The Prime Minister’s dash to Japan to meet the new Japanese Prime Minister – the first foreign leader to do so – should be welcomed. It is unusual in terms of diplomatic protocol for an established leader to visit a newly appointed leader, not the other way around, unless it is the US for which normal protocol seldom applies.
Far from being seen as kowtowing to the Japanese, Morrison’s visit has however underscored how much the world has changed around Australia. It is also a further example of how Australian foreign policy has started to notice this fact and the need for Australia to adopt more realist positions in foreign policy.
The embrace of Vietnam – a communist, one-party, authoritarian state with a deplorable human rights record – is another. These adjectives could, of course, be used to describe another major state in East Asia.
The Defence arrangement (it is unclear what instrument exactly was signed) seems not to add much in substance to what has already been announced or is underway. The thorny issue of capital punishment for ADF personal if found guilty for crimes committed in Japan that carry the death penalty seems not have been resolved. Opposition to capital punishment remains an important Australian value. It will be interesting to see how the Government manages balancing our values and interests in this particular case.
Still, what matters more is the symbolism and clearly China’s vitriolic response indicates that it has not been lost on Beijing. The East Asian region is now one of many moving parts, all set in motion by China’s ascendency and the US’s turn inwards.
After years of being rejected by India from participating in the trilateral annual naval exercises, Malabar, Australia has now been let in, presumably as part of India’s strategic messaging to China following their mid-year clashes in Ladakh. As a result, the Australian Navy finds itself exercising in the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea, far removed from areas of strategic sensitivity in East Asia.
Nonetheless, the Quad has now been militarised which will further add to Beijing’s sense of insecurity and support the hawks assessment that Australia is bent on containment of China. The Prime Minister’s rush to Tokyo will be interpreted by Beijing as reinforcing this view.
This will most certainly crowd out any attention that the Treasurer’s conciliatory remarks towards China may have received from his speech in recent days acknowledging China’s success in managing the pandemic and returning to robust economic growth. As Australia looks to its own economic recovery, China’s will be of fundamental importance for the Treasurer.
Also the past week, we have also seen states in East Asia engaging and hedging with China.
The Regional Economic Cooperation Partnership (RCEP) was signed finally after eight years of negotiations. It includes all the major countries of the region. India’s absence reinforces the minimal interests India has in East Asia and the converse, namely, that East Asia is the only security system in the region that matters.
Indicative of declining US engagement in the region, RCEP is the second major piece of regional architecture to be created without the US, following the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in 2014. The US had been a founding member of the TPP but withdrew after the election of President Trump. It is not evident that a Biden Administration will return to the TPP. So the region continues to reshape itself to declining US engagement and China’s rising power.
When many pieces are moving, it is challenging for diplomacy and strategic missteps in timing and substance are an ever-present reality. Just as the Prime Minster was leaving Japan, the Chinese Ambassador to Tokyo was sounding conciliatory on the fractious Senkaku/Diao Yu Dao Islands dispute and progress was announced on the Japan/China/South Korea free-trade negotiations. Tokyo and Beijing are busily recalibrating their relationship through further engagement ahead of the change in Administration in Washington.
In contrast, Australia has made itself an outlier in its dealings with China. This is an inconvenient truth that no amount of feigned or even real indignation coming out of Canberra over China’s actions should be permitted to conceal.
Australia is most certainly not alone in having important and complex challenges to address with a rising and assertive China. If we were, the current dire state of our relationship would be just something we have to live with, as senior ministers suggest. The policy failure is that among all the many countries, both in our region and beyond, which are concerned about China’s behaviour, we have not been able to walk gum and chew at the same time.
Protecting Australia’s interests involves not only hardening defences against an overreaching China, but also maintaining relations with the dominant power in the region. We have opted for strategic competition with China at the cost of strategic cooperation where it is in our interests to do so.
In the region, Australia’s values and democratic institutions are not the only ones that sit at odds with China’s. New Zealand for one faces all of the challenges that Australia does, but still manages to maintain constructive diplomatic relations, including high-level visits during the period in which Australia has been frozen out.
But no country more than Japan has to balance deep historical animosities, ongoing territorial issues, contingent geography, and deep economic interdependence. Yet Japan still maintains normal diplomatic relations and engagement, including the presence of a substantial contingent of its media in China. Xi Jinping was to have visited Japan in April this year until Covid intervened.
