Now that the Australia-China relationship has hit a new low, the timing’s right for charting a way out of the current impasse.
Australia’s post-pandemic economic recovery over the next generation – not just coming weeks or months – depends on it.
To do so requires a dialling down of the ferocious noise on both sides. But that’s hard given the now structural factors in the relationship, namely the unstoppable momentum of mutual suspicion and acrimony amongst the bureaucracies and media in both capitals.
A lower temperature is unlikely whilst a more ideological, US anti-China policy taps deeper roots in American soil. The Trump-Biden contest over who is the toughest on Beijing underlines deepening consensus in Washington over what is now routinely cast as China’s existential threat to American prosperity and security. And the shouting there makes Australia’s real differences with the US on China policy barely audible.
National security hawks in Canberra’s security agencies and related think tanks have what they have long wanted. China appears once more as a spectral force in the strategic and cultural imagination.
Sensing vindication, some hawks construct straw men in the name of myth busting. Often, these are the very same voices which since 2017 have assisted in the very creation an ever-present, looming crisis. The spectacle is unedifying. And for those with a memory of the late 1930s, disturbing.
China’s sharp and worrying turn under Xi has brought with it a great power’s demand for deference, one that Canberra rightfully finds impossible to give. But neither the Europeans nor the Japanese have yet chosen to follow America’s China path. And while they are also sounding tougher, and taking their own measures in response to China’s ‘wolf-warriors’, EU and Japanese leaders haven’t sought to needlessly provoke China.
China hawks here face tough questions as to what comes next. The push for more ambitious decoupling would inflict serious economic damage. Quadrilateral dialogues and an Anglosphere reborn might offer warming fora for swapping strategic notes on Beijing and sending firm messages about Chinese coercion, but a grand, new-NATO type coalition they are not. Nor should they aspire to be.
The prime minister finds himself at a critical juncture in his management of Australian foreign and economic policy. If he is genuinely haunted by the ghosts of the 1930s he might also bear in mind the legacy of poor Australian political leadership in that decade and the implications for his place in history. He knows only too well that managing COVID-19 leaves little time for foreign policy.
But his task is to find a way of stabilising the relationship with China or otherwise bear significant responsibility for hindering Australia’s economic recovery out of the COVID-19 crisis. Both sides are going to have to move. Australia has to rebuild trust while looking into the whites of Beijing’s eyes, all the while not kowtowing as Beijing clearly wants it to do. This is a herculean diplomatic feat to attempt. Short of an American U-turn on China – one perhaps more likely under Trump than Biden – it may well mean there is now the very real possibility that improvement has to wait for leadership change in Australia and China.
There is only so much the prime minister can do, constrained by the hawks in his own party and close advisers, along with pressure from Washington. The hawks wouldn’t have liked the approach taken by former foreign minister Alexander Downer after the 1996 Taiwan straits crisis, in which he met with the Chinese Ambassador in Canberra and called for common sense to stabilise the relationship. They wouldn’t like a public statement that makes it clear that the decoupling of Australia and China in terms of trade and technology is neither possible nor desirable. This is the choice Morrison now has to make, lest the current course do serious damage to Australian prosperity and security.
But Canberra can work with other major partners in Asia, especially Japan, to get a message to Beijing that Australia remains a secure and reliable economic partner, despite the differences we have.
Other opportunities for rebuilding trust surely lie in the agreed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership where again, common interests such as liberalisation and trade reform can be pursued within a forum committed to keeping the global trading system open.
And the Trade Minister ought to attend November’s Trade Expo in Shanghai. These are not grand diplomatic gestures that could be interpreted as Australian weakness. They are consistent with the prudent, pragmatic and reason based Australian diplomatic tradition.
Amidst all this, it is understandable that one of Australia’s major sheep exporters has pleaded for everyone to just ‘shut-up’. That frustration surely points to the need for the prime minister and his office to take tighter control of government statements on China. At the moment some of the briefing of selected, unsceptical journalists, particularly that by security agencies, only results in routine, breathless furore.
Australia has had abysmal periods in its relations with China before, and emerged from them. That China has changed under Xi does not render the clear-eyed practicality of the Hawke and Howard governments irrelevant. True, new approaches need to be found, new tactics adopted, new strategies devised. But that task is infinitely more crucial to this country’s future than the force-fed diet of fear and phobia that disfigures national life, exacerbates tension and risks far graver strategic and economic crises.
