美國在台協會解密文件,以及台灣關係法防衛報告,告訴我們台灣人,美國維持駐軍10萬防衛台灣。

美國在台協會解密文件,以及台灣關係法防衛報告
[美國維持駐軍10萬防衛台灣]

這是美國國防部針對如何落實 [臺灣關係法] 向國會提出的報告概要(如附檔)

The TRA obliges us to maintain the United States' capacity to resist any resort to force or coercion that would jeopardize the security of Taiwan. This obligation is consistent with America's overall strateg* in the region, our commitment to peace and stability, and our regional military posture. The Administration's commitment to maintaining approximately 100,000 troops in the region for the foreseeable future is well-known and widely appreciated throughout the region. The presence of 100,000 U.S. military personnel represents the capabilities of the U.S. Eighth Army and Seventh Air Force in Korea, III Marine Expeditionary Force and Fifth Air Force in Japan, and the U.S. Seventh Fleet.

臺灣關係法賦予我們(美國國防部)維持美國對抗任何危及臺灣安全的武力或脅迫之能力。

此項義務包含美國在該區的所戰略、我們對和平穩定的承諾及我們的區域軍力態勢。行政當局承諾在該區維持10萬名部隊,以因應該區可預見之未來情勢。此10萬部隊軍力包括駐韓國的美國陸軍第8集團軍、第7支空軍、部署在日本的陸戰隊第3遠征軍與第5支空軍,以及美國第七艦隊。

 

台灣關係法(TAIWAN RELATIONS

ACT)第三條第二項:「美國總統和國會將依據他們對臺灣防衛需要的判斷,遵照法定程序,來決定提供上述防衛物資及服務的種類及數量。對臺灣防衛需要的判斷應包括美國軍事當局向總統及國會提供建議時的檢討報告
(The President and the Congress shall determine the nature and quantity of

such defense articles and services based solely upon their judgment of

the needs of Taiwan, in accordance with procedures established by law.

Such determination of Taiwan's defense needs shall include review by

United States military authorities in connection with recommendations

to the President and the Congress.)。」

=====

美國在台協會官方網站 原文連結處:
http://www.ait.org.tw/en/20001219-pentagon-report-on-implementation...

Pentagon Report on Implementation of Taiwan Relations Act (U.S. reaffirms commitment to Taiwan's defensive capability) (3390)

Title: Text: Pentagon Report on Implementation of Taiwan Relations Act (U.S. reaffirms commitment to Taiwan's defensive capability) (3390)

Translated Title:

Author:

Source:

Date: 20001219

Text: Although the People's Republic of China (PRC) "claims that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China and has reserved the right to use force to unify Taiwan with the mainland," the U.S. position is that "any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including boycotts or embargoes, [is] a threat to peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the U.S.," according to a report summary released by the Department of Defense.

The Department of Defense published an unclassified summary of the "Report to Congress on Implementation of the Taiwan Relations Act," which assesses the security situation in the Taiwan Strait, December 19.

In accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the United States actively monitors the security situation in the Taiwan Strait in order to adequately provide Taiwan with a "sufficient self-defense capability" consistent with U.S. security policy toward the region.

"The United States takes its obligation to assist Taiwan in maintaining a self-defense capability very seriously," the summary says. "This is not only because it is mandated by U.S. law in the TRA, but also because it is in our own national interest. As long as Taiwan has a capable defense, the environment will be more conducive to peaceful dialogue, and thus the whole region will be more stable."

According to the report summary, the United States supplies Taiwan with military hardware and addresses non-hardware capabilities -- including organizational issues and training -- to enhance Taiwan's capacity to absorb new military technologies.

In order to determine the appropriate defense mechanisms Taiwan needs, U.S. officials have focused on assessing the military options they believe Beijing might exercise against Taiwan, according to the report summary.

Possible scenarios include an invasion of Taiwan via air or sea; a blockade of Taiwan's commerce; or air or missile strikes on Taiwan's population, military assets or economic infrastructure.

"The fundamental question for assessment is whether the military balance is or is not satisfactory in relation to those U.S. goals," the report summary says.

The report summary acknowledged gaps in knowledge regarding the PRC-Taiwan military balance, but noted that "any assessment of a military balance would by its nature have major unresolved uncertainties."

