There is a co-ordinated front from the defence and security establishments, the Coalition back-bench, US-financed think tanks and the Murdoch-dominated media in attacks on China
The Coalition is promoting a confrontation with China at a time of great global economic and geo-political crisis. That’s the whole point!
The current state of Australia-China relations has been met with growing incredulity and anxiety. Why would Australia, in the middle of its biggest depression since the 1930s, provoke a trade war with its biggest trade partner? Why is it doing so with a rhetoric based less on condemning abuses of human rights and suppression of democracy – one that has been variously dialled up and down since 1989 – but of a rising empire directly threatening our way of life?
Even though Australia currently has little idea of an economic future outside the trading relationship with China – one that has floated it recession-free from the mid-1990s to the present – the current government and the defence-intelligence establishment are hurtling to some kind of showdown. A heady mix of 1980s Cold War dénouement and 1939/41 emergency, there’s a heightened sense of national awakening – ‘we’ve let you walk over us for too long’ – and of impending and inevitable conflict. From the bottom of the old war chest, ‘whose side are you on’ has been dusted off, and, some tweaks here and there, it still fits.
Pearls and Irritations has been forthright in highlighting both the hypocrisy of this strident ‘evil empire’ rhetoric and the abandonment of a clear-eyed assessment of national interest this entails. The only viable global hegemon – geopolitical, economic, military, ideological – is the US, and its record as a warfare state, one perfectly happy to install and support dictatorships, needs little more comment here. It is led by a president whose trashing of democratic process, rational discourse, consistency of position and common decency is undisputed. Indeed, his global supporters revel in this casting aside of the liberal niceties, celebrating the chaos and outrage that puts ‘the elites’ on the defensive. It is to this president, and his appointed ultra-hawks, that the Coalition government does not just pay necessary lip-service but, rather, cringing homage.
How to explain such a useless act as the call for an independent inquiry into the origins of the Covid-19 virus, immediately squandering the political capital of a ‘good pandemic’? What possible benefit could it bring? There are many ways to register displeasure with Xi Jingping’s regime. Instead China is framed as an actively hostile power, bent on malign interference with our democratic institutions, our universities, our communications infrastructure, even our agriculture. This is a co-ordinated front from the defence and security establishments, the Coalition back-bench, US-financed think tanks and the Murdoch-dominated media. Coordination is not necessarily indicative of a plan. Militarily and strategically ‘containment’ via an assertive US hegemon is as far-sighted as it gets, along with some diplomatic overtures to countries that, however wary of China, are completely opposed to the confrontational rhetoric coming out of Canberra. Economically there is no plan whatsoever. You don’t have to read far into Sun Tzu to realise the serious dangers to which this exposes Australia.
The justification, whether from Malcolm Turnbull, Clive Hamilton or Peter Hartcher, is that we need to assert our values, even if it costs us, and refuse to be bullied. One problem is that the ‘bully’ is actually giving us pocket money and, despite the iron ore, is capable of walking away. But what values are we actually defending? Here lies one of the answers to the conundrum of the current night drive into a confrontation with China. With apologies to Pascal, ideology has its reasons which realism does not know.
Nobody doubts that we are at the centre of two intimately related geopolitical crises, US hegemony and neoliberal capitalism. Busting inflation using unemployment in the 1980s, then compensating for low wages and welfare cuts by the ballooning of private debt in the 1990s, ended with the 2008 crash. A plentiful supply of cheap consumer goods from China, along with its massive purchase of US Treasury bonds, allowed this system of ‘privatised Keynesianism’ to operate. This global macro-economic system has struggled since the 2008 crash. Larry Summer’s ‘secular stagnation’ has seen low growth, low productivity and capital’s failure to invest in the ‘real’ economy (bigger returns to be found in more financial products). This coupled with low wages, insecure employment and widening inequality. The intervention of the State in 2008-10 put an end to the neoliberal nostrum of the privileged ability of the market to adjudicate efficiency, just as the subsequent repayment of these unprecedented state loans by the population at large, rather than the banks responsible, added to the widespread political cynicism and anger.
The 2008-10 crisis served only to strengthen US financial hegemony, and yet while this helps its ability to print ‘fiat money’, there is little sense that the US has a vision of what a restored global economic system might look like. This before the pandemic hit. And while the US remains the dominant global military power by far, its ability to enforce its will has declined. The destabilising devastation wrought on large parts of the Islamic world, the network of global oubliettes for suspected terrorists, unprecedented levels of surveillance (including its own allies) with brutal suppression of whistleblowers – all this was in place before Trump started tearing up agreements (Iran, Pacific Trade, climate), withdrawing from long established (by the US!) international bodies, asserting America First and accelerating a geopolitical onslaught on China. These are all symptoms of a very powerful hegemon whose armature of hard power is showing through the soft shell of consent. This hegemonic faltering was not caused, but has certainly been exacerbated by, a challenger whose economic system, for all its flaws, is of comparable strength, and whose military-technological prowess, while not allowing it to replace the US, quite clearly sets a limit to its power to coerce it.
