Only a herculean shift in foreign policy, a change of government or major external event will thaw a “frozen” relationship between China and Australia that has been damaged by a lack of diplomacy from Canberra that has compounded over the past three years, according to former Australian foreign minister Bob Carr.
In an interview with the South China Morning Post, Carr, who was foreign minister from 2012-13, said it was not the substance of Australia’s actions – including calls for an inquiry into the origins of the coronavirus and its ban on technology from Huawei Technologies Co. – that had damaged ties, but the lack of diplomacy with which Canberra pursued them.
“Both thrusts can be defended. But the diplomacy accompanying the decisions was spectacularly incompetent,“ he said. “Australia-China relations are frozen. We have no relationship, formal or informal. I’m not sure what our embassies do or can do.”
Carr, who was a politician with the Labour Party, said he supported policies that looked after Australia’s interests, but the current Liberal-led coalition’s adversarial approach had contributed to souring relations.
The two countries have been locked in conflict for more than seven months, with China taking a series of trade actions, including banning exports and applying anti-dumping duties, on Australia.
The Chinese embassy in Australia last week provided local media with a list of 14 grievances that had “poisoned” bilateral relations, including Canberra blocking Chinese investments, Australian politicians criticising Beijing and alleged racist attacks on Chinese and Asian citizens in the country.
Carr traced Australia’s adversarial approach to China back to “a flamboyant lack of diplomacy” in 2017, when then-Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull made a speech supporting US military build-up in the region, and former foreign minister Julie Bishop called for increased cooperation with the United States in the Indo-Pacific.
Speaking soon after Donald Trump became US president, Bishop said the US was an ally and “indispensable power” in the region.
“Most nations wish to see more US leadership, not less, and have no desire to see powers other than the US calling the shots,” she said at the time.
“There is a feeling in Canberra that the best expression of Australia’s international personality is to be the closest American ally to Washington,” Carr said. “This eliminates any opportunity for creative middle power diplomacy.
“Australia very deliberately tilted against China in 2017, but with an almost flamboyant heavy-handedness.”
Australia’s lack of diplomacy culminated in a push for an international investigation of the origins of the coronavirus in April, which Canberra pitched as an “anti-China” inquiry, rather than one with the support of China, Carr said.
There was even talk in Australia of sending “weapons-style inspectors” to Wuhan, the initial epicentre of the pandemic, that China saw as deeply hostile, said Carr.
“It was a signal to China that Australia wasn’t interested in a bilateral relationship,” he said. “It looked like we didn’t give a damn.”
Australia also turned a commercial decision on banning Huawei’s technology, which it did on national security grounds, into a model for other Western countries, according to Carr.
“We gravitated towards the most adversarial position on China,” said Carr. “We trumpeted we had gained the approval of Donald Trump.”
Carr, who also served as premier of New South Wales state, said he did not see a way out of the diplomatic mire “unless there is a change in government or a change in China policies”.
Alternatively, an external event such as Washington and Beijing resetting their relations and forging a new path forward could trigger reconciliation, Carr said.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government maintains that the ball is in China’s court
in terms of resolving current differences, a position reiterated by trade minister Simon Birmingham in a television interview on Sunday.
Asked why some Asian nations – including those with territorial disputes with China – could maintain workable relations and walk the diplomatic tightrope better than Australia, Birmingham said that was something for Beijing to explain.
“In many ways you’re asking a question that is a question for Chinese authorities as to why they may have chosen to seemingly single out Australia in some way for commentary and/or action in different ways,” he said.
Su-Lin Tan joined the Post in 2020 after the Australian Financial Review where she covered housing and commercial property, Asian business and street talk and investigations. She is a qualified accountant and worked in investment banking and funds management both in London and Sydney before becoming a journalist.
Comments
8 responses to “China-Australia relations: ex-Australia foreign minister says Canberra must drop adversarial approach to fix ‘frozen’ relationship (South China Morning Post Nov 24, 2020)”
Australia’s plight has been much worsened by the administrative trend that has taken the management of our foreign relations out of the hands of the urbane experts of DFAT, and handed it over to shit-head adversarialists from Parliament.
The ball is in Australia’s court. If Australia is serious about repairing its relationship with China it needs to address all the grievances China listed, not dismiss them the way they have. I can’t figure out if the Morrison/Birmingham et al are deliberately torpedoing the relationship (maybe because they think it boosts their domestic political stocks) or if they are just stunningly incompetent, probably both. One things for sure simple Simon is in denial and way out of his depth.
If both thrusts can be defended, why does nobody defend them (apart from muttering about ‘values’ and ‘democracy’?
The rationale for Australia’s decision standing firm and not budging from her stand on the list of 14 issues deserses more analysis. There are 2 tyoes of decision (1) Policy adoption followed by implementation (relationship freezing & rhteroic bombardment). The decision has been made to side with the US because we are allies and we support the US stand to contain China. (2) The SCS, Uighur, HK, etc. issues are so repulsive to Australia that it needs to stand up to China by implementing relationship freezing and firing rhetorics at will. The policy is created de novo.
Reversal of policy (1) is difficult as its ideology belongs to the US & they have their reasons for maintaining it. Reversal of policy (2) has a better chance as it is home made and does not need Uncle Sam’s permisiin to change it; particularly, then counter allegations of hypocrisy on these issues are coming from other natiins other than China, has gained traction.
There is no right or wrong for a policy stand and only the consequences count. The collateral damage to Australian economy will be substantial if the relation is not mended on time. Birmingham’s inablility to asnwer why our Asian nations can walk the tight rope better than us, is symptomatic of our diplomatic failure.
Sorry folks, the ball is in our court now. Remember how well the Chinese target the US barley farmers in the mid west!
Is American funding and training of Uyghur terrorists not repulsive? Since that caused the problem, should we not have bravely criticized the US? Since the World Muslim Council supports China’s measures there, how repulsive can they be?
As to Hong Kong, nothing has changed except that US-trained and -funded rioters and legislators are no longer impeding the democratic running of the city.
Many thanks for your comments which I concur. The word “repulsive” is a satircal description of the folly of our excuses for participating in the current geopolitics bw US and China.
Godfree, are you on Twitter? This platform is too limited. There are many others can benefit from your comments on current affairs via a bigger platform like Twitter.
I second that. I have often wondered at the depth of knowledge of Godfree Roberts on China. I have followed his long form articles on Unz.