Following are the texts of the introduction to and the executive summary of the report:

(begin text of introduction)

Report to Congress Pursuant to Public Law 106-113

Public Law 106-113, an act making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, states that the "Office of Net Assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, jointly with the United States Pacific Command, shall submit, through the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), a report to Congress no later than 270 days after the enactment of this Act which addresses the following issues:

(1) A review of the operational planning and other preparations of the United States Department of Defense, including but not limited to the United States Pacific Command, to implement the relevant sections of the Taiwan Relations Act since its enactment in 1979; and

(2) A review of evaluation of all gaps in relevant knowledge about the People's Republic of China's capabilities and intentions as they might affect the current and future military balance between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China, including both classified United States intelligence information and Chinese open source writing. The report shall be submitted in classified form, with an unclassified summary."

The report, submitted in response to Public Law 106-113, addresses relevant sections of the Taiwan Relations Act and gaps in knowledge regarding the current and future security situation in the Taiwan Strait. Specifically, the report addresses U.S. provision of defense articles and services to meet Taiwan's legitimate defense needs, U.S. capacity to respond to the use of force against Taiwan, and challenges associated with assessing the security situation in the Taiwan Strait.

(end text of introduction)

(begin text of executive summary)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPORT TO CONGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT

The TRA stipulates that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability." The TRA states that "the President and Congress shall determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles and services based solely upon their judgment of the needs of Taiwan, in accordance with procedures established by law." The TRA further asserts that "such determination of Taiwan's defense needs shall include review by United States military authorities in connection with recommendations to the President and the Congress." Section 2(b) states:

It is the policy of the United States to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States; to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; and to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan.

The United States takes its obligation to assist Taiwan in maintaining a self-defense capability very seriously. This is not only because it is mandated by U.S. law in the TRA, but also because it is in our own national interest. As long as Taiwan has a capable defense, the environment will be more conducive to peaceful dialogue, and thus the whole region will be more stable. The United States actively monitors the security situation in the Taiwan Strait, and provides articles and services to Taiwan to ensure it can maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. This section of the report will discuss these activities in more detail.

In assessing Taiwan's defense needs, the Department of Defense has dedicated significant resources over the past two decades to monitoring the security situation in the Taiwan Strait. We have an active unofficial dialogue with Taiwan's defense authorities to better understand their current capabilities and future requirements. Additionally, through engagement with the People's Republic of China (PRC), and dialogue with the People's Liberation Army (PLA), we gain clearer insights into Chinese military capabilities and intentions. We continue to improve our efforts in all areas to assess the security situation in the Taiwan Strait.

Through provision of carefully selected defensive articles and services, we have helped Taiwan maintain a sufficient capacity to defend itself. Among the defensive systems Taiwan has acquired from the U.S. in recent years are F-16 fighters, Knox-class frigates, M-60A tanks, and the Modified Air Defense System -- a Patriot system derivative.

We continually reevaluate Taiwan's defense posture to ensure that we make available to Taiwan such items as will provide a sufficient self-defense capability. Our arms sales policy aims to enable Taiwan to maintain a self-defense capability, while also reinforcing regional stability. We avoid introducing capabilities that would go beyond what is required for Taiwan's self-defense.

As part of our policy to ensure that we provide appropriate defensive capability to Taiwan, President Clinton in 1994 initiated a policy review that, among other things, expanded our non-hardware programs with Taiwan. These programs focused on such areas as defense planning, C4I, air defense, maritime capability, anti-submarine warfare, logistics, joint force integration, and training. These non-hardware programs serve multiple purposes. Functional non-hardware initiatives address many of the shortcomings in Taiwan's military readiness that were identified in the February 1999 DoD Report to Congress on the Security Situation in the Taiwan Strait. They allow Taiwan to better integrate newly acquired systems into its inventory and ensure that the equipment Taiwan has can be used to full effectiveness. These initiatives provide an avenue to exchange views on Taiwan's requirements for defense modernization, to include professionalization and organizational issues, and training. Exchanges and discussions enhance our ability to assess Taiwan's longer term defense needs and develop well-founded security assistance policies. Such programs also enhance Taiwan's capacity for making operationally sound and cost effective acquisition decisions, and more importantly, to use its equipment more effectively for self-defense.

