As the diplomatic fallout continues over the digitally altered war crimes tweet sent by China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Zhao Lijian, earlier this week, it’s important to note this inflammatory and offensive post is not an isolated case.
Zhao and other Chinese officials and diplomats have made many outrageous attacks on Australia and the US in recent years. Zhao himself was probably best known before this week’s tweet for his official promotion of a conspiracy theory that the US military was responsible for bringing the coronavirus to China.
Hu Xijin, the editor in chief of the Global Times, an official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, is another vocal critic of Australia.
Four years ago, the newspaper published a scathing editorial directed at Australia after Canberra said China must abide by an international tribunal ruling on the South China Sea. It called Australia a “paper cat” with an “inglorious” history, and said, “If Australia steps into the South China Sea waters, it will be an ideal target for China to warn and strike.”
Why nationalism is such a powerful force in China
These unrestrained attacks and repeated humiliations of Australia look bizarre, but they are engineered to suit a couple of specific purposes for the totalitarian regime in China: one domestic, the other global.
Domestically, this more aggressive posturing toward the world, known as “wolf warrior diplomacy”, is a key function of President Xi Jinping’s dictatorship, which is based almost exclusively on Chinese nationalism cultivated by the Communist Party.
Just like former leader Mao Zedong, Xi has consolidated his power, in part, due to the cult of personality that has developed around his rule. Xi’s image is everywhere in China and he’s even promoted his own ideology called “Xi Jinping Thought” in a similar vein to “Mao Zedong Thought” (and his famous Little Red Book).
Mao’s power was built on the twin ideologies of communism and Chinese nationalism. Today, however, communism is a waning force in China.
And though Xi and his followers still use the ideals of Marxism and “Xi Jinping Thought” for political purposes — such as purging rivals and dissidents — they rely heavily on Chinese nationalism to maintain the legitimacy of their rule in the eyes of the public.
Nationalism is a powerful force in today’s China. It’s seen in everything from Xi’s persistent calls for the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” to Beijing’s increasingly strident anti-American and anti-foreign sentiments.
Xi rose to the top with a mediocre career, but has been dressed up magically as a strongman with great talent and unyielding will — an image that has become indispensable for the stability and cohesion of the regime.
In order to develop Xi’s strongman image and impose submission on the entire nation, the Communist Party propaganda machine has even resumed the titles used by Mao and other great dictators, such as “helmsman” and “people’s leader”. Loyalty to the country, the party and the leader has been made identical once again.
Still, there is rising resentment among some Chinese to Xi’s rule and the country faces enormous political, economic and social challenges. As such, Xi lives with a profound sense of insecurity. And his arbitrary rule and desire for absolute control make everyone else feel insecure.
It’s against this backdrop that “wolf warrior diplomacy” has taken rise. Those who are seen as being tough against any real or potential enemies designated by the great leader are rewarded for their loyalty.
This is why Zhao Lijian isn’t punished for his inflammatory rhetoric against Australia, the US and other adversaries; rather, he’s become a star because of it.
Beijing sees an essential and soft target
And on the global stage, China has long promoted its economic and political system as a legitimate alternative to the US-led, rules-based international order.
As such, it has increasingly expanded its influence diplomatically and militarily in recent years and set up the Belt and Road Initiative to create a new global economic and infrastructure network with China at the centre.
As part of this grand strategy, China has taken aim at countries like Australia that dare to challenge it to force their submission.
Australia is perceived by the Communist Party as both an essential target for its close alliance with the US and a soft target for its economic dependence on China. In short, Beijing can attack Canberra without facing many repercussions — and set an example for the rest of the world.
The “wolf warriors” in the party have made frequent references to Australia being nothing but a pawn or lapdog of the US — an obvious attempt to drive a wedge between the two countries.
With nearly half of all Australian goods exports now going to China, Beijing has also tried to use this economic reliance to its advantage to force Canberra to modify its tone and behaviour.
Showing the determination of the Communist Party regime to rein Australia in, the Chinese embassy in Canberra last month handed over a dossier of “14 grievances” to several Australian news outlets and demanded the Morrison government reverse Australia’s position on key policies.
These included criticising human rights abuses in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, calling for an independent investigation into the origins of COVID-19 and banning Huawei from the country’s 5G network.
