The latest deterioration in Australia-China relations appears to have been provoked by Australian national security agencies and their supporters, in a strategy aimed at souring Chinese-Australian media relations.
David Speers noted in an ABC commentary on 13 September that there is something particularly troubling about the latest regression in the Australia–China relationship:
‘It has brought the activities of the two nations’ powerful security agencies out into the open, seen journalists in both countries targeted, and resulted in the Australian media no longer having any dedicated representatives on the ground in China.’
Reading between the lines of public access reporting, I believe this latest worsening in relations was provoked by heavy-handed Australian security agencies’ enforcement in June-July of the 2018 foreign influence laws.
Australian journalists Michael Smith (Australian Financial Review) and Bill Birtles (ABC) were not ‘expelled’ from China, contrary to the false narrative now gaining currency. They were advised by our embassy in Beijing to leave quickly, after signs of growing Chinese police interest in them, possibly connected to the much publicised arrest a few days ago of the popular Australian Chinese journalist Cheng Lei, who was working in China for China Global Television Network as a news anchor. She is under official investigation for criminal activity endangering China’s national security and faces up to six months in prison if convicted.
In the course of Birtles’ and Smith’s preparations to leave – during their farewell party – they were requested to come in for Chinese police questioning. Our ambassador Graham Fletcher in response took them under his personal diplomatic protection for several days. Journalists, unlike diplomats, have no diplomatic immunity, and the prudent course when they fall foul of local authorities in a Cold War environment is to leave the country quickly. After agreement on a face-saving official interview with Chinese police authorities they were allowed to leave China. It was not an expulsion.
Only after Birtles’ and Smith’s safe return to Australia last week did it emerge sensationally in ABC reporting that on 26 June, on the same day as the highly publicized ASIO-AFP interrogation and shaming of NSW MP Shaoquett Moselmane under Australia’s 2018 foreign influence laws, there had been simultaneous ASIO-AFP harassment of four senior Chinese journalists and media academics, including intrusive and scary searches of their family homes and instructions to keep quiet about these raids.
They were the Australia bureau chief of China News Service, Tao Shelan; China Radio International’s Sydney bureau chief Li Dayong; prominent Chinese scholar and media commentator Professor Chen Hong; and another leading Australian studies scholar, Li Jianjun. A month later, two members of the group – Professor Chen and Mr Li – were advised that their Australian visas were being cancelled due to advice from ASIO of alleged risks to national security. None of this became public until recent days though, undoubtedly, all four would have privately briefed the Chinese embassy here about the ASIO actions, and this would have been reported to Beijing.
We now know that the cause of the ASIO interest in those Chinese journalists and media academics was their participation with Mr Moselmane and his former staffer, Chinese Australian John Zhang, in a WeChat chat group, which discussed Australia-China relations in what participants say was a friendly, social way. This seemingly innocuous chat group was apparently seen by ASIO as coming under the scope of the 2018 foreign influence laws, which had not so far been tested.
While the search and disgrace of Mr Moselmane was made very public by ASIO-AFP presumed leaks to media at the time, we learned nothing at all about these other cases of harassment until after the safe return of Birtles and Smith from China.
If there is a tit for tat element here, it would be in the harassment of Chinese journalists in Australia begun by ASIO-AFP two and a half months ago. It is not clear which side has made the ASIO actions of 26 June public now, or why.
But the public record suggests Australian security authorities may have leaked the story to the ABC, which then enquired of the Chinese Embassy in Canberra as to the truth of it, resulting in detailed published denunciations of Australian actions by Chinese state media organisations the next day. All this was predictable and, I would argue, intended.
Significantly, as the ‘expulsion’ false narrative takes hold, I have seen demands by some Australian MPs and in social media for Australia to expel Chinese journalists here in retaliation for the alleged expulsion of Smith and Birtles and the arrest of Cheng Lei.
Whose interests does this serve? The answer is obvious – the interests of those in Australia who are seeking to decouple Australia from China in every way, including journalism. In other words, the pro-US elements here represented by the intelligence and national security agencies, whose public voice is politicians like Christian Porter and Andrew Hastie, think-tankers like Peter Jennings and his ASPI colleagues, and anti-Chinese journalists like Peter Hartcher and most mainstream newspaper editors.
