This is not a schoolyard, China is not a schoolboy, it hasn’t slunk away, and nothing about our predicament is as easy as the government would like us to believe.
We are a perfect example for Beijing to demonstrate to other fence-sitters that they will have to make a choice.
Throughout 2020, as our relationship with China collapsed and our economic opportunities evaporated, Canberra has clung to a homely analogy. Beijing is just a schoolyard bully, and if we stand up to them they will soon slink away.
That makes it all look easy, but the analogy is dangerously misleading. This is not a schoolyard, China is not a schoolboy, it hasn’t slunk away, and nothing about our predicament is as easy as the government would like us to believe.
Instead of backing down, Beijing has week after week relentlessly escalated the pressure both diplomatically and economically, and there is no reason to expect this to stop.
We are being steadily squeezed out of the market that has powered our prosperity for decades, and which offers by far the best prospects in the years ahead. As a result our economy may never be the same again. So we need to find a better way to understand what is happening.
First, we should recognise that this is new. China has never treated a country this way before.
In the past it has often hit individual products from countries that defied it on specific questions. But this is the first time China has mounted such a sustained campaign of economic punishment against any country for so long across so many commodities.
And we do not really know why it is doing it.
The Morrison government has done a lot of foolish things to unnecessarily provoke Beijing, reflecting a distinct antipathy to China. But its offences – as set out in the list that emerged from the Chinese embassy last month – do not seem commensurate with the punishment.
Australia has not obviously crossed any of the old ‘‘red lines’’ set by Beijing on sensitive issues such as Taiwan or Tibet. It has distanced itself from Washington’s talk of a new cold war and challenges to the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party’s rule.
In fact, nothing Canberra has done this year would have provoked such stern punishment in the past, so we need to ask why Beijing has responded so harshly now.
The answer lies beyond the Australia-China relationship, because this is not happening in a vacuum. China’s position in the global economy is being transformed by policy revolutions at home and abroad.
In America the idea of deep disengagement from the Chinese economy has moved from a fringe fantasy to the policy mainstream, fuelled both by escalating strategic rivalry and good old-fashioned protectionism.
This won’t change under Joe Biden. There is no going back to the old US-China partnership that has done so much to define both countries’ economies for so long.
And Europe too is starting to close its doors to China.
In response, China is developing a whole new model for the way its economy interacts with the rest of the world, as part of a bold rethink of its entire economic system. Under the ungainly banner of ‘‘dual circulation’’, China is once again redefining the relationship between the party-state and the market, and between its domestic economy and the rest of the world.
Its aim is to drive growth in a more hostile world while preserving the authority of the Communist Party.
China is not abandoning its commitment to international economic engagement, but it plainly realises that this is going to be harder. One response is to refocus on what Xi Jinping has called ‘‘the domestic cycle’’, looking more to domestic demand to drive growth and fuel innovation.
It seems that another part of Beijing’s response is to change the way it deals with other countries. In a world that is more bifurcated, economically and strategically, it wants to confront others with a simple choice: are you with us or against us?
This is where we come in. Australia offers Beijing a perfect opportunity to show other countries the choice they now face, because we have been so careful to sit on the fence for so long.
No other country has been so eager to profit from China’s rise while relying on America to contain its power.
For a long time China accepted this. Now it is telling us – and by making an example of us, telling other countries too – that this is no longer acceptable. In this new world we have to choose.
Many people will be tempted to welcome the choice being forced upon us, because they believe the choice is easy. They expect that countries throughout the world, and especially in Asia, will resist Beijing’s pressure and turn their backs on China, and Australia will naturally join them.
Moreover, they assume that as this happens the internal contradictions in China’s economy will finally catch up with them and its rise will falter.
Well, maybe. But we have underestimated China for a long time now, and we should be careful not to repeat that mistake. It would be prudent to expect that China’s new model will succeed and that its economy will keep growing richer and stronger over the years ahead.