The Communist Party state will not recognise how its quest for regional domination and expansionist policies threaten its neighbours, nor will it understand how its oppressive policies against its own citizens are a cause of legitimate concern for the world.
It will also not accept the reality of a strong Australia fighting back against Chinese bullying and interference to safeguard its sovereignty, core values and institutional integrity.
Beijing is flexing its muscles to ensure the submission of Australia and break up an Australia-US alliance based on national interests and shared values. But this is a gross miscalculation that will likely bring about the opposite result.
This article was first published by The Conversation.
The Conversation is a network of not-for-profit media outlets that publish news stories on the Internet that are written by academics and researchers, under a Creative Commons — Attribution/No derivatives license.
Comments
42 responses to “What’s behind China’s bullying of Australia? It sees a soft target — and an essential one (The Conversation Dec 2, 2020)”
Not sure why this article didn’t have the author’s name attached.
I agree that Australia is not well placed to be complaining too much about bullying from China when we have been doing the US’s bidding since our involvement in Vietnam, in the illegal invasion of Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the South China sea and probably also with the call for an inquiry(at Trump’s request?) into the COVID virus management in China.
The tweet about the war crimes in Afghanistan was a provocation and Morrison should not have over-reacted as he did. Certainly China can be criticised on many counts. But we should be aware of our hypocrisy on human rights when we have been ignoring the human rights of refugees, Palestinians, West Papuans for decades and tried to cheated the people of Timor-Leste. Our treatment of first nation peoples has been a great shame since 1788. Our government’s crowing over ‘Australian values’ always rings hollow to me.
The stupidity of the Morrison government in its relations with China is something we will probably all pay for.
We should join the non-aligned nations grouping and try to work for peace in the world rather than continue on this dangerous and destructive path.
The tweet was a provocation, but the image was not. The artist who created it said he read an account of the Brereton report, and it made him angry. In the west we have a rich tradition of such artworks, and though it may be painful to our self esteem, the artist is entitled to express himself in this way. Afterall there was nothing essentially inaccurate about the image.
John would not allow me to reply as I would wish: it is utterly deprecatory.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean. What is ‘it’ and why is ‘it’ deprecatory?
“It” is the remark I would wish to make.
‘Deprecatory’ is a polite word for (personally) insulting.
Okay. Maybe you can find a more anodyne alternative. And while you’re at it, add an explanation about why you need to insult me. You seem sparing with words, which can be a virtue, but you neednt be so miserly with them, to the extent that you dont get your message across.
Mate dont waste your time. Incoming supporters of Chongyi Feng.
Well, I do like to give people enough rope to hang themselves. And thanks for the Chongyi Feng reference.
Here we go. “I am being suppressed”. Mate turn it up.
Its written by Chongyi Feng, who was detained for 10 days in 2017 by the PRC on the grounds of the allegation he is an Australian spy. He was released. He has a massive axe to grind with PRC. Global Times refers to him as as an Australian security agent. He teaches at UTS. I was wrong earlier and apologise to Dr Gillespie. If Chongyi Feng’s name had been on the article i wouldnt have bothered reading it. Have had enough experience of anti-PRC warriors without reading more of their rubbish.
“I would put him in the Nelson Mandela’s class of persons. A person with enormous emotional stability who does not allow his personal misfortunes or sufferings affect his judgment. In other words, he is impressive,” Lee Kwan in “One Man’s View of the World” on Xi Jinping. Chongyi Feng calls Xi’s career “mediocre”. Thats a bit rich coming from an associate professor at UTS. I am going with Lee’s view of Xi.
My assertion was wrong. This article was written by the alleged Australian security operative Chongyi Feng, who teaches at UTS. Global Times has called him a spy. Significantly Chongyi Feng has not taken any defamation action which he can in the Supreme Court of NSW. If i had known the article was written by Chongyi Feng i would not have wasted one hour of a rapidily diminsihing life. “Charles” posting here is very supportive of Chongyi Feng’s extreme anti-PRC diatribe. Apologies to Dr Gillespie, law lecturers everywhere and the NZ tertiary education system etc. etc.
I find this article the antidote to that of Tony Kevin.
I note that The Conversation chose to publish it.
