Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has suggested Australia is highly unlikely to support Taiwan’s push to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in a move likely to deeply disappoint Taipei .
Key Points:
- Taiwan and China have pushed to join the CPTPP which includes 11 Pacific countries
- Anthony Albanese says the deal is only for nation states
- The ABC understands that Taiwanese officials are unhappy with the prime minister’s comments
The regional trade pact includes 11 countries in the Pacific, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Japan.
China and Taiwan have been pushing to join the pact, with the Morrison government previously leaving the door open to support Taipei’s request.
But speaking at the APEC meeting in Bangkok, Albanese said the deal was only for “recognized” nation-states, rather than economies.
“The CPTPP is a relationship between nation-states that are recognized,” he said.
“Taiwan is represented here (in APEC) as an economy.”
Although Taiwan has a separate government from China, it is only recognized by 14 countries, including Guatemala and Tuvalu.
Beijing claims ownership of Taiwan and has been pushing to isolate it diplomatically, as well as to block its entry into world bodies and trade blocs.
However, Australia, like most nations, maintains unofficial relations with Taiwan, as well as a healthy trade relationship.
The Prime Minister’s statement also appears to be contradicted by the text of the CPTPP which does not state that nationality is a prerequisite for joining the CPTPP.
The section on accession to the CPTPP says that “any State or Separate Customs Territory may accede to this Agreement,” a definition that would clearly include Taiwan.
Benjamin Herscovitch of the Australian National University said that while all members of the CPTPP so far have been internationally recognized sovereign states, “there was no reason why Taiwan could not become a member of the CPTPP”.
“The Prime Minister was probably wrong. As he said himself, the Australian position has not changed,” he said.
Dr Herscovitch also said the Prime Minister’s comment was “bad timing” as it came “just three days after his meeting with President Xi Jinping”.
“There is a risk that his comments will look like a concession to the Chinese government. China does not want Taiwan in the CPTPP, and the prime minister’s comments are likely to be seen as a victory in Beijing,” he said.
“But there is nothing to suggest that the prime minister made these comments at the behest of President Xi.”
“The Prime Minister and his Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministers should make it clear that Australia remains open to Taiwan’s accession to the CPTPP. This message is particularly critical given that Taiwan’s accession would benefit Australia economically and strategically “.
Shadow Foreign Secretary Simon Birmingham said the Prime Minister’s statement was factually incorrect.
“Mr. Albanese does not seem to know or understand that Taiwan participates in the World Trade Organization as a full member, just like anyone else,” he said.
“Its membership in the CPTPP should not be linked to its status status, but should consider the merits of expanding the agreement, the importance of maintaining unity among existing members and whether it can fulfill the agreement’s high standards.”
Shadow Foreign Secretary Simon Birmingham says Mr Albanese’s comments put him “at odds” with Japan. (ABC News: Matt Roberts)
Senator Birmingham also said the prime minister’s comments put him “at odds” with Japan, which has indicated it is open to including Taiwan in the pact.
“Given the confusion created by Mr. Albanese’s erroneous explanation and the starkly different approach from a key CPTPP partner, Mr. Albanese needs to quickly clarify his remarks,” he said.
But Albanese suggested that the government’s adherence to the “One China” policy was behind its thinking about the CPTPP.
“There is bipartisan support for the one-China policy,” he said.
“We support the status quo in Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait. We do not want to see any unilateral action that alters that status quo.”