And if it does, then few countries in Asia, or in Europe for that matter, will turn their back on China. In the new tug of war with today’s America, China carries more weight.
Few if any Australians want to see Asia dominated by China, but as things are trending we may have no choice.
The question for us then is how we relate to that Asia.
Since 1945 Australians have been committed to a great national project to move beyond our imperial history and enmesh ourselves in the region where we live. Do we abandon that now? And if we do, where do we turn – back to the old empire rebadged as the Anglosphere?
Anyone who relies on schoolyard analogies to convince themselves that these choices are easy does not understand what is happening.
This article has been reposted from the AFR. It was originally published on the 17 December 2020.
Hugh White is Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at Australian National University. He served for many years as a senior defence and intelligence official with the Australian government.
Comments
24 responses to “Why China has been exceptionally harsh on Australia (AFR Dec 17, 2020)”
Re the following passage from Hugh White’s item above:
“It seems that another part of Beijing’s response is to change the way it deals with other countries. In a world that is more bifurcated, economically and strategically, it wants to confront others with a simple choice: are you with us or against us?”
The world is not bifurcated to this degree yet, if at all. There is a lot of the world which is not subject to Chinese influence or intimidation, and will not be. That being so China has or should want to preserve orderly systems where possible, especially in relation to trade. The issue that is emerging is whether China’s flouting or circumvention of its trade obligations whether bilateral or multilateral, and especially the WTO, can continue like it is without alienating the many countries which regard this as subversive of their interests, with decreasing comity, courtesy and trust -and for what common purpose? Nations that attempt to take on the world don’t get far for long. The spat with Australia is beginning to look juvenile on both sides when viewed in this wider context.
Reading this article makes me wonder if the author and I live in different worlds. Whereas most commentators seem to think that China’s recent actions is a response to Australia’s own recent actions, this author seems to argue that China’s actions is unprovoked and driven by some long-term strategic goal.
I often feel that Western commentators labour under a certain parochialism and in-group favouritism in how we think about the non-Western world. We must try to look at the world objectively, per Rawls, ignorant of our own group identity. It’s admittedly difficult.
It’s a little less difficult for non-Westerners to view the world from the perspective of the West, since so much of the global media is dominated by the Western perspective.
Personally, I try to look at the world from a multi-generational perspective, and seek to work for a world in which every child will one day be equally free to live lives and pursue goals that they have reason to value. It helps me look at the world more objectively, and doing so makes me think that the major challenges for our generation is to address climate change, foster inclusive and sustainable growth between and within nations, and end the international refugee crisis.
Australia’s own sense of security is important, but not as crucial as these “existential challenges” facing humanity.
‘Few if any Australians want to see Asia dominated by China.’
Perhaps not, but if it is a choice between the US and China, I choose China. The US is a dystopian empire with little or no concerns for anybody’s welfare but its own. China may turn out to be no better, but at present we cant be sure it will do so.
But the choice is to some extent a false choice. Rather than ‘rising’, China is said to be ‘returning’. And it is doubtful whether Australia’s choice to support China or undermine China will have much impact on that process. However what we choose to do will certainly affect us and our future.
If the US fails to ‘contain’ China, and right now I cant see how that can be achieved, then Australia risks becoming a pariah state in the Pacific region. And to paraphrase Hugh White, ‘few if any Australians want to see that happen.’
“Few if any Australians want to see Asia dominated by China,…”
Really? Have you had a look at a map lately, or at any international figures for trade, investment, banking and finance, scientific developments (whose craft went to the moon and back last week? Right, not Australia’s), not to mention area, resources, population, culture, food….?
Get with it. Asia IS dominated by China. This is 2021, not 1981.
And we do not really know why it is doing it.???
Here’s why:
Foreign investment decisions, with acquisitions blocked on opaque national security grounds in contravention of ChAFTA. Since 2018, more than 10 Chinese investment projects have been rejected by Australia citing ambiguous and unfounded “national security concerns” and restricting areas like infrastructure, agriculture and animal husbandry.
