, even though the Spratly Islands fall outside of the geographical definition of "Taiwan" in the TRA." 在此可順便提及南沙群島的爭議與中華民國國防部在該海域的眾多行動，這些行動威脅到美國的經濟利益和外交事務。中國和越南聲稱擁有南沙群島；馬來西亞和菲律賓聲稱擁有部分南沙群島。即使南沙群島落於台灣關係法對台灣的地理定義之外，ROC在台灣的政權也宣稱擁有南沙群島主權，此舉使美國在設法避免這海域軍事衝突和對不同國家的領土主張和平解決之協調不斷受挫。
With the United States' announced Pivot to Asia strategy, and with reference to the content of the SFPT, there should be no hesitation in moving U.S. military personnel and equipment into Taiwan. Otherwise, we need to step back for a moment and consider how to justify the "sale" of military hardware to the ROC regime based on all relevant criteria. Most importantly, it must be established that MILITARY CONSCRIPTION in Taiwan rests on a firm legal basis. 因美國公佈將軍事主軸移至亞洲的戰略，並根據舊金山和約的內容，所以應該毫不猶豫地將美軍人員和軍事設備進駐台灣。否則，我們需要退一步，認真考慮如何證證實對中華民國政權銷售軍備硬體是符合所有相關的標準。最重要的是，在台灣徵兵必須證明係建立於一個穩固和合法的法律基礎。
In other words, all those concerned with Taiwan's future are currently faced with the question of: 換句話說，目前所有關心台灣前途的人民正面臨的問題是：
How can the United States sell military hardware to a non-sovereign entity which is not authorized to conduct military recruitment efforts and not authorized to maintain a military presence in its headquarters locality? 美國怎可以出售軍備硬體給不被授權進行徵兵工作及無權在其總部所在地保有軍事行動存在的一個非主權實體？
Torture of Conscriptees? 新兵的折磨？
In July 2013, the 24-year-old draftee Hung Chung-chiu died following an arduous punishment drill in Taiwan's searing summer heat. Corporal Hung was just three days short of completing his military service when he was reportedly put in solitary confinement. He was later subjected to a series of tough punishment exercises, and doctors say he died of organ failure brought on by severe heatstroke. 2013年7月，24歲的役男洪仲丘在台灣灼熱的暑氣下之一連串嚴峻的處罰後去世。據說當下士洪被單獨監禁時，只差三天就完成他的兵役。他後來遭受了一系列強硬的懲罰運動，醫生說他死於嚴重的中暑所引起的器官衰竭。
Newspaper reports estimate the number of deaths of new draftees in the ROC military at 300 per year. Some reporters have claimed that this rate of deaths, calculated in percentage terms, is greater than the yearly losses suffered by US troops in Afghanistan. (These reporters' claims have not yet been completely verified.) 報紙報導估計每年在中華民國軍隊的新役男死亡人數是300人。有些記者聲稱，這樣的死亡率，按百分比計算，大於美軍在阿富汗每年遭受的損失。 （這些記者的計算還沒有被完全證實。）
Typically, no formal investigation into the deaths of new draftees is conducted. The investigation regarding the death of Hung Chung-chiu was quite unprecedented. 通常，新役男的死亡都沒有進行正式調查。關於洪仲丘死亡的調查似乎是前所未有的。
Obviously, the emotional distress for the families of the new draftees entering the ROC military every year is also significant. They worry that their sons may also be sent home in an urn, as a mere pile of ashes. 顯然，每年進入中華民國軍隊的新役男家屬情緒的困擾也是重大的。他們擔心他們的兒子會變成一堆灰燼被裝在甕裡送回家。
Since the early 1950s the legal status of Taiwan has been continually characterized as "undetermined," and beginning in the 1970's US government policy toward Taiwan has been characterized as "strategic ambiguity." But, does this "strategic ambiguity" apply to the human rights of the native Taiwanese people as well? 自從1950年代初台灣的法律地位一直都被描繪為"未定"，並開始在1970年代美國政府對台政策一直被描繪為"策略性模糊"。但請問，是否"策略性模糊"也要用於形容本土台灣人的人權呢？
Let us not forget that the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) discusses "human rights" in some detail, see 22 USC 3301 (c) Human rights 我們不要忘記，台灣關係法（TRA）討論"人權"的一些細節，請參閱22 USC 3301（c）Human rights
Nothing contained in this chapter shall contravene the interest of the United States in human rights, especially with respect to the human rights of all the approximately eighteen million inhabitants of Taiwan. The preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan are hereby reaffirmed as objectives of the United States. 本章中包含的任何內容均不得違反美國在人權方面的努力，尤其是對於所有的約1800萬台灣居民的人權。全體台灣人民的人權保護和改善，現重申為美國的目標。
In terms of human rights, the question we continually come back to is: 在人權方面，我們不斷地要問的問題是：
Where is the legal basis for the Republic of China in Taiwan to maintain a Ministry of National Defense on Taiwanese soil, and to impose mandatory military conscription policies over the local Taiwan populace? 中華民國是根據哪裡的法律基礎在台灣的土地上維持一個國防部，並對當地台灣民眾施以強制徵兵政策？
Certainly, military conscription into a rebel Chinese regime (of questionable legal validity) is a gross violation of the human rights of all native Taiwanese persons. It is therefore clear that the native Taiwanese people are entitled to a detailed answer to this military conscription question. 當然，被徵兵至一個（其法律效力被質疑的）的中國叛軍政權是嚴重侵犯了所有本土台灣人的人權。因此，很顯然地，本土台灣人都有權利對這個徵兵問題獲得一個詳細的回答。
U.S. Executive Branch officials and members of Congress should call for a moratorium on all military conscription activities by the ROC regime in Taiwan ASAP until the exact legal basis for such policies (under international law) can be firmly established. 美國行政部門官員和國會議員應該盡快要求在台灣的中華民國政權所有的徵兵活動暫停，直到這些徵兵政策可確定準確的國際法依據。
Download this file in Microsoft Word (.docx) format
Copyright © Taiwan Democratic Advocate All Rights Reserved
Sponsors:
