Lawmakers from two Australian political parties made a joint proposal that the Australian parliament pass a motion clarifying that UN Resolution 2758 concerns only China’s representation at the UN and has nothing to do with Taiwan.
That is to say: Taiwan belongs to Taiwan, and China belongs to China. There is one country on one side of the Taiwan Strait, and another country on the other.
In the past, Australia was closer to China, being its largest trade partner for mining and mineral resources.
China used to astound other countries by propping itself up as an “infrastructure addict,” touting its never-ending construction, which only expanded its real-estate bubble. It did this by importing massive amounts of coal and iron ore from Australia.
At the time, a seemingly endless stream of ships heavily laden with coal and iron embarked from ports in Australia’s Northern Territory, sailing along a route that stretched thousands of kilometers from the continent country through Southeast Asian waters toward Chinese harbors.
These shipments caused Australia’s economy to become overly reliant on China. However, Australia is no longer asleep at the wheel. Not only has it realized China’s real-estate and infrastructure bubbles are bursting, but it also recognizes that Beijing is a menacing force against human rights and democratic liberties and freedoms.
Australia is an important force among the great powers spanning the Pacific in countering and balancing China’s expansionist intentions. Alliances are forming on the margins of the oceanic expanse, such as the Quad — the US, Japan, India and Australia — which is working to contain China.
The US, the UK and Australia have formed the AUKUS agreement to enhance defense and technology cooperation.
Through technological support from the US and the UK, Australia is building a fleet of new-generation nuclear submarines, and is already maintaining and repairing US submarines.
In terms of foreign relations on the margins of the Pacific, Australia is the first line of defense, intercepting China’s infiltration of island nations across the vast waters.
Australia not only contributes to democratic power by serving as a logistical rear base for the US to keep China in check in the Pacific, but plays a proactive role by speaking up for Taiwan. Through a unanimous voice, Canberra is clarifying its international position on Taiwan’s national status.
Lawmakers in Canberra said: “That UN Resolution 2758 of Oct. 25, 1971 does not establish the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) sovereignty over Taiwan and does not determine the future status of Taiwan in the UN, nor Taiwanese participation in UN agencies or international organizations.”
The US has strongly spoken up on this issue on multiple occasions. The UN’s resolution only pertains to China and has no relation to Taiwan or its territories. Washington has unequivocally and consistently clarified the US’ “one China” policy: Taiwan’s affairs are the purview of Taiwanese and China has no right or standing to interfere.
The EU not long ago also passed a statement opposing China’s warping, twisting and manipulation of UN Resolution 2758, which Beijing uses to block Taiwan’s membership in the UN or from participating in UN-related agencies and functions. By rectifying the UN resolution, Canberra is fighting for Taiwan to reobtain international recognition. This is a giant step forward.
Moreover, because of Australia’s special position, it not only represents itself, but also the Quad and AUKUS.
Taiwan is Taiwan, and it is not subordinate to China. This is already the consensus among the global family of democracies. With Australia giving Taiwan so much support, as its latest actions show, Taiwanese are better able to advocate more vociferously that Taiwan belongs to Taiwanese, and that our country is not a Chinese matter.
Tommy Lin is chairman of the Formosa Republican Association and director of the Taiwan United Nations Alliance.
Translated by Tim Smith
Having the title doctor or the letters PhD after your name carries the connotation of having broad knowledge. In reality, while people with doctoral degrees often possess highly specialized expertise and might be held in high esteem among their peers, they are likely virtually unknown to the general public. In Taiwan, people with doctorates are common, while probably fewer than one out of 100 of them could truly make a name for themselves. Of course, there are exceptions. Those who gain media exposure can easily become well-known, especially if they are involved in politics. However, many fail to live up to
Over the past few years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a visible change in the EU’s approach to Taiwan. I call this phenomenon European hype about Taiwan. The change is noticeable at both the EU and member-state levels, with parliaments and Central Europe leading the way. The best example is the fact that Taiwan is finally mentioned in various EU documents (a real novelty compared with the past 30 years), in addition to statements by European politicians, an increase in bilateral contacts, a growing awareness of Taiwan’s importance and its contribution not only to European prosperity, but
Recent Taiwan-focused literature in the Philippines has mostly been about the risks to the 150,000 Filipino workers based in the country and Manila’s possible military entanglement in a Taiwan contingency due to the Philippines’ mutual defense pact with the US. While these geopolitical quandaries are consequential, due regard should also be given to how relations developed between the Philippines and Taiwan, especially after then-president Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration initiated the New Southbound Policy in September 2016. The regional policy’s rationale is similar to South Korea’s New Southern Policy, launched in 2017, which aims to hedge against overdependence on China and develop
The Chinese government’s sensitivity toward the Dalai Lama is a complex issue rooted in historical, political and cultural factors. Understanding this sensitivity requires delving into the intricate relationship between China and Tibet, as well as the broader implications of the Dalai Lama’s influence. The Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, fled Tibet in 1959 following a failed uprising against Chinese rule. Since then, he has lived in exile in India, continuing to advocate for the rights and autonomy of the Tibetan people. Despite his public stance of seeking genuine autonomy rather than full independence for Tibet, the Chinese government