Such voices now dominate Australian policy towards China, DFAT having no more than an implementing and consular protection role these days. Only increasingly rarely does one see or hear reasoned arguments in support of maintaining political detente and respectful diplomatic relations with China, from such people as Ross Garnaut, Peter Drysdale, Geoff Raby, John McCarthy and Bob Carr.
There is a cynical game being played now to break down and discredit Australian-Chinese cultural and journalistic contacts, and the impetus as I see it is coming from Australian national security agencies and certain politicians. It was thus in the McCarthy era against Soviet Russia and people in America who spoke up for good relations with that nation. An anti-Soviet spy hysteria was deliberately generated in America. Careers and lives were destroyed. We may fear worse to come in Australia for those who dare to speak up for good relations with China.
Tony Kevin is a former Australian ambassador to Poland and Cambodia, and a member of the Emeritus Faculty at Australian National University. The author of Return to Moscow (2017), he has independently visited Russia six times since 2016. He has delivered lectures and taken part in academic conferences in the Moscow Diplomatic Academy and in Saint Petersburg on the outlook for Russia-Australia relations.
Comments
15 responses to “What lies behind last week’s sharp increase in Australia-China tensions? ABC’s Bill Birtles was NOT “expelled” from China”
This headline appeared about 9.30 on Tuesday evening on abc.net.au
“Australian police accessed Chinese diplomats’ emails and messages as part of foreign political interference investigation”
Jack Waterford’s piece in today’s P&I is apposite. ASIO, Dutton and Pezzullo are running foreign policy.
It concerns me that Tony Kevin uses the neutral term “arrest” for Cheng Lei, but the interrogation of four Chinese journalists, who were not arrested or forced to flee Australia, is “harrassment”. This sort of blatant favouring one party rather undermines an otherwise reasonable article by Tony.
No problem, of course, that the Chinese security services chose a midnight visit to the two Australian journalists, clearly to intimidate them, because to the China lapdogs here the Chinese security services never do anything unpleasant. How nice it would be if there could be a little balance. It is supine cowardice to claim the fault is entirely Australia’s. Or does the deeply flawed perception that Australia’s mainstream media are engaged in an anti-China conspiracy, which is the conventional wisdom on this website, justify any propaganda?
It concerns me also that Tony refers to the “arrest” of Cheng Lei, as this was likely not the word used by Chinese authorities when she was initially questioned. I would also suggest that “harrassment” is not sufficiently strong a word to describe what sounded more like intimidation with menaces, traumatising the families of the journalists such that they finally left Australia in fear. Their treatment was well described in one ABC report, despite its misleading use of the word “expulsion” in referring to Bill Birtles withdrawal from China. No-one is claiming “the fault” is entirely Australia’s, but the belligerent and provocative attitude of our China hawks is in contrast to the diplomatic but irritated statements of Zhao Lijian. It is however entirely up to Australia whether this situation deteriorates further or not.
You can’t be serious, David. Entirely up to Australia? Has China no responsibility whatsoever? Are you another of the posters who think the only appropriate way for Australia to approach China is on our knees, in humble supplication? Do you think Australia has any legitimate national interests? Of course we should be grateful for such measured Chinese diplomacy as calling us chewing gum on China’s shoe and the poor white trash of Asia. Oh thank you, gracious President Xi, thank you.
Birtles and Smith were not expelled, it is true, but they would have been extremely unwise to have stayed in China, which simply takes people into custody without charge and holds on to them indefinitely. I wonder how many Chinese journalists remain in Australia. I’m pretty sure the number is larger than the 0 Australian journalists in China. And you talk of Australia intimidating Chinese journalists, but convieniently ignore the midnight knocks on the door of the Australian journalists.