Banning Huawei Technologies and ZTE from the 5G network, over unfounded national security concerns, doing the bidding of the US by lobbying other countries, foreign interference legislation viewed as targeting China and in the absence of evidence.
Politicization and stigmatization of the normal exchanges and cooperation between China and Australia and creating barriers and imposing restrictions, including the revocation of visas for Chinese scholars.
Calling for an international independent inquiry into the COV1D-19 virus, as a political manipulation echoing the US attack on China.
Incessant wanton interference in China’s Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and Taiwan affairs.
Spearheading the crusade against China in multilateral forums
The first non littoral country to make a statement on the South China Sea to the United Nations, siding with the US’ anti-China campaign
Spreading disinformation imported from the US around China’s efforts of containing COV1D-19.
Legislating scrutiny of agreements with a foreign government targeting China and aiming to torpedo Victoria’s participation in B&R
Providing funding to anti-China think tanks for spreading untrue reports, peddling lies around Xinjiang and so-called China infiltration aimed at manipulating public opinion against China
Early dawn search and reckless seizure of Chinese journalists’ homes and properties without charges or explanations
Thinly veiled allegations against China of cyber attacks without any evidence
Outrageous condemnation of the governing party of China by NGOs
Racist attacks against Chinese and Asian people.
Unfriendly and antagonistic reports on China by media that poison the atmosphere of bilateral relation
Agree with all that but White’s thesis is still valid. Australia is provocative and weak. It took a mug like Morrison to give the PRC the opportunity to demonstrate what happens to aggressive anti-PRC puppets of the US. With minimal damage and risk to PRC. If Morrison didnt exist Xi would have to invent him. Come to think of it. Is Morrison the Manchukuo Candidate?
You have made Hugh White look silly. But he probably didn’t have much choice if he wants his stuff to be printed by the AFR.
This is a great list! Gotta shake one’s head, why oh why, do we keep poking the Dragon’s eye with a stick? Especially when the Dragon has been shouting us a $150 billion lunch, plus giving us $100 billion’s worth of goods at a bargain! Is it un-Australian to say that we thoroughly deserve the punishment?
Why do we do it? It earned Scomo a photo op with the Donald.
Once upon a time, there were 3 traders living in the same village and they do business with each other over a 40 year period and all getting rich. Mr Oz, Am and Chi have small, medium and large family respectively, the Oz and Am families being culturally and linguistically similar but different from the Chi. Mr Oz is particularly close to the Am family after Mr Oz’s mother Mdm BE left him to fend for himself.
One day Mr Am realised that his household is overspending, operating more than 800 bases overseas, and his manufacturing capacity has moved into Mr Chi’s backyard and his trade deficits (& debts) now runs into trillions. He saw the economic rise of Mr Chi and was determined to make Mr Chi the enemy and bankrupt him at all costs. Mr Oz was a willing relative who would spread stories about the wrong doings of Mr Chi in the village, on behalf Mr Am; after all Mr Am and Mr Oz were descendants of the old Mdm BE family and blood is thick than water. For them, they had hardly lost a quarrel in the village for more than 200 years.
Mr Chi became furious at what Mr Oz had done and muttered “that bloody so and so, biting the hand that feeds him”. Indeed 30% of Mr Oz income revenue comes from Mr Chi; and Mr Oz calculated that Mr Chi would not dare upset his trade relations since he believed that Mr Chi is too afraid to “bully” him with big brother’s protection (Mr US) and he had supplied the best materials to Mr Chi with no competitors.
Despite 14 complaints issued by Mr Chi, Mr Oz took no notice it, bare his chest publicly in the village and said that he was being bullied by Mr Chi. Village traders who are friends of Mr Am, responded in solidarity with their voices but no action according to their own interests. One day, the dreaded happened, goods from Mr Oz were barred and cut by Mr Chi and a loud “ouch” was heard in the village. The nightmare begins when Mr Oz found out that his friendly trading friends, including Mr Am, were lining up to sell similar goods to Mr Chi, a double whammy! I leave the readers to conjure up the moral of this story.