The problems of neoliberal macroeconomic theory are acknowledged even by The Economist, as are the huge challenges facing global economic ‘management’. No Sunday newspaper is now complete without another book on the crisis, if not death, of liberal democracy. It is generally recognised that the prestige of the US is at its lowest ebb since the 1970s, a caesura next to the ‘American century’. This without mentioning the global pandemic and the larger climate emergency whose visible plumes now waft across California and the Amazon, Siberia and the Mediterranean and soon again, no doubt, Australia. All of these call for a new global order or framework, ways of dealing with deep-seated and very frightening systemic challenges. The US Democrats are working on this. So it is even more frightening that our current government, which denies that any of these problems even exist, now proclaim that the major threat we face is a Chinese Communist menace.
The levels of fantasy and mendacity involved in this emerging cold war are plain for all to see, once out of the spotlight of a highly manipulated Australian media. The subservience is not just to American foreign policy interests currently articulated by ultra-hawks, but to a Republican party that is hell-bent on returning the US to the policy settings of the pre-New Deal ‘gilded age’ of plutonomy. A Coalition government that seems to have ‘no enemies to the right’, with no climate or viable renewables policy, no industry strategy outside of fossil fuel and mineral extraction, one whose response to the deepest recession since the 1930s is to cut taxes for the rich, deregulate labour and cut red (i.e. green) tape: these are the ones who now, on our behalf, stand up for our Australian values.
Contrasts with the last cold war abound. The contemporary ‘enemy’ has an economy as strong as the US, especially now it is being pushed into hi-tech autarchy. China is asserting its military strength, but this is around its immediate borders. Though there are multiplying zones of tension, nobody seriously thinks China is hellbent on some kind of Imperial Japan-style East Asian empire building. The only empire left is that of the US, with bases all around the Chinese border. Though by 1989 the direct association between the Left and Soviet Russia was long gone, an ideological-historical affinity persisted. You would be hard put to find any kind of ideological or organisational links between the contemporary Left and China. China is more interested in convincing Wall Street and Harvard Business School theorists of its efficient economic management model than it is of inspiring any leftist social movement.
This is a confected ideological re-enactment of 1989-91, even though the ‘enemy’ says it wants to work with us, and from whose enforced retreat into autarchy nobody is set to profit. This coupled with a 1950s anti-Communist witch-hunt, even though there aren’t any communists left – perhaps not even in China! Its basis in foreign policy realism is tenuous, and its implications for Australia’s economic future deeply concerning. It is being promoted for the worst possible reason, which is that the Coalition has no ideas for the future of Australia, its economy or its place in the world.
As with climate change, it wilfully ignores rational examination in favour of clinging to the current settings at all costs. The values for which it is standing up are nothing to do with Hong Kong democracy or ethic autonomy in Xinjiang; they are the values of the Coalition and its clientele networks seeking to continue to do as they like with the nation, equating their own enrichment with the prospects of the nation as a whole. As these economic foundations unravel, a war with China, cold or hot, stifling thought and dissent, pulling people back into line, will do very nicely. For in times of uncertainty and multiple global emergencies, what better idea than all piling into the ute for a night drive to war with China?
Justin O’Connor is professor of Cultural Economy at the University of South Australia, and is author, with Xin Gu, of the forthcoming Red Creative: Culture and Modernity in China (Intellect).
Comments
19 responses to “Driving in the dark in our conflict with China”
I hope China remains patient and wait for a day when this craziness dissipates. It’s the best strategy for China, and the best strategy for the world.
Not just driving in the dark -but, to hear the SMH tell it: being spied on by Chinese drones in the dark- and maybe even in the daytime, when nan is hanging the laundry.
*FWIW many of us have no illusions about China or Russia or the US- or the EU that matter, but I mean… really….
It’s gotten well past embarrassing.
Scomo is a sort of second-rate bogan Mussolini. He won’t be remembered fondly, I don’t think
Many thanks to Justine O’Connor for presenting the current Australia-US relations. We now recognise that the US containment of China could be due to a number of reasons viz. hegemony pursuits in all fields particularly military, trade and political. It could also include racism (Chinese Exclusion Act 1882 passed by 47th US Congress) after the Chinese completed the first “BRI” railway project for continental USA. SMH Editorial 16Sep2020: “The decline in the US for competence has been aggravated b confusion of what the US stands for under Trump. Only 23% of Australians have confidence in his foreign policy”. There is also doubt about whether US really share our values. The lack of support for the WHO and the UN Human rights agency by Trump should be a worry for Australians”. One could guess that the Coalition’s agenda is to (1) win the next election;’ (2) keep shinning the deputy sheriff’s badge by singing the loud rhetoric; and (3) avoid decoupling with the Chinese economy (worth $240billion annually). With only 23% Australians having confidence in Trump’s foreign policy, would the continued direction containing China adversely affect the Coalition votes? Despite conciliatory statements by FM Payne and DHA Minister Dutton about continued trading with China, no wonder ordinary Australians are confused as these messages are mixed and contradictory! Finally, what is the real reason for Australia to be put into such a partisan position in the US-China Cold War 2?