In passing, may I point out to the large number of posters – and this is not addressed to you, David – who deny China conducts cyber attacks in Australia, or say there is no evidence of it, today’s articles about leaked data from Chinese hacking. See here:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-15/chinese-database-zhenhua-interest-australia-space-science-sector/12662996
and here:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-14/chinese-data-leak-linked-to-military-names-australians/12656668
I expect the usual suspects will be silent, as usual when directly challenged, but I think it is hard to dismiss this as fake news, anti-China posturing, sheer malicious invention, or 99 per cent inaccuracy, which is the general response.
Thanks Barney, but even though it may not be addressed to me, I can respond, having listened as carefully to today’s report on the data leak as I did to that on Birtles’ farewell party. The data collection firm did not engage in any hacking as far as one could tell, collecting from “social media” and from the sound of it, Wikipedia. Apart from the unsubstantiated claim that China could have a data collection unit operating in Australia, this company didn’t appear to have any interests that would concern “national security” or even “links to the Chinese Communist Party”. But the story was a great distraction from the disturbing inferences we might draw from Tony’s story.
You are right to rebuke me, David, I was not careful enough in my writing. But that does not ameliorate my concern. They are collecting data for mass surveillance, which could be used for psychological warfare. Could does not mean Is, but why do they want this material? Note the following two paras:
“While much of the information has been “scraped” from
open-source material, some profiles have information which appears to
have been sourced from confidential bank records, job applications and
psychological profiles.
“The company is believed to have sourced some of its information from the so-called “dark web”.”
I remember just 18 months ago travelling many countries for a couple of months in Central Europe – and everywhere Huawei – 5G – and me taking photographs of the huge Huawei Billboards – not a whisper of Australia’s burgeoning anti-China paranoia in sight! But I note barneyzwartz that you are holding on fast – the bit/bite/byte all firmly clenched between your dogged jaws!
I do have powerful jaws, a notable observation, Jim. Too many decades of too much food.
It would be odd to find whispers of Australia’s burgeoning anti-China paranoia in Central Europe, don’t you think? Australia would be the place for that. But Australia’s “paranoia” (I can’t quite concede that) is certainly catching on now. See Germany’s change in attitude, and reports today of EU-China negotiations.
I am, of course, the unwelcome conscience of P&I! To most, alas, only the adjective applies, not the noun. 🙂
It’s an interesting comment. I agree authors should strive for objective neutrality. I often feel this is not achieved when I read so many Western media articles about China.
Glad you picked it up; hope we can recognise the lack of objectivity elsewhere too.
That said, I realise getting the tone of an article perfectly objective is not easy to achieve.
Thank you, Kien Choong. It is a psychological fact that bias is a wind that blows more gently from behind – ie, we are less likely to see it when it accords with our own. Unfortunately, as you observe, there’s plenty to go around.
Excellent analysis – thanks to Tony Kevin for countering the pro-US propaganda.
This will not end well.
As a close observer of Australian politics from the onset of the
‘relaxed-and-comfortable – but be-alert-and not-alarmed” onset of “kids-overboard” and buddy-hood of the two “Dubyas” – your perception of this latest US-generated paranoia against China fits very comfortably with my own. As I was only saying yesterday to some friends Mike Smith and Bill Birtles were hustled out of China by Australian diplomatic means (clearly directed from Australia) – and as we had come to understand – interest in them by China as a result of the treatment here a month earlier of important Chinese people (and about which our nefarious Australian officials had cleverly kept us all in the dark.
Thanks for putting it all together with such clarity here, Tony. (I note just now barneyzwartz’s intemperate use of “blatant”!)
I shall have to go back to my Diary of the 88-Temple pilgrimage pathway which I walked in early 2009 and check that my perspectives of the Howard era – by then I had thought mercifully over – to see whether I had had the clear-sightedness to see the rise of the suppository-of-wisdom – now hob-nobber par excellence with European right-wing fascist leaders (check Peter Geoghegan’s just published Democracy for Sale – within which he is awarded a number of guernseys)…
It is very real now that we know that our PM Morrison and FM Marise Payne and other moderate Ministers who wish to mend the Australia China relations have been badly misguided?
I do love the measured use of irony. Brilliant!