Sir,
With due respects, what you are saying is hugely Australia-centric. You begin your essay by saying “We are a perfect example for Beijing to demonstrate to other fence-sitters that they will have to make a choice”. It might not have occurred to you that perhaps Australia does not feature so importantly in China’s geopolitical equation. We were important only insomuch as we are a good source of minerals and agricultural products that they can do business with.
It is not circumspect at all to say that China is setting us an ultimatum to choose between the US or them. They have been trading on very friendly terms with the US and Australia for more than three decades. The problem began because the US saw that they were in deficit to China in more ways than one; and started accusing China of unfair trading arrangements, demanding that China buys more from them and readjust their currency. When that failed, they started to accuse China of coercing American companies to transfer technology (which they agreed to in the first place in order to profit from operating in the Chinese market), stealing US technology (notwithstanding the fact that the US itself has been found to be one of the biggest hackers – e.g. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks). Now they accuse China of Human Rights violation and anything else they could find (Hong Kong, Taiwan SCS islands etc.) to sling mud.
That statement: “They expect that countries throughout the world, and especially in Asia, will resist Beijing’s pressure and turn their backs on China, and Australia will naturally join them. ” refers largely to the Western powers, and is not quite relevant to the Asian region. Apart from India which had a recent border conflict with China, the rest of Asia deals with China in a realistic manner. I understand Southeast Asia because I came from there and still have family living in Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand. These countries deal with China as they have traditionally dealt with their bigger neighbours e.g. Singapore with Indonesia and Malaysia, Malaysia with Thailand etc. – politely and in a very pragmatic and accomodating manner. Even Japan and South Korea have big business dealings with China and tread carefully between the US and China. With rare exceptions, their news media do not vilify China in the consistent manner that the Australian media are wont to do.
Many years ago, I heard a group of Australians laughing at the use of bamboo scaffolding on building sites in Hong Kong. What they did not realise is that bamboo has better tensile strength than steel and they are cheaper.
I wonder why I am partial to Arabic sayings. The one below is wonderful:
“He who knows not,
and knows not that he knows not,
is a fool; shun him.
He who knows not,
and knows that he knows not,
is a student; Teach him.
He who knows,
and knows not that he knows,
is asleep; Wake him.
He who knows,
and knows that he knows,
is Wise; Follow him.”
― Arabian
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
In regard to Morrison there is also an appropriate old Aussie bush saying “Never cuddle mugs as they die in your arms.”
Teow Loon Ti – I’m not sure that you are doing justice to Hugh White. I take your point that Asian nations do not publicly engage in the anti-Chinese behaviour and rhetoric that we increasingly see from Australia both from the Government and media, including the ABC. But I think that White is ever so gently trying to get across to those within Australia who assume that not only we can continue to curry favour with our current ‘great and powerful friend’ by dissing on China without adverse consequence, but also that others, both in Asia and Europe will ‘turn their backs on China’ as highly unlikely. I think White is saying if you think that, yer dreaming. In this, he is right.
It may well be the case that China’s motivation is just confined to getting Australia to reflect on its position and behaviour but White still makes a valid point that other nations will be taking note and presumably will not want to be given the Australian treatment. As far as I can see, China has already pulled the plug on Australia and is not even bothering to give Australia a face-saving way of backing down – that is if the Morrison Government can even see its way clear of realizing that it is failing in grand style to pursue a pathway for Australia in a world where, for the first time, Australia’s main trading partner is threatening the economic dominance of its security guarantor. In this battle even with a competent government, we could end up a bit of collateral damage.
As for most or any Australians wanting or not wanting to see China dominate Asia – well, White is right when he states that this is not ours to choose, but if it were I too would go for China. Why should there be anything untoward in Asia being dominated by an Asian state? Its Asia. In any event, at the very least China has shown by its Covid success that it values the lives and well-being of its citizens and is capable of providing a sound public health response. The USA has not. In this regard, we have more in common with China than with the USA.