The TRA obliges us to maintain the United States' capacity to resist any resort to force or coercion that would jeopardize the security of Taiwan. This obligation is consistent with America's overall strateg* in the region, our commitment to peace and stability, and our regional military posture. The Administration's commitment to maintaining approximately 100,000 troops in the region for the foreseeable future is well-known and widely appreciated throughout the region. The presence of 100,000 U.S. military personnel represents the capabilities of the U.S. Eighth Army and Seventh Air Force in Korea, III Marine Expeditionary Force and Fifth Air Force in Japan, and the U.S. Seventh Fleet.

As has repeatedly been stated publicly, it is the policy of the United States to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the U.S. We demonstrated our commitment to maintaining regional peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait by deploying two carrier battle groups to the region in response to provocative PRC missile exercises in 1996.

GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE REGARDING THE PRC-TAIWAN MILITARY BALANCE

This section of the report discusses gaps in our knowledge regarding the current and future security situation in the Taiwan Strait. By describing what a net assessment of the military balance in the Taiwan Strait would include and how it would be structured it suggests what kinds of gaps in our knowledge are most important. It should be noted that any assessment of a military balance would by its nature have major unresolved uncertainties.

The Content and Structure of a PRC-Taiwan Assessment

An assessment of the PRC-Taiwan balance would begin with an attempt to delineate the subject matter, i.e., who are the relevant parties, and what are the plausible contingencies of interest. The focus of an assessment depends on its intended audience. In an assessment for U.S. defense planners, we need to identify the U.S. goals at stake in this situation, and determine how to measure the adequacy of the military balance in view of those goals. A second section of the assessment would describe and compare key trends and asymmetries in the military capabilities of the parties to the balance. A third section would assess whether U.S. peacetime objectives -- deterring conflict and shaping the behavior of the parties -- are adequately served by the balance of capabilities. A fourth section would assess the likely outcome of conflict if deterrence fails, including both the immediate military result and the broader political effects of that result. Two more sections would summarize major findings and formulate the key strategic management issues that the assessment raises for top Defense officials. Since these final sections would mainly draw out implications from the earlier sections, the discussion of knowledge gaps in this report will be organized around the first four topics mentioned.

Defining the PRC-Taiwan Balance

The PRC claims that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China and has reserved the right to use force to unify Taiwan with the mainland if Taiwan declares independence, if Taiwan is occupied by a foreign country, if it acquires nuclear weapons, or if Taiwan indefinitely refuses the peaceful settlement of cross-Strait reunification through negotiation. U.S. policy opposes any use of force to settle this dispute. A net assessment must therefore focus on the military options that Beijing might exercise against Taiwan, and on the military capabilities relevant to the contingencies that those options would create. In addition to the forces of the PRC and Taiwan, we would need to consider the role of U.S. forces in deterring the use of force or in assisting Taiwan if deterrence fails. The Soviet Union was in the past another relevant actor, initially as an ally of the PRC and later as a competing focus of Chinese military attention. The possibility of a coinciding military crisis on the Korean peninsula would also shape PRC and U.S. calculations. Other regional countries should also figure in the analysis, at least insofar as their reactions to a Taiwan contingency would be important to China and the United States.

It appears that several broad classes of military contingency are possible. First, the PRC could launch an invasion of Taiwan (or an offshore island), using amphibious or other sea or air transported forces. Second, Beijing could try to impose a blockade on Taiwan's commerce as a means of coercing political concessions. Third, the PRC could try to coerce Taiwan by means of air or missile strikes on Taiwan's population, military assets, or economic infrastructure. Associated with each of these options would be some Chinese strateg* for avoiding, discouraging, forestalling, or reacting to a possible U.S. intervention on Taiwan's side.

An assessment of the military balance for U.S. defense planners must begin from actual or assumed U.S. goals. The fundamental question for assessment is whether the military balance is or is not satisfactory in relation to those U.S. goals. The overarching U.S. goal is to avoid any use or threat of force to resolve differences in the Taiwan Strait. Thus, our goals include that the PRC be persuaded against or deterred from attacking or threatening attack, that if a threat is made it is unavailing, and that if an attack is made it is unsuccessful. In the latter case, our goal would be that Taiwan defend itself without outside assistance -- or, as a fallback, that it defend itself long enough to permit outside assistance, and that the combination of Taiwan and U.S. forces defeat a PLA attack on Taiwan, should the U.S. decide to intervene.

Moreover, we have goals associated with the outcome of any conflict, apart from the primary goal of defending Taiwan against unprovoked attack. We would want any U.S. intervention to reassure other allies and friends and discourage other aggressions, strengthening or at least not weakening our future military relations in the region. Finally, we seek to avoid in peacetime the erosion of our capacity to assist Taiwan in the future.

From this starting point, an assessment would identify and analyze the trends and asymmetries that may change or affect our ability to achieve these goals given the variety of possible Chinese military operations; and then focus specifically on the adequacy of deterrence and the likely outcome of any conflict if deterrence fails.

Trends and Asymmetries

To assess the present and future military balance, we need to depict trends in those military capabilities most decisive for each of the conflict scenarios. Ideally, we would want to judge how each scenario would play out if it happened today, or some time in the next 5 or 10 or 20 years. Given the difficulty of making any absolute judgment on likely war outcomes, it is useful to determine at least the direction of any change in the situation: are China's or Taiwan's relative capabilities for these various scenarios getting better or worse? Accordingly, we would want to trace trends in capabilities over the past 20 to 40 years, as well as project those trends into the future.

A starting point is to track changes over time in the number, technical quality, and stationing of each party's weapons and equipment, including ground, air, sea, amphibious, air defense and missile forces. For the PRC and the United States, judgments would be needed on which part of the country's overall force could or would play a timely part in a Taiwan scenario; for Taiwan, all available forces would be considered likely to be engaged. We would also need to describe trends in each side's training, exercises, doctrine, and logistics, looking for indications of relative change in capability or changes in the kinds of military operations envisioned or emphasized. Training and doctrine will be important indicators of the actual competence of each side's military forces. For the United States, we would need to consider trends in forward deployment and basing patterns, airlift and sealift capabilities, and the political context that makes U.S. intervention more or less likely in fact, and more or less likely in the PRC's perception. Trends in other countries are also relevant, such as the shift over time from a Soviet-Chinese alliance, to a Soviet-Chinese competition, to a post-Soviet Russia with reduced military forces.

The focus of a study of trends would be to track relative changes in a manageable number of military capabilities that appear most important for deterrence and war outcomes. While tracing the development over time of each of these capabilities or competitions (e.g., "air vs. air defense"), we would also need to consider whether the list of which capabilities are most important is itself changing. We also need to identify changes over time in the vulnerabilities of each side that might facilitate the other side's operations.

Asymmetries to be considered are important differences between the forces, doctrines, geographical and political situations, and strategic and political calculations of the several parties to this conflict. Such asymmetries, some of which are obvious in the PRC-Taiwan case, strongly affect how a military "balance" between dissimilar actors should be assessed.

Shaping and deterrence

To judge whether the military balance adequately deters Beijing, we need to understand how the Chinese authorities assess the situation. Whether or not we or a hypothetical observer would think the consequences of their initiating a blockade, invasion, or strikes against Taiwan are promising or discouraging is not really sufficient for our purposes if China's rulers see it differently.

Similarly, our ability to influence Taiwan's security posture depends on understanding their assessments, including their assessments of our -- and of China's -- likely behavior and capabilities.

Contingency outcomes

We cannot expect to predict confidently the outcome of a military conflict. The best approximation would be to consider systematically a range of plausible scenarios, relying on war gaming and experienced military analysts to judge the likely outcome given the forces, levels of training, and operational methods of all parties. We would want to game the conflict that follows from each presumed Chinese operational plan (invasion, blockade, strike) not only for the present situation, but for the forces we project for the future; and the games should be repeated, with different players who would test a variety of operational plans and options.

Where are the Gaps in Knowledge?

For each of the major topics of assessment just outlined, there are a number of more specific subjects on which better information would be very useful. In some cases, we are unlikely ever to obtain exactly the information we would want. If some knowledge gaps cannot be corrected, it is at least advantageous to be aware that they exist. In general, three kinds of gaps stand out.

