8月25日，驻澳大利亚大使肖千在澳大利亚全国性主流媒体《澳金融评论报》纸质版和网络版发表署名文章《坚持一个中国原则，维护地区和平稳定》，就澳舆论界及媒体近日围绕台海局势重点关切问题和不实报道，以答问形式予以具体回应和澄清。
肖大使强调，台湾自古以来就是中国领土，两岸同属一个中国、台湾是中国一部分的事实从未改变。一个中国原则是国际社会的普遍共识，是公认的国际关系基本准则。台湾问题的实质是分裂与反分裂的斗争，而非所谓“民主对抗威权”的问题。美国会众议长佩洛西窜访中国台湾地区，造成台海局势紧张升级，再次证明改变台海现状的不是中国，而是美国和“台独”分裂势力。澳方应恪守历届政府对一个中国原则的承诺，言行一致，不打折扣，避免中澳关系受到不必要的干扰和破坏。这符合两国和两国人民的根本利益。
全文如下：
近期，美国会众议长佩洛西窜访中国台湾地区，造成台海局势紧张升级。台湾问题受到澳各界广泛关注。我已在澳国家新闻俱乐部就台湾问题阐述了中方立场，我在此就相关问题作出进一步说明。
一、为什么说台湾是中国的一部分？
台湾自古以来就是中国领土。从宋朝起，中国历代中央政府开始对台湾实施行政管辖。1684年，清朝政府设立台湾府，隶属福建省管辖；1885年，改设台湾为行省，使其成为当时中国第20个省。1895年，中日甲午战争后，日本强迫战败的清政府割让台湾及澎湖列岛。1943年，中美英三国政府发表《开罗宣言》宣布，三国之宗旨在使日本所窃取于中国之领土，例如东北、台湾、澎湖列岛等，归还中国。1945年，中美英三国共同签署、后来苏联参加的《波茨坦公告》，重申“开罗宣言之条件必将实施”。同年9月，日本宣布投降，并承诺“忠诚履行波茨坦公告各项规定之义务”。10月，中国政府宣告“恢复对台湾行使主权”。
二、既然中华人民共和国从未对台湾进行管辖，有何权利不让佩洛西访台？
1949年10月，中华人民共和国中央人民政府宣告成立，取代中华民国政府成为代表全中国的唯一合法政府。虽然中国的政权更迭，但中国这一国际法主体没有改变，中国的主权和固有领土疆域没有改变，中华人民共和国政府理所当然地完全享有和行使中国的主权，其中包括对台湾的主权。由于中国内战和外部势力干涉，海峡两岸长期陷入政治对立的特殊状态，台湾问题由此产生，但两岸同属一个中国、台湾是中国一部分的事实从未改变。
三、台湾问题是“民主对抗威权”的问题吗？
台湾问题是分裂与反分裂的斗争，其核心是一个中国原则。这一原则是国际社会的普遍共识，是公认的国际关系基本准则。正是基于这一原则，中国同包括美、澳在内的181个国家建立了外交关系。1971年联大2758号决议也明确指出，世界上只有一个中国，台湾是中国领土不可分割的一部分，中华人民共和国政府是代表全中国的唯一合法政府。实践中，联合国对台湾使用的称谓是“台湾，中国的省（Taiwan，Province of China）”。至于台湾方面，国民党也曾长期坚持只有一个中国的立场。广大台湾同胞更是认同中国，坚决反对分裂国家。只不过自上世纪90年代起，“台独”势力迅速发展，采取了一系列实际的分裂步骤，妄图制造“两个中国”或“一中一台”。中国政府坚决捍卫一个中国原则，并对“台独”分裂活动进行了坚决的斗争。
四、中国是否对佩洛西访台反应过度，破坏了台海现状？
中国只有一个，两岸同属一个中国，这才是台海的真正现状。改变现状的不是中国，而是美国和台湾分裂势力。美方在《中美建交公报》中明确表示“与台保持非官方关系”，近年来却纵容放任作为美领导人的众议长等高官访台。美方在“八·一七”公报中承诺“逐步减少对台售武、并经过一段时间导致最后解决”，实际上美国售台武器的规模和性能不断提升，迄今总额超过700亿美元，仅过去18个月就军售5次。美方在“八·一七”公报中表示“无意执行‘两个中国’或‘一中一台’”政策，却公然助台拓展所谓“国际空间”，甚至跳到台前助台“固邦”。近年来，美国虚化、掏空、歪曲一个中国原则的行径更加露骨，步步紧逼中方红线和底线。自台湾民进党上台后，不断推动“渐进式台独”，大搞“去中国化”。我们保留采取一切必要措施的选项，针对的是外部势力干涉和极少数“台独”分裂分子及其分裂活动。如果“台独”分裂势力或外部干涉势力挑衅逼迫，甚至突破红线，我们将不得不采取断然措施。
此次佩洛西窜台是美破坏台海现状的又一例证。早在4个月前中方听闻这一消息后就反复表明坚决反对的态度，要求美对由此造成的一切后果负责。但美方仍我行我素，中方别无选择，只能坚决应对。我们的反制措施符合国内法、国际法和国际惯例，目的是向肇事分子发出警示，对“台独”势力进行惩戒。中方有关举措不仅在于维护自身主权和领土完整，也是为了维护尊重主权和领土完整的国际关系基本准则以及地区和平稳定。已有超过170多个国家对中国的立场表示支持。
五、为什么中国不接受澳大利亚就台海局势作出的一些表态？
1972年中澳建交联合公报明确写道“澳大利亚政府承认中华人民共和国政府是中国的唯一合法政府，承认中国政府关于台湾是中华人民共和国一个省的立场”。澳方对一个中国的承诺概念明确，内涵清晰。中方从未干涉澳方内政，也从未做过有损澳主权和领土完整的事。澳政府应恪守对一个中国原则的承诺，言行一致，表里如一，充分兑现，不打折扣。
澳新政府上台为重启中澳关系提供了可能契机，保持这一良好势头，避免受到不必要干扰和破坏，这符合两国和两国人民的根本利益。
Uphold the One-China Principle to
Maintain Regional Peace and Stability
U. S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to China’s Taiwan region has caused escalation of tensions across the Taiwan Straits. The Taiwan question is drawing increasing attention among Australian public. In connection with my recent address to the National Press Club, I wish to further elaborate on the following.