Dear Eliza,
Thank you for a fair response to my comments. About the possibility of countries in Asia turning their backs on China, he says “Well, maybe” indicating that he does not fully reject the idea. The idea was very forcefully promoted by Mike Pompeo and taken up by a number of supporters. Frankly, my assertions are also just assertions based on my own observations. I could be wrong. The essay does not read as gentle to me but nebulous. What I have been trying to do is debunk the usual narrative about China by providing another point of view. I did not read anything in the essay that says anything about the problems we have caused ourselves vis-a-vis China, but a tentative reexamination of our position and the situation that we have got ourselves into. Educators know that mistakes are an invaluable key to a person’s learning. Without acknowledging mistakes in the first place, no improvements are possible. Externalising blame is very comforting and convenient, but the person ends up learning nothing.
To observers like me it is quite obvious that Australia has gone too far and the reaction is not one that would accommodate a face-saving way out. I don’t even think that China is singling out Australia but just wanting to divest itself of a problem they find hard or unpleasant to handle. They would have weighed the consequences to their relationship with other countries before they took the actions. Actually, I do not see Australia as a collateral damage in a conflict between giants but a more than willing participant by striking a number of blows for an ally that the anti-Chinese lobby here seem to want to please all the time.
Generally, one evaluates a point of view as much by its contents as by ones assessment of the author’s understanding of the issues and intentions. It is the second part that is not always obvious. I have written before that one should not play the aggressor; and when the situation gets bad for us, turn around and play the victim.
To give an idea of how bad the situation is for one at the receiving end of this blame game. Today we have news about the massive hacking of the US allegedly by Russians. All the experts say that the hackers are probably the Russians. Yet Trump, in his tweet, says that it could be China, without an iota of evidence. Imagine if it is Xi Jinping who is saying that about the US or Australia. Who knows who it could be? Rational people say what the evidence tells them.
The problem is that when we are being unreasonable, the majority of Australians do not notice (they take the words of the government and MSM as truth); but when we are negatively impacted by the consequences of our actions, we play the victim or blame the “other” party. We can continue to play the same game and win with a domestic audience; but when it comes to an international audience where the game is more complex, we can’t expect to be the winner; and the consequences of a major mistake can take all of us down especially if the conflict becomes a war.
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
Teow Loon Ti – I too certainly see Australia as a ‘willing participant…striking a number of blows for an ally’ rather than just an innocent bystander and victim of the greater strife between the USA and China. Its almost as if the Australian government thought it could run amok and routinely engage in hostile acts/words against China as outlined above by Godfree Roberts and do so without consequence. My point is that these hostile acts/words were undertaken within the context of the Trump administration toying with decoupling from China. The Morrison government, (like the earlier Turnbull government) has willingly entered this fray and acted like a deputy sheriff. So, yes we are collateral damage but by our own hand.
And to what purpose? I can only see Australia’s national interest lying in doing all it can to nudge the USA into accepting that it should work with rather than against a rising China. If the USA continues to try and contain China, then I would have Australia quietly loosen its ties to the USA – this is not our battle.
“For a long time China accepted this. Now it is telling us – and by making an example of us, telling other countries too – that this is no longer acceptable. In this new world we have to choose.”
Sorry Hugh, maybe you should send a letter to Singapore telling them about this amazing insight of yours because they clearly don’t get it.
(S’pore to deepen ties with both US and China, rather than choose sides)
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/spore-to-deepen-ties-with-both-us-and-china-rather-than-choose-sides
You are projecting. There is only one super power that is making people choose by coercion, and it’s not China. China never forced Australia to choose between the US and China. Australia CHOSE US interest over it’s own interest, there will be consequences.
How much background coercion was forced upon Australia, we don’t know but other P&I articles today have already touched on the thinly veiled threats from US should Australia dither. Again hard to have independence when you outsource your own security.