Some commentators, including in these pages, seem not to understand the difference between being alone and being an outlier. Australia is definitely not alone but is certainly an outlier. It is to be hoped that Prime Minister Morrison used some of his time last week with Prime Minister Suga to seek guidance on how to manage its various interests with an assertive China and avoid the binary choice of sycophancy or hostility which is how Australia’s China policy is now framed.
A version of this article appeared in the AFR. It has been republished with the permission of the author.
Geoff Raby was Australia’s Ambassador to China from 2007-11, during which he visited all provinces in China officially. He served in Beijing as First Secretary (Economic) and then Counsellor (Economic), 1986-91. He was Ambassador to the WTO in Geneva, Ambassador to APEC, and Deputy Secretary, 2003-07. He was also head of the Trade Policy Issues Division of the OECD, Paris, 1993-95. He is a non-executive independent director of ASX listed-companies Yancoal, where he chairs the Health, Safety, Environment and Community Committee, and sits on the Board of the Gavan Foundaton.
His most recent book, Great Game On: the contest for central Asia and global supremacy, was published by Melbourne University Press on 12 November 2024. His previous book was China’s Grand Strategy and Australia’s Future in the World Order (MUP Nov 2020). He regularly contributes op eds and travel writing to the Australian Financial Review. He holds a PhD in economics. He was awarded the Order of Australia (AO) in June 2019 for services to Australia-China bilateral relations and to multilateral trade.
Comments
33 responses to “Australia has made itself an outlier in its dealing with China”
I look forward to a few more logical falacies being dragged out
I note the constant use of the old argumentum ergo decedo fallacy
lolol. learn something new everyday.
If it was not so serious you could just laugh of the apologists defending the CCP .
The CCP is a nasty totalitarian regime that has spread corruption through our parliament, universities and business elite and continues to bully us and other sovereign nations.
The CCP has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Our system is doing the opposite, especially in the US. That is how I judge whether a system smells of roses or stinks of corruption.
When is P&I going to disclose Geoff R’s lobbying for Yancoal and his listing on the Foreign Influence register.
Surely it’s a must from a position of full disclosure.
So you oppose the jobs of Hunter Valley miners and steelworkers. Raby is too modest. Hewas appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) in the 2019 Queen’s Birthday Honours for “distinguished service to Australia-China relations through senior diplomatic roles, and to multilateral trade policy development”. But that wouldnt mean anything to a foot soldier of the Trump insanity.
nice to see you have a good grasp of logical falacies
Do you understand a conflict of interest?
Take a cold shower.
Australia’s ‘values’ are rhetorical only. In practice, we are war criminals who lie, cheat, and steal from the world’s smallest, poorest nation–then seek to cover up our shameful actions.
Our democratic institutions are no match for China’s democratic institutions, either. No matter how you slice it–constitutionally, electively, popularly, procedurally, operationally, performatively, financially–China ranks with Singapore and Switzerland as one of the world three leading democracies.
We are in denial about our role and place in the world, about our motives and intentions, and even about our real values. Our hypocrisy is showing.
https://i.imgur.com/PowGw9K.png
This is so sad, the Chinese think their country is democratic because they don’t what it is! Thinking and being are two seperate issues.
And this is just woeful: “Our democratic institutions are no match for China’s democratic institutions, either. No matter how you slice it–constitutionally, electively, popularly, procedurally, operationally, performatively, financially–China ranks with Singapore and Switzerland as one of the world three leading democracies…”
In which area–constitutional, elective, popular, procedural, operational, performative or financial–does China not rank with Singapore and Switzerland? Please explain why you think so.
You claimed China “was one of the world’s three leading democracies.” Your link appears to be a survey of four countries and their peoples view on the two questions posed. That survey does nothing, what a person thinks and what actually is are two different things.
I would have thought it was up to you to support your claim, not for me to refute it!
Here’s my argument in full: https://www.unz.com/article/selling-democracy-to-china/
I examine each dimension and compare it to Athenian democracies.
will come back, work next 2 days then w/e.
Constitutionally: To me it looks like you’re equating process with outcome; it looks nice on paper, but what about in effect, how does it actually work in practice? How’s it work constitutionally (with regards to democracy) having the NPCSC deciding what the interpretation of the law is, and not having a seperate judicial body doing so?
