There are still chances to engage with China in a positive and beneficial way if Canberra is so inclined. Beijing continues to make overtures. Technical and cultural exchanges continue, and the business community has its own avenues for communication. A change of government in the US in 2021 will re-invigorate multilateral platforms. All of these present opportunities for Australia to rebuild a positive relationship without prejudicing valid security concerns.
Much has been made of trade tensions, bans and customs issues, noting that fallout will incrementally prejudice Australia’s economic recovery, but commentators including Peter Hartcher in the Sydney Morning Herald fail to mention olive branches that China has extended, including a speech by Deputy Ambassador Wang Xining in Canberra and Australian Financial Review Michael Smith’s interview with senior diplomat Fu Ying.
Over several decades of interfacing with China, our diplomats have learned to roll with the punches and to consider carefully before responding. For instance, take Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin’s statement on 6 November, “The Chinese competent authorities’ measures on foreign imports are in line with Chinese laws and regulations and international customary practices and are responsible for Chinese consumers and domestic industries. They are reasonable, legitimate and thus beyond reproach. Opening up is China’s basic state policy. Upholding a vision of openness, cooperation, solidarity and mutual benefit, China will stay committed to greater opening up.”
It is stated in the Chinese classic The Art of War, “A wise general will forage from the enemy.” In this case, we can forage Wang’s words to our own advantage. Rather than conclude that he was making veiled threats that his government was capable of bending laws and regulations to serve political ends, a better response would be to use the same language, thus removing the possibility of disagreement and highlighting the hollowness of the argument. Let us start with an invitation to China to join us in a joint statement of commitment to shared interests in peace and prosperity and to working with others in the region to achieve these ends through an open rules-based order.
Such a move would have to be followed up with practical measures that the other side logically would have to accept. In the present cases of coal and lobsters and wine, blanket bans by China could never be considered “legitimate and beyond reproach” (Wang’s words). Let us appeal to what he refers to as “international customary practices.” Australia strongly encouraged China to join the WTO nearly ten years ago. Although not without its faults, we can still take these cases there. We can also deepen collaboration on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and engage with each other in the context of the G20.
There will be more opportunities for multilateral cooperation under the incoming US administration. Joe Biden has already signalled a return to the Paris Accord and the World Health Organisation. Existential threats such as pandemics and climate change demand international solutions. Australia can invite China to join in dialogue and action to find regional and global solutions. APEC also provides an international environment for mutually beneficial collaboration on issues such as cyber security.
The Australian’sChina correspondent Will Glasgow noted on 9 November that members of the Australia China Business Council were ready to help the government find “a circuit breaker for the current impasse.” “Our connections and networks have been built at individual and institutional levels over many decades, and carry weight and influence, but have not been properly leveraged to date.”
Australian universities also have their connections and networks. Exchanges of scientists, academics and students have been built over more than four decades. Joint Research Centres with funding from government and private sources offer grants for collaborative research projects, the last round being advertised in September. A recent study by the Australia China Relations Institute noted that around one sixth of all Australian scientific publications involve a Chinese collaborator and these connections are growing while connections with the US, UK and other countries are diminishing.
One measure of mutually advantageous university connections with China are the alumni networks of students who have spent time in either country. There are now an estimated 26 thousand Australian alumni scattered across China. Their website notes several events scheduled for later this month in Adelaide, Guangzhou and Beijing. Although Covid-19 has prevented new students coming here for study, universities continue to offer courses online and report continuing interest from Chinese students in returning to local campuses in 2021.
Cultural connections helped to break the ice of the Cold War in the form of “ping pong diplomacy.” Cultural connections with China remain valid and strong. The official Chinese Writers Association recently proposed a virtual dialogue between Chinese and Australian writers. This is highly significant. Such a proposal would have to be approved at a senior level in Beijing. The Writers In Dialogue event will go ahead early next month, hosted by Western Sydney University through the Australia China Institute for Arts and Culture, and with support from the Australia Council.
Jocelyn Chey is Visiting Professor at the University of Sydney and Adjunct Professor at Western Sydney University and UTS. She formerly held diplomatic posts in China and Hong Kong. She is a member of the Order of Australia (AM) and a Fellow of the Australian Institute of International Affairs.
