臺海兩岸政府在達荷美的外交競逐(1964-1966)

在1960年代兩岸的外交爭奪中，達荷美是一個較特別的例子，臺海兩岸政府的外交官在達荷美同時並存，僵持半年之久。初時，達荷美政府的確採行雙重承認，因而這一個案例顯得相當獨特，甚至於有國際法學者將此案例視為國際上對兩岸「雙重承認」的先河。這樣的觀點，凸顯了中華民國政府戰後外交立場，是否仍存在「漢賊不兩立」，一如許多論者所指摘的爭議？國際法學界之所以有此論說，實乃未回到檔案中重新探查之故。本文將以目前收藏於中央研究院近代史研究所檔案館與國史館之「外交部檔案」為主，重建史實。本文發現，1960年代在第三世界國家紛紛獨立的混亂局面下，「冷戰」已非僅只是美蘇兩大集團間的衝突，另有一股宣稱獨立的第三勢力存在於國際間，立足於國際的行事風格殊異，部分國家甚至擺明採行「兩個中國」政策。然而，臺海兩岸政府並未變更以「正統」為主的外交思維，表現彈性的是策略方面的調整與結盟，或是藉由其國內親華勢力，適應該國國內局面，甚至拉攏軍方，以獲取本國的最大利益，呈現國際社會中冷酷而赤裸的現實。「漢賊不兩立」僅適用於官式外交，一般交流與對該國官方的爭取上，則可說是「漢賊兩立」，或者至少是「漢賊並存」的。

關鍵字

達荷美；兩岸關係；漢賊不兩立

並列摘要

This is a special case, the ROC and the PRC diplomatic missions stayed in the same country at the same time lasting almost half year, in the 1960s. In the beginning, the Dahomey authority tried to recognize the TWO CHINAs, so some of the international-law scholars take this case as an example as ”dual-recognition”, on recognizing separating countries which claim the overlapping sovereign field. This point of view provokes the argument, both cannot coexist in the same place (漢賊不兩立), on the creed of the ROC's diplomatic policy after 1949. Some of the international-law scholars might misunderstood the situation in Dahomey from 1964 to 1966, so this article will tell the whole story, based on the archives of MOFA of the ROC, to gain a clear idea of what took place. This survey shows that the face of the COLD WAR had changed after the movement of decolonization on 1960. These newly independent countries, more than 20, became actors on the international affairs. Some of them proclaimed that they would not allied with the poles of COLD WAR, the USA nor the USSR, form the day as independencies. Some of them took the diplomatic policy for recognizing all countries in the world, no matter what system of government they are, so they took TWO CHINAs policy as well. However, both of the ROC and the PRC government would not shift ”both cannot coexist in the same place” position on the foreign affairs. Consequently, one of the ROC or the PRC governments tried to enroll some of the politicians, soldiers or masses in other countries to maintain the official relation, another one tried to enroll other politicians, soldiers or masses for making official relation. In short, the process is straddle, but the consequence on official, limited in the legitimism concept, should be undoubtedly ”both cannot coexist in the same place”.