Electively: you claim that China’s elections are more transparent, without any supporting evidence. I don’t know, i can’t refute it, but there certainly didn’t appear to be a lack of transparency occurring in the recent US election. Trump broke a lot of conventions, but still the will of the voters prevailed. How does Xi’s “office for life” fit in with Electively let alone with Popularly?
Popularly: I can’t really counter this; may be popular at present, but what happens when people dispute direction or outcome, will it be Tiananmen Sq all over again? Trump is popular for some dumb reason and god knows how that would have turned out if he got another 4 yrs.
Procedurally: So engineers etc practice democracy amongst themselves. What does that even mean? Don’t answer, I think I understand what you’re getting at, but it ignores human nature and assumes they’re collectively above reproach.
Using Xi and CC isn’t a good argument, I don’t think Trump is anti CC for any other reason than domestic political considerations. Also I don’t think domestic support for a policy is necessarily a good indicator, Morrison has had plenty of support for our atrocious treatment of refugees.
Operationally: Re your 50,000 people flight ban and the President’s ability to go to war on his decision alone. I didn’t think that was quite correct, were there not issue with that in Vietnam? Anyway, Moa killed how many of China’s own citizens, there isn’t a President alive, dead or yet to be born who could achieve that in the manner he did. What happens to those who go against Xi, seriously? He didn’t become “boss for life” by campaigning (not if you exclude getting rid of any opposition).
Substantively: “China has won her battle for survival and is now militarily and economically impregnable…” For that I’m truly happy, seriously! However: “,so authoritarian giants like Mao and Deng are no longer needed.” Well, how’s that worked out? I would have thought that Xi is turning out to be exactly that!
Financially: Not to sure how the 95% of poor Chinese “own” their own homes works in practice, plenty of msm reports on farmers being turfed off their land for development (by the “local councils”) for next to no reward, but I cannot produce evidence for that, just 20 yrs of msm, however, this is before all the anti-Chinese rhetoric.
Claims of how dynamic China is economically and how well it’s doing post covid is disputed by some, like Michael Pettis (drowning in debt, and unwilling to look beyond vested interests), but they’re also coming off a bloody low base.
Imo, if you just go about your day and mind your business, you’ll do fine, rock the boat and dispute the direction of the gov and you’ll find yourself on the end of a gov/judicial truncheon, at all levels of society. Know your stratum, and I guess you’ll do okay, dispute it and you won’t. There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence to support that.
Godfree, I can’t help but feel you’re infatuated with China and can see no wrong doing. I never expected China to become “democratic” like us, though the best outcome in that regard would be like Singapore, but what I object to is the way it treats its own people who take a different viewpoint. Our style democracy would likely have resulted in the splintering of China (which, I’d not be surprised was an unstated aim by some), the way they opened up to the west was smart, not allowing their country to be used for cheap labour while gaining access to their massive consumer base for no economic gain by China. But the attitude that my children and grandchildren shall pay the price for what went by 120 yrs ago and that they should pay the piper for that, NO.
Taiwan is independent, and the west should support that in every way needed, HK is legally Chinese, but it surprises me how totalitarian the views are here on the HK people, who have been HKers for over 100 yrs. The arguments about the British past is a strawman. The way the mainland has responded speaks volumes about China’s form of democracy, that you and plenty here support. Very much system orientated, rather than people.
Just FYI; I posted this some 3 years ago – but still seems relevant.
http://cooksourdough.blogspot.com/2017/07/this-democracy-thing.html
Hi Colin,
Thanks for the link.
Just to be clear I have no real concern about China’s form of government, their people can worry about that. Yes, imo our politicians are bought and paid for by lobbyists, as you point out and we could certainly run our gov better, however, regardless of how topsy turvy our democracy is, we have a say. Is it an effective say? Most likely not because of the party system and peoples adherence to their tribe, but we choose to go with it, so the blame lays with us collectively, it isn’t forced on us and the constitution can be changed.
But as to our democracy, anyone is free to form a party and run for state or federal parliament, or run as an independent. People can espouse their views about our form of gov without fear of arrest and arbitrary confinement, anyone can publicly dispute our gov’s position on any subject with out fear (to a point, but the fear won’t be fear of arrest). History and current affairs in China shows that is not the case there.