Jocelyn Chey is Visiting Professor at the University of Sydney and Adjunct Professor at Western Sydney University and UTS. She formerly held diplomatic posts in China and Hong Kong. She is a member of the Order of Australia (AM) and a Fellow of the Australian Institute of International Affairs.
Comments
17 responses to “Reading the China Tea Leaves”
China’s policy of opening up means not driving too hard a bargain on trade deals. That usually gives them an argument that they can later take to the WTO, that a deal is unfair, and they can legitimately withdraw. The politics of that, from China’s point of view, is: “We will be generous to you, but if you show more than the usual amount of ingratitude, we will cut you off from the goodies”. Australia is in that position now.
Thanks Jocelyn for another very reasonable and balanced opinion piece..
It is really up to PM to take the next step. May be at APEC meeting? Best wishes
We need even more reasonable voices like Jocelyn Chey’s to be heard loudly to overcome the ear deafening war mongering from the SMH and the Murdoch press.
It is wise to negotiate from a position of strength – Aus minimising its reliance on China.
I didnt realise cutting ones nose off to spite ones face was negotiating from a position of strength. It is more akin to the negotiating style of a pre-schooler throwing his Weeties on the floor and then demanding Mum feed him..
I didn’t realise being willing to suffer for ones principles was childishness. That being willing to put ones money where ones mouth is was not conceivable. That complying with bullying was what being adult consisted in. I can do insulting rhetoric too.
“Human rights” is a principle of a nation founded on a genocide? A country that hasnt restituted for the genocide. A country that commits war crimes in Asia? This isnt suffering. Its rank hypocracy. I can mount a moral high horse also.
China’s ‘olive branches’ are along the lines of ‘we’ll trade with you if you do what we want’.
What they want of Australia? Basically for Australia to stay out of their internal affairs and Australia with its toy navy of obsolete clunkers to stay out of their sea, and this from a country the world’s main economic power. Turn it up mate.
Yes, and we can stop lying about China regarding Hong Kong (Hong Kong was not a democracy before the handover in 1997, and was not intended to be a democracy during the 50 year transition period), about the Uighurs(western accounts greatly exaggerate the numbers, ignore the terrorist threat from Uighurs, and turn a deaf ear to China’s claims to have finished with that program) about China’s legitimate claims to Tibet and Taiwan. Just for starters.
Since when was the SCS their “sea”; have you ever looked at a map of the sci? So, by staying out of their internal affairs, you mean not mentioning the imprisonment of the uighurs, HK protectors and the demand that Taiwan is part of China (which it isn’t)?
Turn it up, mate.
It is their sea since the Western Zhou dynasty (1046–771 BC) gave the first Chinese name for the South China Sea as Nanfang Hai 南方海. The 9 Dash line was established by the KMT government (anti-commies to a man and a woman) in 1948. The Duterte government is not pressing the Arbitration in the West Philippines Sea. Why should we? They dont bang on about our imprisonment of refugee children without trial, the indigenous genocide (ongoing) and our war crimes in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Seems a fair moral exchange to me. Your knowledge of Chinese history and geography is to be kind somewhat eccentric if you believe Taiwan is not part of China. At the end of World War II, Taiwan was placed under the administrative control of the government of sovereign China by the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration after 50 years of brutal colonial rule by Japan. The Chinese had lost about 30 million people, suffering genocide, mass rape, biological warfare, starvation, slavery and a cruelty on a scale never experienced in the history of humanity before defeating the Japanese fascist invasion of their country. They won it. 不夸张了?
Yes, things like human rights. Aus wouldn’t be happy if we were sanctioned for our treatment of our first nations people – it would be a better world if we were though.
Prof. Chey,
Great solutions. The difficult part is to get both the government and the mainstream media to come to the table to speak with a reconciliatory voice. In parts of Asia, including China, the media is controlled by the government and it can be difficult for them to see a distinction between a free press/media and the government. Unless the mainstream media in Australia cooperates, they would be puling in a different direction.
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
A.
or
B. we can stop lying about China, insulting China and discriminating against China and against ethnically Chinese people.
I predict we will stick with Option A
Unfortunately, white Australian prejudice against ethnic Chinese (not excluding other non-white people…) are deeply etched, right from the time of Chinese gold miners coming here from the 19th century. White Australia, on the whole, cannot countenance China as a big power, let alone a superpower. This probably explains why the Deputy Sheriff is even more keen than the Sheriff himself to want to pull China down a few pegs.
Spot on.