“There is a co-ordinated front from the defence and security establishments, the Coalition back-bench, US-financed think tanks and the Murdoch-dominated media in attacks on China”
This sort of response is the polar opposite, lacking any nuance as those you have mentioned and is in line with all the other articles posted here on China.
Evan is one of the few readers here who has a balanced view.
So mainstream media can be utterly biased and feeds the minds of millions Australians with pro-US, anti-Chinese bias, but anyone on here that presents a fairer and often far better informed view on China through expertise is not presenting something balanced? That’s the same ruse that many others use and it is hardly original. Please think of something else.
I think Justin O’Connor is actually too fair because he should have added Nine Entertainment newspapers like the Sydney Morning Herald (which includes the utterly biased Hartcher), the main ABC news services, and also The Guardian. All of them along with Murdoch’s right wing propaganda repeat the US anti-China gossip ad nauseum most days of the week. Doesn’t matter what China does it is always the villain like no other. The only one left on the government cowered ABC that seems to have a more considered perspective is Stan Grant.
“but anyone on here that presents a fairer and often far better informed view on China through expertise is not presenting something balanced?”
Balanced, you must be kidding! Whereas the RW media show no objectivity the same is what you get here. A whole lot of “China is misunderstood” carping, ignoring the likes of HK, criminalising those leaving HK for Taiwan by boat due to fear of long jail terms for voicing their opposition to the lose of their rights. Complete glossing over if not outright ignoring what in is happening in ethnic regions of China, interment camps etc.
I have no qualms about how China managed western companies in China, otherwise they’ve raped China for it’s low wage base and access to its massive consumer market and when that changed simply moved on, same with tech transfers etc, but I’d also agree that after time enough is enough and that needed to change.
So your reply is just a repeat of the same. Heard it many times, and personally I don’t really care. You are just repeating the biased lines of mainstream media’s same old issues with an utterly pro-Western viewpoint. How come it took the media so many years to say a word about Tibet or Hong Kong? How come the mess that the British made in unfairly taking Hong Kong during the first Opium War is never explained? It’s always been part of China no matter what is happening now. Do think the best way of fixing this is to berate China endlessly, paint it always as an evil country, and ultimately take us to another point where regime change is needed? As I see it, that is the only thing this biased talk can lead to. And what a beautiful example we saw of that in Iraq.
The problems have to be solved with diplomacy, and Australia has done a pretty good job of destroying that with it’s pro-American sycophant of a government and it’s media mates all singing the same deliberately anti-China tune. What is your solution? I see you offer nothing more than criticisms of those that feel there are better ways in dealing with China rather than shutting down communication and hairy chest beating like we see with our politicians and media. Do you think China will listen to that? Do you think that will make them change? Highly unlikely. China has changed remarkably since the days of Mao when the country was completely closed down to the world. It is my belief that we would be far better off continuing to keep the lines of communication open and that requires some effort to understand China’s government and people, not just criticize them from a Western perspective, or from zero understanding of the culture and history.
Could you please explain the virtue in presenting a balanced view when the entire media landscape in Australia is otherwise anti-China. A ‘balanced’ view in such circumstances seems inappropriate and wasted. Yes, the pieces on this blog are generally pro-China, but this is because many of them are written in response to the overwhelmingly negative coverage in local media. In such circumstances, I see no virtue in a ‘balanced’ view. You are correct in pointing out that the above article is the polar opposite of what it criticises, but is that really a relevant criticism? The situation as described by Justin O’Connor needs plain speaking, because we are presently floundering around in a dangerous situation, largely created by our own folly.
“Could you please explain the virtue in presenting a balanced view ……….”
So unbalanced reporting is responded to, not by accurate and truthful reporting, by in kind? So distortion with distortion is what you are saying and tell me, how do you think you’ll fare with that approach with the average person in the street, who do you think will win that one? NOT YOU! Going down your path will get you nowhere.
How about you counter distortion with truth and honesty, not neglecting the bad. People will see and take in reason, but if you try the RW approach supporting a country like China, but remember when we same China, people are thinking CCP, you will lose as people will stick with what they know and understand and that’s the view of those of the same culture. You do a 180 approach to the RW msn bs and you’ll lose, simple as that!
“Yes, the pieces on this blog are generally pro-China…….”