This article was first published in the AFR.
James Curran is Professor of Modern History and senior fellow at Sydney University’s US Studies Centre. He is writing a book on Australia’s China debate for New South Press.
James Curran is the AFR’s International Editor and Professor of Modern History at the Sydney University.
Comments
24 responses to “A dialogue of the deaf as the noisy hawks circle (AFR Sep 16, 2020)”
I find such statements–standard issue in Western media–almost incomprehensible.
Unlike the US, China has never asked for deference. She has asked for truthfulness, promise-keeping, and moderation of the endless lies and insults to which Australian politicians and media have subjected her.
After Switzerland, and before Singapore, China is the world’s leading democracy and human rights record is far, far better than any Western power’s. Check the stipulations of the Universal Declaration if you doubt this.
She has enriched not only her own poor people, but every Australian, too, and received only insults in exchange, while Australia and her allies have immiserated half the world, even including their own citizens.
Today, there are more hungry children, drug addicts, suicides and executions, more homeless,, hungry and imprisoned people in America than in China. And Australia is busily emulating America’s shameful performance.
I find this post utterly bizarre.
Are you on some Chinese payroll, Godfree? I utterly fail to understand how you can claim China to be a democracy, and vaunt its human rights record. How many political parties are represented in Beijing? Which Opposition parties are likely to remove the CCP?
China has not received only insults – it has received a massive amount of goods it wants on terms it largely sets. No Australian has called China chewing gum on Australia’s shoe. No Australian has called China the poor trash of Asia.
More executions in the US than China? I hope you have evidence for these insane claims. According to Amnesty International, China executes more prisoners THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/international/executions-around-the-world
Obviously that includes the US. Despite the fact that this modern, open, transparent democracy is so secretive about this, the facts emerge. So your claim about more executions is utterly risible. What could possibly motivate you to make it?
If you want to point to inadequacies and injustices in the US and Australia, that is absolutely unexceptionable – it should be done, and this website does it well. But one can do that without grovelling to China.
. Read this and get back to me if you still doubt that, after Switzerland, China is the world’s leading democracy: https://www.unz.com/article/selling-democracy-to-china/.
: http://www.unz.com/article/human-rights-in-china-and-america/
You are conflating ‘party’ and ‘faction’. China and the US are both one party states. The Communist Party has ultimate authority in business and government in China and the capitalist party has ultimate authority in business and government in America. The big difference is, what do American and Chinese voters think? Fortunately, we don’t have to guess.
https://i.imgur.com/XnkVDm9.png
China, a socialist state, permits limited capitalism (Huawei) but no government factions.
America, a capitalist state, permits limited socialism (Medicare) and factions in government (Democrats and Republicans). These factions disguise the fact that a capitalist oligarchy has ultimate authority in American business and politics. No educated American would deny that, and the truth of it is borne out by the fact that, no matter who people vote for, nothing changes.
Amenesty International is a front for the British Foreign Office and the US State Department. It’s a propaganda outfit. Even so, Amnesty International recorded 13 executions last year in Singapore = 2.3/million.
PRC estimated post-trial executions was 2,400 = 1.78 per million citizens. PRC estimated pre-trial executions was 0 = 0 per million citizens
US estimated post-trial executions was 43 = 5.8 per million citizens. US estimated pre-trial executions was 2,010 = 5.7 per million citizens. Killings by US police logged at twice the previous rate under new federal program. US police killed 1,166 people in 2015, more than three a day, but an official US government count misclassified over half of the deaths, according to a new study..More than half of all police killings in 2015 were incorrectly classified as not having been police-related, a Harvard study based on data by The Guardian has found. Justice Department report estimates nearly 2,000 “arrest-related deaths” annually in US.
Sources: Amnesty International, US DOJ https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/12/19/poli-d19.html
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2017/10/13/538472/US-police-killing-study
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/us-police-killings-department-of-justice-program
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/12/19/poli-d19.html
Describing China accurately is not groveling. It’s being truthful. Besides, all the executed Chinese criminals received a fair, open, public trial. Only 3% of those executed by American police got any trial at all. And of the 2,000,000 incarcerated Americans who escaped police executions, fewer than 5% received a public trial. And this is the result:
https://i.imgur.com/Nr9IFF7.jpg
Godfree, good points and civil discourse supported with facts.
