Is the Australian Government serious about restoring the relationship with China? There are disturbing indications that it is not.
At the National Press Club (NPC) on 26 August, the Minister at the Chinese Embassy in Canberra, Wang Xining, delivered a cleverly crafted address containing a pathway to parlay after months of Morrison mudslinging at the Chinese Government following the LNP fear of catching the Corona virus.
The event was organised by China specialist and former diplomat Peter Phillips, who along with other retired Australian diplomats, is concerned at the ignorance and right wing ideology now governing our most important diplomatic relationship.
The embedded LNP media, known as the Main Stream Media (MSM), present at the NPC, either chose to ignore the invitation to parlay or it passed over their heads.
The invitation was subtle but it was not obscure. Former DFAT colleagues, watching on TV or present at the NPC, picked it up.
Alan Behm formerly DAFAT and Defence and now head of international and security affairs at the Australia Institute, writing in The New Daily on 29 August, said Wang Xining’s speech was a clever, measured and thoughtful contribution to the conversation that Australia and China need to have. He outlined four principals that Wang set out to promote the partnership: respect, goodwill, fairness and vision and noted he offered the good offices of his embassy ‘in getting Ministers talking to each other.’
Right wing MSM journalists managed to miss all of this, instead running the LNP/Murdoch China bashing line. Chris Uhlmann, Channel 9, claimed Trade Minister Birmingham had made approaches to the Chinese seeking dialogue.
I contacted Birmingham’s office seeking details of these alleged approaches. The Ministers Senior Media Adviser, Benn Ayre, responded by email saying, “The Minister said late last week: ‘There have been at least half a dozen requests for ministerial conversations since late April, including a request I made in writing as recently as last week.’ “
I did not find this advice enlightening so I responded, ‘Thanks Benn. Who were the requests made to? Who was written to? All the best, Bruce.’
His reply, ‘Requests for meetings with Commerce Minister Zhong Shan. These have been either direct correspondence or requests through our embassy in Beijing or their embassy.’
To which I asked, ‘When were the approaches to the Chinese Embassy in Canberra? Written or verbal? At what level? Were they formally acknowledged? Who made them? The Ministers office or DFAT?
And his response, ‘Sorry Bruce, but we are not going to go into that level of detail. Cheers, Benn.’
That made no sense to me. During the course of a 23 year career in DFAT, which involved briefing Ministers and Ministerial advisers, I cannot recall the provision of such simple and straight forward information not being provided under the circumstances prevailing in this matter.
I went back, ‘Thanks Benn, but surely you need to establish the veracity of your claims. Otherwise they remain hearsay. When I was in DFAT it was par for the course to back up claims by the Minister in matters such as this. In those days the MSM was tougher and more professional in pursuing ministerial statements.
What is being said here is trust us. As you will appreciate the stakes are high and ‘trust us’ under the circumstances does not cut the mustard.
The Chinese Minister, Wang Xining, says as far as he is aware no approach has been made to the Chinses Embassy in Canberra, to facilitate Ministerial contact. My reading of his statement was that he was offering to facilitate an approach.
So who is dissembling, Wang Xining or Simon Birmingham? This is a very serious matter in terms of the bilateral relationship. Would you like to reconsider your advice? All the best, Bruce.’
I heard nothing further so I rang him but no further details were forthcoming.
Under the circumstances I have concluded that Birmingham’s office is not telling the truth. Birmingham has made no approaches and why?
Birmingham is not the brightest or strongest person on the front bench. Who might have lent on him and why?
Could it be that those dictating Australian policy toward China do not want a rapprochement? Who are they? DFAT is seen by right wing think tanks and consultants as weak on China. It is weak but not just on China. Payne is one of the most insipid Foreign Ministers Australia has had for some time, morally and intellectually. Probably not since Tony Street have we witnessed such a poor performer in that role.
The finger of suspicion must fall on the right wing Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) which has been rabid in its contrived public attacks on China. But ASIO, ASIS and Border Force must share responsibility, locked as they are, into Trumps visionless future for the region and anti-China posturing.
Grasp this. As Trade Minister, Birmingham, appears not to be making any move to restore the trading relationship with China and this may be because the right wing, both in Parliament and through the likes of ASPI do not want him to, and may in have applied pressure for him not to do so. If Australian right-wing organisations believe they can punish China they are delusional.
They might like to explain their thinking to the National Farmers Federation, wine, beef and barley producers. Such thinking, if it is abroad, would be totally at odds with the national interest. It would represent a self indulgent and destructive Canberra power play, with billions of trade dollars at stake.
Bruce Douglas Haigh is an Australian political commentator and former diplomat.