First, we need to know more about how the authorities in the PRC and Taiwan view their military and political situation -- in order to identify the most important conflict scenarios and hence the capabilities central to them; in order to assess whether the balance of forces adequately deters Chinese attack and reassures Taiwan; and in order to understand how both sides' calculations of priority, risk, and military capability would shape the course and outcome of a conflict. We are unlikely to be able to replicate their precise views on this military balance, but we probably can learn much more about both sides' ideas about statecraft, their approaches to the use of force, their perceived vulnerabilities, and their preferred operational methods, as well as about the political and military organizations that produce military assessments and plans. Second, as might be predicted, we are less knowledgeable about things that are less visible or tangible -- training, logistics, doctrine, command and control, special operations, mine warfare -- than we are about airplanes and surface ships. Third, although we can identify emerging methods of warfare that appear likely to be increasingly important in the future -- particularly missiles and information warfare-we cannot confidently assess how each side's capabilities will develop or the interaction of measures and countermeasures that these emerging military competitions will generate.

(end text of executive summary)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) NNNN

Product Name: WASHINGTON FILE
Document Type: TEXT
Keywords: TAIWAN; CHINA; REGIONAL SECURITY; TRA 01 KDIZOGLIO/PHU/RFH
Thematic Code: 01
New Thematic Code:
Language: ENGLISH
Word Count: 3390
Originating Team: 00121901.EPF
Accession Number:
File Indentifier:
Product Code:
Target Group:

台灣關係法防衛報告連結:twstrait_12182000.pdf

 

 

 

評論:

資料來源為AIT,由網路轉載。

(1)TRA台灣關係法是美國的國內法。

(2)台灣為什麼以「獨立關稅領域」名義加入國際貿易組織(WTO)?

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/tai-wan-wei-shen-me-yi-du-li

(3)AIT公佈的這份文件顯示美國國防部清楚告知美國國會,美國國防部有「義務」保護台灣,絕對不是協防臺灣如此簡單,然而是因什麼而有此「義務」必須安排10萬名各類美軍保護台灣,看來美國國防部與美國國會皆心知肚明所以無須多言。

 

美國國防部明言用「義務」來提醒擅用政治操作的美國國會,這個「義務」按本站觀察林何論述至今,推論就是美國總統委託蔣介石組織中國軍政府代理美國軍政府佔領台灣這塊日本皇土之軍事占領地,足見台灣與美國並非沒有任何關係。

 

中統爪耙子開口閉口不停謬稱說台灣絕對不是美國的占領地,而是蔣介石非法竊據台灣,鼓吹號召要本土台灣人發動革命,卻不敢說出只要是占領,就必須成立台灣民政府一事,蔣介石之中國軍政府不按國際戰爭占領法運作台灣民政府,本土台灣人就必須行使萬國公法之自衛權成立台灣民政府。

 

請參閱:

本土台灣人的自衛權利法源

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/5483808:Topic:11807

 

 

中統爪耙子拙劣技倆

(1)號召叫本土台灣人上街頭對抗蔣介石的中國軍政府而中統爪耙子不敢現身。

(2)號召叫本土台灣人上街頭對抗蔣介石的中國軍政府而中統爪耙子不敢親身做前鋒動手取命。

(3)明知叫本土台灣人上街頭對抗的是代理美國總統佔領台灣蔣介石的中國軍政府,中統爪耙子不敢說出台灣確實是被佔領狀態的事實。

(4)中統爪耙子想要不勞而獲,假借質疑蓄意稱要台灣民政府拿出美國軍政府的文件作證,待台灣民政府拿出文件時中統爪耙子再謊稱栽贓是假文件運作詆毀台灣民政府。

(5)中統爪耙子想要不勞而獲,不斷假借質疑要求台灣民政府要自己把與美國軍政府代表接洽的人士合照自拍交出以證,以免中統爪耙子哪天受命必須冒著臥底跟蹤卻被識破抓包情形發生。

 

中統爪耙子除了謾罵還是謾罵,但本站仍然期待中統爪耙子趕緊把收集的證據拿出來,鼓起勇氣到具有管轄權的法院按鈴提告,以證實你們絕非中統爪耙子。

 

還是你們自以為幾年前已經成為臺灣移民到美國的中國籍公民了,美國軍政府真正返台之際,至多飛到美國接受美國憲法下公民的保護即可?