I’m not opposed to Australia having a closer relationship with Japan. I AM opposed to a blundering PM (you will never see or hear me describe Morrison as a “leader”) with no capacity for nuance, making a spur-of-the-moment trip that was firstly always going to get up China’s nose (albeit China’s reaction was rather puerile – no doubt considered, but still puerile) and, which was intended to provide him with a smokescreen for the Robo-debt debacle, for which he, more than anyone else, is responsible. Of course, every politician tries to manipulate the news cycle to political advantage, but that’s all Morrison does. His days are not spent thinking about how to make Australia a better country for all. They are spent massaging his image.
In my view Raby is part of a coterie of insider civil servants, politicians, management class mercenaries who use their contacts and influence to hand out advice for which they receive benefits. Disgracefully our media happily reprints their press release propaganda next to their former title. If we had any integrity this activity would not happen. The CCP has been undermining our democracy for years using many avenues to cultivate a crop of quislings
The ad hominem of the sinophobic trolls is staggering. So a respected diplomat who proposes a perfectly rational foriegn policy response to the PRC is a quisling? Your comment is a disgrace. And one illustrative of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Trump rump of the LNP. Yes, yes i know. Now its Trump? Who?
MacLennan uses crack-pot language, but I think we do have to take into account the fact that Geoff Raby works in the interests of Australian corporations in China for a fee, something he used to do in China for the Australian Government for a salary. That he helps Chinese corporations in Australia is OK with me, but most people would think that working for a coal miner (if that is true) betrays a certain lack of principle.
Raby is on the board of a company that mines coking coal in the Hunter. Unless someone has come up with a recent technology to replace coking coal in steelmaking recently are you suggesting the making of steel is immoral? Coking coal is an essential ingredient in steel making. I am a former steelworker.
We urgently need to get rid of carbon as the reducing agent in steel production, and use only as much as is needed in the steel product (<2%). The new reducing agent will probably be hydrogen, produced electrolytically, peaking in the middle of the day when a great excess of solar electricity will be generated. Green steelmaking will be interesting and satisfying work for lucky people.
Making steel from solar is literally pie in the sky. The carbon process wont be replaced ever by “probably” hydrogen. Electrolytic steel production has been around for years and uses huge amounts of electricity. In the meantime to suggest that miners, steelworkers and company directors involved in producing and using absolutely necessary coking coal are immoral is with respect insulting.
You are wrong. It will happen, but not soon enough.
The 18 solar panels on our roof put out 5 times what we use over the month. There will soon be an embarrassing surfeit of electricity in the middle of the day, and we will be looking for ways to use it. Making enough hydrogen to last overnight and a bit longer will be one.
It’s 61 % owned by a Yanzhou (HK), which is 19 % own by a mainland SOE. Making it majority Chinese owned! Conflict of interest.
Gom,
Welcome to P&I, the home of the professional China Apologist and it’s somewhat of an echo chamber as well.
“the binary choice of sycophancy or hostility which is how Australia’s China policy ”
Indeed. Much as Morrison protests about binary choices, one of his favourite advertising phrases, we see in his intractableness, exactly what was on display when first, his contract with Tourism New Zealand was terminated, and again when the same thing happened in Australia. In fact we have witnessed his refusal to negotiate on many occasions, not least when the boat asylum seekers were consigned to Manus and Nauru, where they have remained for a decade with no recourse to Australian law, or any other law for that matter.
Australia is not well served by Morrison. Australia needs a leader who is nuanced and sophisticated in its approach to foreign relations, unlike the bullheaded and dull rugby league scrum he has created with his hospital pass offloads to equally dull and uninspiring mates. One hopes the fifth tackle happens soon because the try line is nowhere in sight, and a changeover to a new team is required to carry the ball for Australia.
Like the football analogy. But perhaps the litte Aussie Trumpsters propensity to score own goals might suggest another code?
erh why not mention Mr Raby is the coal lobbyist for CCP owned Yancoal and is a a registered agent of foreign influence
Because rational people consider rationally all arguments proposed. Not fevered conspiracy theorist ad hominems by trumpists without a trump. Turn it up.
Paul, it’s called disclosure. It could be argued that Geoff Raby has a vested interest and anyone reading his writing can make of it as they see fit. Hiding it, well, sort of looks like you’re hiding something, not that I think that is the case with him.
Btw, your rationality is going down the gurgler real fast.
Sorry mate. You are not much of a conspiracy theorist. Sort of sort of.