Comments
15 responses to “China policy – the children are in charge”
I have been watching askance at the lack of perspective and recent history in both Governments of China and Australia. The Chinese and Australian people are being let down and actively being miss-led to help establish power bases which are poorly thought through and probably short term. China has taken some poor decisions over Hong Kong and sent tremors through the whole South East Asian Region with its “Islands Policy” (built, and South Pacific)…the lack of diplomatic and intellectual skill by Australia and Allies (and it’s cutting of budgets in the totally wrong places) will lead sadly to armament and isolationism in the Region.
Good stuff, Bruce.
You might mention that we are given, almost nightly, an ABC interview with either Jennings or one of his ilk from ASPI, with their word largely unchallenged.
And guess what? You can’t comment on the YouTube or on-line versions of these. Freeze peach anyone?
Considering this article and the one from Ian Cunliffe one has to wonder if there are foreign agents trying to influence (negatively) Australia’s trade relationships with China.
No doubt Christian Porter is doing his best to investigate this.
I have been missing from this conversation and in hospital most of the time since mid July.
I add to the concern the reporting, disgraceful reporting, of the ABC. At one time reliable as source of fact. On this occasion following the pattern of recent reporting on China and other matters, beginning with biased attitude and staying there. We are in a situation very much resembling 1960 when expression of views contrary to right wing orthodoxy, or rather the description of realities that make right wing orthodoxy look as foolish as they are, incurs wrath. I congratulate Bruce with his wealth of knowledge far beyond Canberra and into the bush for having sought to get the minister to clarify his aspect of the situation. That his office have ducked off, fallen silent, offers the possibility that his staff have played games with the minister’s name. In which situation one might hope someone might encourage the minister to set the record straight.
I have referred in the past to Barbara Tuchman’s The March of Folly, an historical review of how governments and nations act contrary to their national interests. This is where we are now. Find at Wikipedia. My phone won’t paste link today.
Thanks Dennis. I am sorry to read that you have been hospitalised but glad that you are now out.
Deep cynicism coupled with anarchic greed and anti- intellectualism offers a challenge. I must say for as long as I can remember the challenge has been unrelenting.
Sir,
Hope all is well again and we can continue to enjoy reading your astute comments.
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
My dear Teow Loon Ti
I thank you as friend of recent times, and Bruce, friend for longer, for your kind thoughts.
I hope I’ll be home soon and be able to correspond more. It gives me especial pleasure that Australians of Chinese origin find it comfortable here at this place established by John Menadue.
Best wishes. Dennis
Wish you a speedy recovery.
Thank you and many other wise writers at P&I for given moral support to our wider Chinese Australian community in this difficult time.
Thank you doctor.
“Birmingham is not the brightest or strongest person on the front bench”. Just wondering who the contenders for “brightest” on the front bench are. For there to be a “brightest” there must be at least two who are “bright”to begin with. Suggestions?
I’d have nominated Marise Payne but it looks as though I’m wrong there. Sussan Ley? It’s not the deepest of talent pools, is it?
Linda Renolds? Angus Taylor? Peter Dutton? You have to wonder about a system that puts such ordinary people into such powerful positions.
The job of government is to keep the nation safe and to
promote its interests. A prerequisite for this is to be aware that other
nations which are going well will have a similar objective. When positions
conflict, the best approach is to talk it through and settle for the best fit
for both. This calls for diplomacy. So, lever up the diplomats and keep
an eye on security agencies. We need them too. But, by their nature, they
attract ideologues. And that can wreck diplomacy.
Meanwhile good ministers support their departments but also
control any ideological tendencies. This, in turn, is best done by a minister
who is not an ideologue or in thrall to powers that are. We are lucky to have
eagle-eyed former diplomats like Bruce Haigh to alert us to this.
Thank you Eric
Sir,
What worries me is not the government’s difficult diplomatic relations with China. What I find most disturbing is the lack of checks and balances that keeps a government democratic. With a compliant press and an oftentimes concordant opposition, Australian society is literally herded towards an extreme right wing ideological position – disregarding damage to our economy, the livelihoods of farmers, fisher folks or industrial workers; and perhaps at a risk to regional security. When Donald Trump got elected President of the US, I was confident that the check and balances put in place by the founding fathers of American democracy would work towards keeping his excesses in check. Unfortunately, the wheels of moderating mechanisms seem to turn rather slowly.
There seems to be parallel that can be drawn between the two nations and i.e. that populism based on complete self interest and absorption and myopia (parochialism) works well on troubling ills within the society as many writers have pointed out. It could be the widening gap between the rich and the poor, the shrinking of a middle class that is the foundation of democracy, or the loss of competitiveness and dominance. As has been rightly pointed out, Trump is the mere symptom rather than the disease plaguing American society. A traumatised society cannot be expected to think and react moderately. Externalising blame, which psychologist call external attribution, is a convenient tool for poor performing governments. Where is this going to end?
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti