Just to be clear, I don’t think freedom of the press means people are free to spread false information. Media organizations aren’t just platforms for everyone to say anything. Prior to the eras of social media and 24 hour news, the media have historically also acted like a curator and only publish things after injecting some perspective. It will report on what Russia and China said about the US, but will comment on it and provide proof where Communists’ claims got wrong. To let obvious falsehoods like “Taiwan has belonged to China since ancient times” publish to the public without being commented on, that’s not freedom of the press, that’s just being a mouth piece.
1 Like
Isn’t this the same knob who was talking about re-education camps, and how the Japanese are Australia’s true enemies as if the year was 1943?
Ummm I’m not sure about that exact situation but he is a knob. I’ve seen a few of his interviews and press conferences. He’s always a knob and very good at sticking to the CCP narrative precisely, even when it doesn’t make sense.
Typical politician too, can’t answer a question with a straight answer. I guess east and west politicians both have that in common
1 Like
It’s in the article too…oops.
The part where it undercuts his argument is that Australians are culturally and politically distinct from the United Kingdom, and became an independent country only in 1901. To put this in perspective, debatably, aside from 1945-1949, Taiwan has maintained far fewer cultural or political ties to China since 1895 than Australia did to the U.K. - I have often thought this.
Something that really frustrates me in Taiwan is how an article that has nothing to do with the US, has to make an unnecessary mention that the US agrees with xyz. Who gives a F, the article is about Australia, China and Taiwan.
So, today, many countries, including the United States, hold that sovereignty over Taiwan is “undetermined."- who cares what the US thinks, this isn’t about the US.
They seem to be using an unusual definition of “de facto”. Mostly, the Lion in Winter definition “Its got my troops all over it. That makes it mine” seems to be the standard, rather than “documents with international legal effect.”
Of course they may revert to that.
Red, Dead, Madame Mao’s Panties
Has a nice ring to it!
Australia’s journey to true independence is even longer than that. There were a series of british acts of parliament from 1900 through to 1986 that provided more piecemeal independence until the Australia Act 1986 when Australia gained full independence up until 1986 Australian citizens were still both Australian citizens and British Subjects, British could stand in the Australian Parliament, decisions from the state courts could be appealed to the british privy council and state governments could recommend people for british honours (knighthoods). Also, before 1986 the relationship between the individual states and the british crown was different with the british foreign and commonwealth office having a lot more say of the crowns ratificaction of state acts of parliament. As it was the foreign and commonwealth office consulting and providing recommendations to the crown rather than the state governors independently.
Also, Australian’s didn’t become Australian citizens until 1948, the Australian flag was not the official flag until 1958, and the Royal Australian Navy used the british white ensign until 1967.
1 Like
These kind of legalistic muddled issues regarding citizenship or insignia are common amongst ex colonies. It is an ongoing long term process of separation. As Australia and NZ left peacefully they can do the divestment piecemeal and yes they also have more favourable views of the British crown (not sure why half of their ancestors were shipped there in chains or economic refugees). Ireland, India and the United States got rid of those a lot quicker or almost.overnight.
HOWEVER it’s very interesting that Irish citizens with no commonwealth links whatsoever have significantly more rights in the UK than Australians or New Zealanders (and vice versa for British in Ireland). HKers also now have certain rights and yet there is no Hong Kong as we know it from the old days. So insignia at the end of the day are just that, insignia.
We can even look at the flag of Taiwan ROC and we can see how even though it is has not changed nor can it change , what it now represents has changed.
1 Like
This insight—that the political history of the non-Irish British settler dominions can be used to understand Taiwan—is new to me and seems very powerful.
I have been dimly aware that there are some things in Irish history that can be useful for understanding Taiwan. For example, it is my understanding that the Irish independence movement (Fenians) was in fact pretty marginal until suddenly it wasn’t. The great political issue in the late 19th century was home rule not independence. The Taiwanese independence movement is kind of similar to the Fenians in that it is mainly an idea supported by a somewhat marginal radical minority. But it definitely exists and is perhaps more powerful than its small numbers might suggest.
But comparing Taiwan to Australia, Canada, and New Zealand is even more interesting. It seems entirely possible to see recent Taiwanese history as a long period of peaceful self-decolonization. That has the merit of explaining why there are so many anomalies and inconsistencies like the flag, the status of PRC citizens, or the allusion to a commitment to re-unification in the preamble of the new Constitution (itself another compromise in that it is called ‘Additional Articles’).