Q1: Why do we say Taiwan is part of China?
Taiwan has been an inalienable part of China’s territory since ancient times. Starting from the Song dynasty (960-1279 CE), the imperial central governments of China set up administrative bodies to exercise jurisdiction over Taiwan. In 1684, the Qing court set up a Taiwan prefecture administration under the jurisdiction of Fujian Province. In 1885, Taiwan’s status was upgraded and it became the 20th province of China. In 1895, after a war between China and Japan, the defeated Qing government was forced to cede Taiwan and Penghu Islands to Japan. In 1943, the Cairo Declaration issued by China, the United States and the United Kingdom stated that it was the purpose of the three allies that all the territories Japan had stolen from China, such as Northeast China, Taiwan and the Penghu Islands, should be restored to China. In 1945, the Potsdam Proclamation was signed by China, the United States and the United Kingdom, and subsequently recognized by the Soviet Union. It reiterated: “The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out.” In September of the same year, Japan signed the instrument of surrender, in which it promised that it would faithfully fulfill the obligations laid down in the Potsdam Proclamation. In October, the Chinese government resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan.
Q2: Since the People’s Republic of China has never exercised jurisdiction over Taiwan, is it entitled to opposing Pelosi’s visit?
In October 1949, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was founded, and became the successor to the Republic of China, and the Central People’s Government of the PRC became the only legitimate government representing the whole of China. The replacement of governments of China does not change China’s situation as a subject under international law, nor China’s sovereignty and inherent territory. As a natural result, the government of the PRC should exercise China’s full sovereignty, Taiwan included. Due to the civil war in China in the late 1940s and the interference of external forces, the two sides of the Taiwan Straits have fallen into a state of protracted political confrontation, and hence the Taiwan question has arisen, but the fact that both sides of the Taiwan Straits belong to one and the same China and that Taiwan is part of China has never changed.