Generally? Rubbish, nearly ALL and ignore or gloss over the bad.
It seems to me that you have simply ignored my question, which obviously contained strong reservations against the position you are advancing. You have responded with assertions that seem ridiculous to me, and which I dont agree with at all. But yes, to be frank, I think the approach I am supporting would be more effective than what you are suggesting. Normally I am all in favour of balanced reporting, but it has been my experience that this can be manipulated to avoid dealing with realities. Also, I expected from you an argument of some kind in response, not an bunch of emotionally loaded phrases and sentences. I talk to ‘average’ people in the street quite often, and I think I fare quite well, thank you very much.
You think your approach will be more effective, really? And you fare quite well with the average person? You do realise that the av person voted our present dh PM in, don’t you? You know, the election he was expected to lose!
You will not change opinions with this strategy, so say farewell to our relationship with China.
Sir,
It still puzzles me why the government does not seem to know were we are coming from, where we are now and where we are heading for the future. They seem to ignore the hard work that the governments of Whitlam/Fraser/Hawk/Keating put in to engage with China in diplomacy and trade. They don’t seem to appreciate that engagement brought us the prosperity that we are enjoying today. Because they don’t know where we came from and where we are, they are busy destroying that connexion just for the sake of playing Robin to Batman. They don’t have a real plan for the future because they don’t know where this conflict will lead us, how the pandemic economic recovery will pan out, they don’t know, and don’t care, what will happen to us if the globe keeps warming up. The saddest thing of all, because they have not been working with the reality of the past, present and future (eg human activity warms up the globe, we are seeing the outcomes of global warming, we need to reduce our use of fossil fuel), they resort to playing with hypotheticals – that India will replace China as our big customer, that weather change has always been there and nature will take care of itself, and that Batman will always prevail. Meanwhile they spend time trying to identify spies, talking about how successful we are at tackling the pandemic (important but which other countries do without making a song and dance about it), talking about a vaccine from the UK (Why only the UK?), state disputes on border controls etc. All I can see is that if they don’t get off that rocking chair, rocking furiously back and forth thinking that they are full of action but not getting anywhere, we are in for some hard times ahead.
Sincerely pessimistic,
Teow Loon Ti
In the West, the capitalist winners of 20 years ago have government in their iron grip. They have used their power over government to ensure that they stay on top permanently, strangling the vitality out of Western capitalism. Their attitude to the China challenge is similar. The Western winners see their interest as bending the government of China to serve them. But the government of China is still in the hands of the local Communist Party which has the power to play corporate winners off against each other and keep Chinese capitalism vibrant. By working hard at raising up the poor, the Communist Party creates rapidly expanding markets. Chinese capitalism also benefits from Confucian morality which helps its capitalists maintain consideration for the interests of their customers. That consideration is also a key factor in Korean and Japanese capitalism, which China has relearned. But it has disappeared in the West, where the shareholder is worshipped and the customer kept under control and stupid by advertising bullshit instead of good products.
Is Aus ‘diplomacy’ re China hamfisted and daft? Assuredly. Does this mean we should not seek to speak up for human rights (so long as we pursue them in our own country)? I don’t think so.
That will never work in convincing the Chinese, they know the West is full of hypocrites when it comes to human rights abuses anyway. How many innocent people have died in the Middle East and Afghanistan due to US human rights abuses and illegal wars like Iraq? Millions? How many people have been taken to third party countries that don’t respect human rights to be tortured for the US’s purposes? What about the unequal treatment of black people in the US? Guantanamo Bay which also locked up many Uyghurs after 9/11 who were fighting on the side of the terrorists? US CIA operations and human rights abuses world-wide? South and Central America covert operations in support of dictators? Have you looked into that? What about countries like Laos where unexploded ordinance kills, or blows the legs and hands off children, or their farming parents where the rate of US funded clean-up means it won’t be finished until the end of this century. What about Vietnam where more bombs where dropped than in all of WWII and recent counts estimate over 3 million people died.
How many refugees in Australia have been treated to conditions “akin to torture”? That is what the UN calls it. How many have gone insane and set themselves alight for never having committed a crime?
What about our history of treatment of Indigenous Australians which continues to this day?
It is all very well pointing the finger, but China will not respond to this kind of berating because it has been putting up with Western injustice since the Opium Wars.
Trump, Pence, Pompeo and some Australian leaders are just as blind and hypocritical. They should know better before they criticize other. Prove to us that they can do better than China. To err is human. Let’s work together to learn from past mistakes and advance our common humanity and create a better world for all.
Western countries are only interested in human rights when it furthers their geopolitical interests.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/15/politics/immigration-customs-enforcement-medical-care-detainees/index.html
“When I met all these women who had had surgeries, I thought this was like an experimental concentration camp. It was like they’re experimenting with our bodies,” said the immigrant, whose name was not disclosed by the organization.