Of course huge difference is that the UK was willing to see these dominions devolve away from it with the extremely important exception of Ireland (and even there the UK’s attitude was highly ambivalent).
It seems to me that Ireland is different than say Australia in that it was seen as a constituent part of the UK project for a very very long time. Its departure was the the last time the borders of the UK changed. A monumental change even if it is basically ignored by the British today. So it seems entirely reasonable to me that Irish citizens have unique privileges.
Anyway, thanks for this very helpful idea.
I was very struck by how close New Zealand clearly is with the mother country when I went there. Sort of Little England but with no class system. Brilliant in many ways.
I have never visited Australia but understand that it has a much more complicated relationship with the UK. It has always seemed to me that the Australian elites have deep emotional bonds to the mother country but the people (at least some) are far less enthusiastic. Is this a fair understanding?
The whole system of the so called Common Travel Area and the concept of Irish not being considered foreigners in the UK and British citizens likewise in Ireland is one of the compromises that had to taken to resolve the complex and messy affair of Irish independence and the unresolved question of Northern Ireland. The fact that there is still free movement of people across the whole island of Ireland is only now thanks to the CTA (which applies also the the crown dependencies of Man and Channel Islands) is one of the factors that has helped not reigniting the troubles after the departure of the UK from the EU.
Irish independence, which was attain first with the Irish Free State, still under the crown, was one of the first experiments by the Brits in decolonisation, so it was “imperfect”, and when Ireland achieved complete independence becoming a republic they really wanted to severe all formal links with the former overlords, so not even commonwealth membership. But the CTA arrangement is mutually beneficial, so that’s it, it doesn’t imply anything, it’s similar to the cross-Tasmanian agreement between Oz and NZ
2 Likes
I suppose. A big difference between Australia and New Zealand is that the indeginous people of New Zealand agreed to British rule in the treaty of Waitangi and in modern days the indigenous and the descendants of the British, and new immigrants live relatively harmoniously. In Australia new immigrants and the descendants live harmoniously but the indigenous are worse off in nearly every measurable outcome. Australia’s indigenous had British rule forced upon them.
Queen Elizabeth II was hugely popular in Australia and the republic referendum failed during her rein (there were many reasons for its failure but this is a notable one). King Charles doesn’t have the affection of Australians as Elizabeth did, but I think Australia will not move to republicanism if the UK and the Crown do not attempt to meddle in Australia’s affairs.
And the monarch has already shown restraint in meddling with Australian affairs by refusing to get involved when the governor general (the crowns representative in Australia. the highest office if Australia and an unelected position) sacked a prime minister.
So I guess you’re right that Australia has a complicated relationship with the UK. Australia sees itself as completely independent and expects to be treated as such, even by the UK. However Australia also recognises our history with the UK and is not willing to change its form of government.
It’s also worth noting that our national day is the 26th of January, the anniversary of the landing of the first fleet from Britain.
And there is no holiday for the anniversary of any of the moves towards independence, the passing of the Australia Acts being most notable. While many countries national day celebrate independence from the British
I wonder if it was inspiration for the trans-tasman travel arrangement?
1 Like
For a longtime Australians had the same rights to live in the UK…up to 1948 they were still british and even after then still had right to live there…but as movement of people from across the commonweatlh not just the dominons of Ca, Aus and NZ but other areas with different levels of population and diveristy became easier, the UK changed their immigration arrangements for commonwealth countries. Nowadays commonwealth citizens with a grandparent born in UK can get ancestry visas… which can lead to indefinate leave to remain (PR) and many Australians have a grandparent born in Ireland so can register birth there and get a passport. One leftover feature of empire is that non-UK commonwealth citizens in the UK can vote in UK general election and even stand in an election.
1 Like
It seems to me that fact that there was a referendum on becoming a republic even if it failed illustrates my sense about the difference between the Australian and NZ relationship to Britain and the Crown.
As an outsider, it does look like relations with the indigenous nations is something that sharply distinguishes NZ and Australia. Extremely important. Canada has also taken a very different approach.
Does it make any sense to bring South Africa into this as a fourth dominion that that became independent through a long process of decolonization both externally and internally that was very fraught but not that violent in the end. Or is SA just too different?
I think the loss of Hong Kong was more recent and more profound. As I wrote earlier when Australia federated in 1901 it was still a british country with british subjects, and the official flag was still the union flag. The change wasn’t very profound (it was more about self government) and Australia was still a part of the then British Empire… change happened slowly over the next 8 decades.
is