Unfortunately, facts are unlikely to interest ideologues. Ad hominem name calling is.
The renegade Bertrand Russell was quoted saying:
“A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”
While I don’t agree with the label “stupid”, the essence of what Russell said may indeed be true.
I’m afraid I couldn’t open the first links either. But I do think your description of the US as a one-party state is highly tendentious. Also including police arrests among judicial killings/capital punishment is not accurate. This is not to defend the various US police forces which, to Australian eyes, seem extraordinarily trigger happy and vastly more militarised than Australian police (who are not totally problem-free either). We also differ on what a fair, open trial consists in – the Chinese judiciary is notoriously not independent of the CCP. I wonder what the two arrested Australian journalists arrested but yet to be charged would think of your description.
Jeffa, we’ll have to disagree what constitutes facts. I don’t mind you calling me stupid – after all, facts are unlikely to interest ideologues. Ad hominem name-calling is. And Bernard Russell a renegade? To what?
Disqus (which is heavily censored) seems to interfere with the links. If you copy and paste them, however, they work fine.
You are right, it’s fine with pasting. I found your China-US democracy a very interesting argument, but it’s clear we have different values which colour our approach. Above all, I value the notion of dissent – as clearly do most who post here, who do so because they are usually dissenting to something – and this is not a value highly espoused by the CCP. I would score your ratings differently because of the values that underpin them.
Regarding trust in government, the more you know about government the less you trust it. In which country is it easier to find out about what the government is doing? Which country has whistleblower protection? Which country has guaranteed freedom of speech?
I’m also aware, not least thanks to posters here, that the position in China (as anywhere) is infinitely complex and that mostly we are conversing in sound grabs.
I am also anxious when a regime is as ruthless as the CCP is, and this is part of its history. I’m not aware of any Western equivalent to the Cultural Revolution, though one might argue that the French Revolution is similar in its social upheaval. That was certainly murderous but it collapsed in under the weight, which the CCP has not. No one can deny China’s economic miracle, though China’s economic position today is not without problems, I gather.
A regime is as ruthless as the CCP?
What ruthlessness has the CCP demonstrated?
Hello Barney. On the topic of whether or not the United States is a one party state you might be interested in this 1975 quote from Gore Vidal
“There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”
And, of course, if Gore Vidal said it then it must be true. I have often thought that something similar could be said about Australia.
Also, this https://www.scmp.com/author/michael-pembroke Opinion | China’s rise: why US advocacy for confrontation leaves Asia cold is worth a read. If other countries can have reasonable relations with China I don’t see why we can’t. There is fault on both sides but that doesn’t mean our government should give up trying. Perhaps we need to take a more asian approach?
Still don’t agree, though things have changed a great deal since 1975, which is before Reagan and economic rationalism. As I read it today, the Republicans stand for nothing at all except holding on to power so they can keep enriching themselves. The way they are trying to disenfranchise voters they think will vote Democrat is utterly disgraceful. To hell with democracy. Topping that they are “led” by the worst president ever (ranked 45 out of 45 by a ssurvey of Republican and Democrat historians) and the most loathsome individual to be president. Their hypocrisy over the Supreme Court, given their attitude four years ago, is breathtaking – but no surprise. But that doesn’t mean I like the Democrats, with their reductionist and divisive “woke” politics. They are the lesser of two evils.
Thanks for the link, which is certainly a reasonable position and one with which I don’t argue. I have always agreed that Australia could handle China better but unlike – or so it seems to me – many who post here, I believe it is essential to retain our national integrity. I have no appetite for confrontation with China, and no desire to cut off our noses to spite our face. That said, I still think greater diversity in trade (mostly with Asian partners, such as India) would be intelligent. India will soon overtake China in population, if it hasn’t already. Its economy will also rise, though it is as yet behind China.
I agree, not sure what the author has in mind in terms of China’s “demand for deference”, especially when we think of US demands that Australia, UK, etc follow its lead on matters such as Huawei, military projects, contributions to the cost of maintaining military bases, boycotts against Iran, etc.