Q3: Is the Taiwan question a matter of “democracy against authoritarianism”?
The Taiwan question is a matter of struggle between separatism and anti-separatism, of which the one-China principle is the core. This principle is the consensus and the universally recognized basic norms in international relations. It is exactly the foundation upon which China has established diplomatic relations with 181 countries, including Australia and the US. Resolution 2758 of the United Nations General Assembly adopted in 1971 made it clear that there is only one China in the world, Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory, and the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the only legitimate government representing the whole of China. At the UN, the island is referred to as “Taiwan, Province of China”. Within Taiwan, the Kuomintang Party (KMT) has also long maintained the position that there is only one China. The majority of Taiwan compatriots identify themselves with China, and are firmly opposed to the secession of China. It is only since the 1990s that the “Taiwan independence” forces in Taiwan have been developing rapidly, taking a series of practical steps towards secession, in an attempt to alter Taiwan’s status as part of China and to create “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan”. The Chinese government has always been firmly upholding the one-China principle and resolutely opposing separatist activities.
Q4: Has China overreacted to Pelosi’s Taiwan visit and changed the status quo of the Taiwan Straits?
The real status quo of the Taiwan Straits is that there is only one China, and both sides of the Straits belong to one and the same China. It is not China, but the US and the separatist forces seeking “Taiwan independence” that are changing such status quo. The US clearly pledged in the Sino-US Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations that it will maintain unofficial relations with Taiwan. In recent years, however, the US greenlit and connived at visits to Taiwan by senior officials including the US House Speaker. The US pledged in the August 17 Communiqué released in 1982 that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading over a period of time, to a final resolution. However, the US has actually kept increasing arms sales to Taiwan in both qualitative and quantitative terms, with the total volume to date exceeding US$70 billion. There have been 5 more batches of arms sales in the past 18 months alone. The US also reiterated in the August 17 Communiqué that it has no intention of pursuing a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan”. However, it has been assisting Taiwan in expanding its so-called “international space” and even openly helping Taiwan consolidate its so-called “diplomatic relations”. In recent years, the US’s moves to fudge, hollow out and distort its one-China commitment have become even more blatant. It has been continuously pushing the envelope on China’s red lines. Since the Taiwan Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power, it has also relentlessly sought “incremental independence” and pushed forward “de-Sinicization”. We reserve the option of taking all necessary measures solely to guard against external interference and separatist activities. We will only be forced to take drastic measures to respond to the provocation of separatist elements or external forces should they ever cross our red lines.
Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan is another case in point. Since the media reported Speaker Pelosi’s planned visit to Taiwan in April, China has time and again expressed its firm opposition and warned of the serious consequences. However, the US chose to have its own way, leaving China with no choice but to make a firm and resolute response. Our countermeasures are consistent with domestic and international laws, as well as international practices, with the aim to send a warning to the perpetrators, and to punish “Taiwan independence” separatist forces. These measures are to uphold the basic norms governing international relations that respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity, particularly non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs, and to maintain regional peace and stability. More than 170 countries in the world have voiced their support to China’s position.
Q5: Why are some remarks released by Australia on Taiwan question unacceptable to China?
As is clearly stated in the Joint Communiqué of 1972 establishing diplomatic relations between the People’s Republic of China and Australia, “The Australian Government recognizes the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China, acknowledges the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People’s Republic of China”. Australia’s commitment to one-China principle is clear-cut in both concept and content. China has never interfered in Australia’s internal affairs, nor has it done anything that undermines Australia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Government of Australia is obliged to stick to its commitment to one-China principle, both in words and in deeds, in name and in essence, with sincerity, without discount.
With the Australian new government came to power, we have seen a good start to reset China-Australia relationship. To keep the positive momentum free from unnecessary disturbance and disruption will serve the fundamental interests of our two countries and two peoples.