China’s ambassador to Australia has recently published an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald. There are several oddities of the opinion piece (which is probably why it is an opinion piece). But the most problematic is that the only mention of the ROC is that the PRC is its successor… the fact that the ROC was the government before the PRC and that it still exists is glossed over. The Cairo declaration is mentioned which was signed by the ROC but he makes out as if this was something the PRC agreed to.
I don’t believe Australia would go to war over Taiwan, unless required to under its defence arrangements with the United States.
In my opinion 10-15 years ago most Australian’s had a neutral to good opinion of China. I don’t think this is true anymore. China’s embassy over the last decade has increasingly felt it has the right to tell the Australian government what to do.
In 1945, the Chinese government announced it was resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan, and the ceremony to accept Japan’s surrender in Taiwan Province of the China war theatre of the Allied powers was held in Taibei (Taipei). From then on, China had recovered Taiwan de jure and de facto through a host of documents with international legal effect.
In 1949, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was founded, becoming the successor to the Republic of China, and the Central People’s Government became the only legitimate government of the whole of China. The new government replaced the previous regime in a situation where China, as a subject under international law, did not change, and China’s sovereignty and inherent territory did not change.
Seems a pretty straightforward statement of the Chinese position. The ROC may disagree.
I love the part where he mentions that Taiwan was part of China since ancient times but in reality China never really cared about Taiwan until like 1600s and it only became such important to them after 1949.
The biggest right to Taiwan belongs to the indigenous people that lived here for centuries before Europeans and Chinese came…
Not only that, but it’s also free press. Most Australians are smart enough to see through rubbish articles like that. The Australian government is counting on that. It wants to maintain the free press and let Australians see China how they want to see China
Free press is free press, notwithstanding the content. There is either freedom or censorship, so we must let even this rubbish be published alongside proper, rigourous and factual content.
It is the critical thinking and judgement of the free people to discern what is true and what not
Maintaining a free press hardly requires giving space on your pages to propaganda from state actors. The Chinese Communist Party isn’t some poor little individual having its right to free speech impinged on.
Tbh press in many countries is not free, the US in particular, too factional and partisan now.
In Italy too it’s too political, only local newspapers are rather free of political interference, but ofc don’t provide national or international coverage.
It sorta does require giving space to propaganda. If it is restricted then it is no longer a free press.
Interestingly, neither Australian law nor the constitution protects free speech. We actually have very few explicit and implicit legal rights and are the only democracy without a bill of rights.
The Australian constitution protects the freedom of political opinion (not to be confused with free speech). The Chinese embassy would probably be able to claim unconstitutional actions against the government/press if the printing of that article was refused or blocked as it could be seen as blocking the freedom of political opinion.
This is true. Journalists in Australia are restricted form reporting on offshore detention centres as well.
It’s hard to limit the free speech of the CCP when they have propaganda arms with pretty much unlimited budgets. They have their own TV channels, newspapers, etc. Choosing not to amplify their propaganda is not the same as restricting their free speech.
that is very interesting, however I guess the bulk of common law cases can make up for some implicit rights albeit not explicit like the few rights enumerated on the federal and state constitutions.
It might be problematic in case of autocratic developments in the country, but even with explicit and constitutionally protected rights when someone has the guns he rules and those are just words on toilet paper…
That is basically the underlying theory. Australia is still in the top ten of the freest countries in the world so it’s worked so far. When our constitution was written they felt that the Westminster System with a US style senate was enough to protect the rights of the states and the people. - I did an essay on rights in Australia with a comparison to the legal and constitutional rights of other countries for my high school law class. I won an award
Well this is the problem I guess. As long as our elections remain free and fair, things should keep prodding along well. Also the judicial system in Australia, while largely regarded fair, sides with the government more often than the judiciaries of other countries.
however Australia ratified the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where Articles 18–21 sanction the so-called “constitutional liberties” and spiritual, public, and political freedoms, such as freedom of thought, opinion, expression, religion and conscience, word, peaceful association of the individual, and receiving and imparting information and ideas through any media.
So at a supernational level these rights are somewhat recognised.
Those are also inline with our few constitutional rights. We have the explicit constitutional:
Right to trial by jury for indictable offences
Right to acquisition of property on just terms
Right to freedom of discrimination by state
Right to practice, or not practice, a religion
Right to vote
Right to freedom of trade between states
And an implied right to:
freedom of political expression (but not freedom of speech)
challenge the government
an impartial judiciary
And a handful of largely unimportant others.
I find law and constitutions fascinating. I would love to study them one day
I do too, even if I studied Economics at university my thesis was on the Commonwealth of Nations and how it could have worked out during the (at the time) Brexit discussions. At the end nothing came out, but I had to study quite in depth all the constitutional arrangements of the commonwealth, particularly the commonwealth realms. Fascinating.
I expect it from their public broadcasting arm–it’s more Red than dead Madame Mao’s panties.
Hawke stood up to China in terms of allowing students to stay in the country after 1989. Sir Joh formed very good relations with Japanese decades before lots of jurisdictions opened up to Asian investment. I think Australia will stand up to China while hopefully diversifying its commodity exports.