 

但是,中統爪耙子觸犯戰爭法之總總行為,美國憲法能夠提供什麼保障?引渡受審將是可能發生的未來趨勢。

 

 

 

相關新聞:

2012-02-05 美稱無意東南亞設永久基地

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-02-05

 

2012-04-28 03:06 聯合新聞網 駐沖繩美軍再整編 9千人將調離

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-04-28-03-06-9

 

2012-05-01 清泉崗美軍足跡館 見證美軍在台歷史

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-01

 

2012-05-01 清泉崗美軍足跡館見證美軍在台歷史

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/xn/detail/5483808:Topic:18776

 

2012-05-02 20:42 今日新聞網 我方部署太平島防空飛彈 AIT出面阻攔

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-02-20-42-ait

 

2012-05-03 東森新聞 關鍵時刻之4 小聲點 那是我們的島

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-03-4

 

2012-05-04 東森新聞 關鍵時刻之3 南海石油的秘密基金

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-04-3

 

2012-05-07 台灣民政府 今年要發行護照

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-07-1

 

2012-05-11 BBC中文網 台灣外交部稱太平島為固有領土

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-11-bbc

 

2012-05-15 自由時報 中彰投B4版 台灣民政府首次刊登廣告

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-15-b4

 

2012-05-20 中華民國第十三屆總統、副總統就職典禮...不過這面是什麼旗?

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-20

 

2012-05-20 中華民國第十二屆總統、副總統就職典禮...遭質疑本來就有掛?

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-20-2

 

2012-05-20 深化關係 美國會團抵台賀馬總統連任

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-20-3

 

2012-05-22 馬就職國旗「變裝」 遭批四不像

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-22-1

 

2012-05-22 美軍機停留過夜 早有前例

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-22/showLastReply

 

2012-05-22 美軍機停留過夜 早有前例

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-22

 

2012-05-23 媒体披露 美國正擬定從韓國撤僑計劃

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-23

 

2012-05-24 美政府出狠招 向孔子學院教師簽證開刀

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-24

 

2012-05-03 白日不見了! 太平島紀念碑烏龍國徽

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/video/2012-05-28

 

2012-05-28 有國旗身分證 他們是「台灣民政府」

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-28-1

 

2012-06-03 6成艦隊 駐太平洋 美海軍重心 將移往亞洲

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-06-03-6

 

2012-06-08 軍演縮水 5百磅彈變25磅 F-16機砲也省下了「怎麼作戰」

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-06-08-5-25-f-16

 

 

相關事件:

2012-05-04 USMG Travel Documents for the People of Taiwan

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-04-usmg-travel-docu...

 

2012-05-04 本土台灣人赴美與週遊國際免簽證時代即將來臨

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-05

 

2012-05-07 台灣民政府公告

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-07

 

2012-05-12【台灣民政府】TCG參與【沖繩回歸40周年紀念大會】

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-12-tcg-40

 

2012-05-13【台灣民政府】TCG參與【沖繩回歸40周年紀念大會】會後沖繩行程

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-13-tcg-40

 

2012-05-14 臺灣民政府將在日本沖縄県(琉球) 設立辦事處 (出張所) - 中央組織部

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-14

 

2012-05-15 自由時報 中彰投B4版 台灣民政府首次刊登廣告

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-15-b4

 

2012-05-17 台灣民政府TCG參與【沖繩回歸40周年紀念大會】日本議會歷史見證

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-17-tcg-40

 

2012-05-18 台灣民政府桃園會館直升機停機坪已經完工

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-18

 

2012-05-19 【活動預告】2012-05-20 歡迎光臨臺灣民政府TCG 攤位 (臺灣傳統週園遊會)

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-20-tcg

 

2012-05-20 德國護照 Germany passport 1933-1945

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/germany-passport-1933-1945

 

2012-05-20 美國軍政府發行暫時旅行證件給德國 Temporary Travel Document for Germany

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-20-temporary-travel...

 

2012-05-20 臺灣民政府駐美代表處參加一年一度【臺灣傳統週】集錦

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-20-1/showLastReply

 

2012-05-27 臺灣民政府TCG 每月座談會/洛杉磯-美國

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-27-tcg

 

2012-05-28 自由時報 台中以北(分佈各版) 台灣民政府首次刊登廣告

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-28

 

2012-05-28 蘋果日報 全台灣(分佈各版) 台灣民政府首次刊登廣告

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-05-28-2

 

2012-06-06 聯合報 全台灣(A8版) 台灣民政府首次刊登廣告

http://freetaiwan.ning.com/forum/topics/2012-06-06-a8

 

 

 

檢視次數: 1125

回覆

© 2017   Created by Free Taiwan.   管理小組

成員徽章  |  報告問題  |  服務條款

ブログパーツUL5