Which particular demand by China for deference does the author have in mind?? I hope the author clarifies in a follow up article.
PS: I’m not exactly sure what you mean when you say China is the “world’s leading democracy and human rights record”. I couldn’t open the link (even after copying and pasting) in your reply to Barneyzwartz.
It’s possible to argue that China practices a kind of “deliberative democracy”, but whether that makes China “world leading” seems doubtful. Perhaps you can clarify?
Sir,
Thank you for a sobering and balanced article. May I point out however, that there is one observation in it that reflects a huge cultural misunderstanding. It lies in the phrase “….while not kowtowing as Beijing wants it to do.” This is a major misunderstanding of the way Asians interact with each other. My observations and understanding of Asian cultures indicate that normally most Asians deal with each other in a “face saving way”. A good case to examine is ASEAN in which members range from tiny countries like Brunei (around 3 hundred thousand people) or Singapore (with about 725 sq. km of land) to Thailand and Indonesia with big populations and land mass; from poorer countries like Burma and Cambodia to very wealthy ones like Singapore and Brunei. None has shown any inclination to expect any other to kowtow. There have indeed been conflicts in the past between Thailand and Burma or Vietnam and its weaker neighbours after the Vietnam War but certainly not for the pleasure of seeing the other kowtow. The idea of “face saving” which the Chinese call “Mien Tze” and the Malays/Indonesians say “Jaga Muka” can be observed to be assiduously adhered to when Asian countries want to maintain a good relationship with each other. Even in the personal lives of Asians (including yours truly who is Chines/Malaysian/Australian) they get upset when others “do not give them face.”
Perhaps, the idea of China wanting Australia to kowtow is one of the elements that prevents Australia from taking the initiative or responding to gestures of reconciliation. The Chinese understand the concept of “face” to be a two way thing. In order to receive face, one must give face.
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
You raise an excellent point. But you explicitly say that within Asian relations no country expects another to kowtow. I wonder when China might start to “give Australia face”, At the moment, all the giving is expected to be at the Australian end. What is Beijing doing to mend relations? To what extent does Beijing value a relationship with chewing gum on its shoe, or the poor white trash of South-East Asia? The answer is evident in the epithets, is it not?
So your point is excellent, but I can’t see that it applies in this particular relationship. We’re not good enough to be Asians as far as Beijing is concerned. It can just keep buying our iron ore until it has developed its sources in Africa and Brazil, and then we can expect to be punished again.
I am afraid this shows somewhat of an inferiority complex. I think it shows strength, not weakness, when an “aggrieved” party, as Australia likes to see itself, makes a first move to repair the unnecessarily damaged relationship with China.
There is no sense in continuing a “he says, I say” argument that has little prospect of resolution.
In spite of all the brouhaha about Chinese interference (while of course Australian interference has been kept carefully hidden, until the Chinese exposed it) our own government with its trumpet diplomacy has done its best to damage Australian trade with China, possibly at the behest of the USA. Sometimes one has to wonder whether the government’s interest is more with that of the Americans than with the Australians.
But Teow Toon Li is absolutely correct to point out the need for a more “face saving” attitude to our Asian neighbours, which has nothing to do with the perceived kowtowing.
As an old Dutch proverb says: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Hi Hans. I wonder why no poster on this website ever thinks China bears any responsibility. You are exactly the same. Your only criticism is for Australia (and possibly the US). Is that really what you think? Do you really believe that Australia has tried to interfere in internal Chinese workings – hacking, bullying, seeking to influence politicians, universities, ethnic migrants etc – in the same way China has? Do you really think that? If so, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.
But no doubt there will be the same silence from you there always is when posters here are asked about Chinese behaviour, questions I have asked time after time. I really find it mystifying. And intensely hypocritical.
Hi Barney,
I think you misunderstand. I have very few good words for China these days, but at the same time I also have no illusion that whatever one says here about China makes any impact with the Chinese. What we can do is to try our own government to tone the issue down and try (that’s all we can hope for) make up lost ground with China.
We should not and cannot allow is our government with the active help of the Americans to continue to inflame and undermine our relationship (particularly on trade) with China. The Australian government should defend Australian interests, not American. Amongst our Australian interests is a healthy trade with China.