“First, we should recognise that this is new. China has never treated a country this way before.”
Maybe no country has been sh.tting on China’s lunch quite as much as Australia. China even conveniently compiled a list of grievances but Australia is not paying attention. She doesn’t care about all the propaganda on how evil China is, human rights blah blah blah, but when you start to cost China in business deals, but waving through the same deals with different foreign countries, while pretending you are not targeting anyone, there will be consequences. Of course, when China does this, it’s aggression, when US does it, it’s shrewd diplomacy as is typical of western hypocrisy.
“Its aim is to drive growth in a more hostile world while preserving the authority of the Communist Party.”
I take that as a compliment? Trying to improve the lives of its own citizens as it is held accountable to its performance. As oppose to legitimacy derived from some mickey mouse voting process where a rotation of swamp creatures gets to be king for 4 years on regular roster while making the plebs feel like they are somehow in control.
If this is the stuff of “professor of strategic studies”, we are f.cked.
There is a saying common in PRC now “Under Mao China stood up. Under Deng China became rich. Under Xi China became strong.” Grab some popcorn and watch.
What is the advantage of being strong for the sake of being strong? America’s strength was sapped from within.
Except we are all about to take an economic haircut for NO GOOD REASON!
True. But the economic geniuses on macrobusiness reckon we can diversify.
Tell me about it. Those idiots think Australian businesses are morons just leaving money on the table. Like they are not selling, they are rationing to China out of good faith. Where do we get these geniuses from.
For years the West have been talking up India but it’s just not happening.
My understanding is that India will not open up or diversify its economy in response to global demand, simply in order to preserve the wealth of its 1% industrialist and landlord classes and to protect their outdated industrial models from competition. China, as a developing country with a state capitalist system, has not fully opened up its economy, but to the degree that it has the results have been astounding. India seems indifferent to its own potential in this regard.
There is also an historical problem, which is that India never had a Cultural Revolution like China’s, during which mass literacy and numeracy were finally extended to the vast mass of the population, the rural poor, thus providing a fundamental requirement for a massive national transformation in China from a primarily agrarian economy to massive industrialised manufacturing – a skilled workforce. OK, hundreds of thousands – maybe millions – of the Chinese intellectual and Party bureaucratic 1% died or suffered badly from the Cultural Revolution, but that’s another narrative.
India cannot possibly compete with Chinese manufacture in these conditions. The last thing Indian landlords want to see is an educated peasantry, and the last thing Indian industrialists want to see are better pay and social insurance for the workforce that compete with profit margins and may stimulate broader demand for reform from the hundreds of millions of the impoverished population, 36 million of whom in one state alone are still forced to defecate in the open air.
Therefore industrial action by oppressed workers in India is a daily occurrence and it is often violent. Just recently billions of dollars of infrastructure was destroyed by workers who burned down the manufacturing plant of their Taiwanese employer. South Korean companies trying to operate in India are facing similar violence. Its difficult to see how India can lure foreign manufacturing investment away from China at all under such conditions, or how it could possibly replace China as Australia’s major trading partner.
“My understanding is that India will not open up or diversify its economy in response to global demand, simply in order to preserve the wealth of its 1% industrialist and landlord classes and to protect their outdated industrial models from competition.”
You nailed it. Very few people get that aspect that for some developing countries, not developing is better than developing.
The GDP growth in the first quarter (April-June) of 2020 over the first
quarter of the previous year has been minus 24 per cent . The former chief statistician of India, Pronab Sen, believes that the actual contraction would have been about
32 per cent. This is the worst result of any major economy in the world. Millions of desperately poor workers walked, yes walked. back to their villages as the promised relief didnt arrive. The Modi government has spent 1% of GDP on COVID relief assistance whilst even the US has allocated 10% of GDP. But Modi has been banging the anti-China drum and even provoked a military confrontation with the PLA which his army comprehensively lost. India and the Indian farmers and workers are suffering. But one of our gunboats will steaming around the Bay of Bengal so its all ok.