Note that with Australia’s treatment of indigenous people and legitimate immigrants we can hardly take the high moral ground against China’s abuses of human rights.
We certainly should not kowtow to the Americans. I’ve never seen a poster here disagree with that.
I suppose it comes down to what we understand by defending Australian interests. I don’t believe China is interested in a mature trading relationship such as we have with, say, Japan. If so it wouldn’t be trying to bully us on barley, beef, wine etc. China is very happy to weaponise trade.
I think the Australian government is defending our interests, and among those is the very long process of building trade with India,EU etc so that we are not so vulnerable. Meanwhile – and always, in fact – we need to tread more carefully with China than we have. But we should never mistake the CCP for a friend, for it is not.
I’m all for diversification of our trade and become less reliant on China. Unfortunately, China is by far our biggest trading partner and until it changes it seems outright folly to kick our own goals.
As far as friends is concerned I am at least as concerned about our so-called friends in America as any friendship with China (under Xi at least). America’s interest are always only their own.
Well, so long as trade is mutually beneficial it will continue, except every so often when China decides we need to be taught a lesson.
A columnist on this site a while ago – sorry, can’t remember who – sapiently pointed out that it is far from necessary to like one another to trade. China and Russia have a strong mutual suspicion, and also a reasonable trade balance, and China and the US still trade. But only China weaponises trade, which is why I think it cannot be trusted.
Certainly America’s interests are always only their own, and under the current Administration not even that. But I doubt that the sort of friendship we have with the US, based on a shared language and history etc, is possible with China. I don’t even think China wants it – China just wants Australia to be compliant.
Sir,
If, for whatever psychological reason, a country wishes to self flagellate, they can’t blame the injuries on another. If ones neighbour drums up slights and call themselves horrible names like “white trash”, they have a problem, not us. It might not occur to you that China has enough problems of its own to get itself involved in the affairs of others – a country still plagued by poverty, with 55 ethnic groups and more than 1.3 billion people, and tussling with political dissent eg. Hong Kong, it would be mad to take on more problems that are not of its own. That it has clumsily attempted to influence Australians to think favourably about its activities does not show disrespect but a level of respect for us (you only want the approval of people you respect) – although I am certain that you would not agree. You are correct in that they want our iron ore but you are way off the mark in thinking that they want to interfere with us politically. Nobody will find it easy to deal with someone who drums up slights and blames it on another. China was called “The sick man of Asia” (real, not imagined). The fact that it can develop so dramatically to the extent that it causes concern among its competitors was that it did not just dwell on past slights but use it to spur themselves on to working towards a better future. There are many things wrong about China as there are about many other countries – especially countries at war and those that attempt to tear each other apart. It is a country’s ability to see what is wrong about itself that is the key to progress – correct our weaknesses and move on. Good Australians who point out our own shortcoming are not “apologists” for another but people who love their country and really want it to be better. They are the real patriots – not the ones who loudly profess patriotism.
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
Dear Teow Loon Ti
I always respect your opinion, and the post above is no exception. But I do not agree with a fair amount of it, nevertheless. It is not Australia who called ourselves poor white trash; it was the Global Times in China. We are not self-flagellating, we are being whipped.
I am afraid you will find it hard to convince me that China is not trying to interfere politically in Australia. Public relations is one thing, and entirely acceptable. Covert behaviour, hacking, pressuring Chinese students and Chinese Australians, trying to insert an MP (who was mysteriously found dead in a motel soon after), all that is another thing. Many people on this site simply do not believe that any of this occurs, and in the same breath some say other countries including Australia do exactly the same (thereby tacitly admitting that China does behave this way).
There can be no equivalence between Australia and China, an immensely powerful country with skills and a reach vastly greater than ours. But plenty of smaller countries can retain their national integrity, and Australia can too. The way to do that is stronger ties with regional powers such as India, Japan and South Korea, not grovelling to China.
Finally, I agree that it is entirely possible to be a good Australian who wants Australia to be better. I don’t agree that such is the case with many posters here; they may well want Australia to be better – I don’t dispute that – but they are certainly apologists for China. Look at Godfree Roberts below. I’m not sure whether he is Australian but he is certainly a China apologist.