Charles do you know that Marcel Proust wrote his own reviews for the first volume of his Remembrance of Things Past to be put into newspapers? Do they teach Proust at UTS?
No, I didn’t. But I think, Paul, that your observation is irrelevant. (BTW I have nothing to do with the UTS and I am ignorant (sublimely or otherwise!) of Marcel Proust.)
Not just of Proust champ.
This piece is very regressive, repeating most of the cliched talking points of 2018-19. Mostly these points are derived from a western perspective both of global politics and western expectations, and it spends little or no space examining the situation from a Chinese perspective. Indeed it also demonises what it does see as a Chinese perspective. It begins from an assumption that Chinese intentions are malign, much like the Clive Hamilton thesis, and proceeds aggressively from there. Not very helpful in the present circumstances, and that’s an understatement.
Malcolm, would you care to address what to me is critical – that in March 2018 Xi Jinping chose to do what Hitler did in 1933?
Again, I dont understand to what you are referring. What exactly did Xi Jinping do in 2018 that Hitler did in 1933.
Yes Malcolm.
In 1933 the then Reichstag elected Hitler as Chancellor of Germany. Hitler subsequently ensured that, constitutionally. he would be Fuehrer for life.
Likewise Xi Jinping. In March 2018, the 9 Executive members of the ruling body of the Chinese Communist Party endorsed Xi becoming President for Life.
I think you’ll find that the ruling body of the CCP endorsed the possibility that Xi Jinping could become president for life, rather than that he now was. I could be mistaken, but I dont think so. However, why is this ‘critical’?
The obvious inference is that you believe that if Xi Jinping becomes President for life, he will turn into Hitler, which is a pretty far-fetched inference. There is no correlation here between Xi Jinping and Adolf Hitler. They are very different men, the conditions in which Hitler rose to power are starkly different to Xi Jinping’s ascent in the CCP ranks. Germany, at that time was very politically and economically unstable, China is anything but that.
I could go on, but without knowing what it is about this situation that really concerns you, I would simply be guessing. Feel free to be more explicit.
Not “turn into”. They’re both dictators. (And Germany’s growth path was becoming evident.)
My concern is very simple. It is constitutional. I – and everyone else I respect – believe that government by the people is infinitely preferable to government by the narcissistic (if not Dark Triadistic) ego. I believe that precept is primary, it is essential.
Xi is a statesman, and so is Putin. Their talk is always calm and measured, and they consider wider interests than those of their own people. Their own people are proud of them and want to keep them as leaders. It is because they are far superior to anyone the West has turned out, that the West (awash with lies) denigrates them. The US is just finishing 4 years of government by the people, which turned out to be astonishingly incompetent and dishonest government by narcissistic ego.
Richard, I urge you to not be fooled by looking at this from the outside.
Dark Tiadism is complex because of its innate interdependency.
External views of Dark Triadists usually show them to be competent social and political role players; internal views show them up to be narcissistic, psychopathological and macchiavelian, thereby dangerous.
Well, the simple answer is that Xi Jinping is not a dictator, and his elevation to president is quite constitutional, and of course the constitution can be changed. All constitutions can be changed. But that’s not really what you mean is it? When you say, ‘government by the people’, you mean to exclude Xi Jinping from their number because in your mind he has become a dictator and overlord, not subject to the will of the people in any way. This is not a fair representation of the situation at all. The CCP itself is a body with 90 million members, all of them people, and all of whom have voting rights.
However there is another half to this. You seem to believe that if people elect the government, say by universal suffrage, then they get a government that best serves their interests. But that is not the case in the west at all. The people only get to choose from a very small number of political parties, and these parties offer only a narrow range of policy options. Once in government many of the policies offered to the people are abandoned. In the USA, for example, various experts calculate that seventy per cent of the population is excluded from any involvement in policy making, and so they dont get the government they would like, only a choice between a couple of alternatives that are often offering not much at all. And this is all done under the regime of ‘universal suffrage.’ Looks good on paper, but the reality is often otherwise.
I would agree that government by the people is infinitely preferable to government by the narcissistic (if not Dark Triadistic) ego, and if you think that is who Xi Jinping is then I understand your concern. However, personally, I dont think that’s who he is. At this point in time he, and the CCP as a whole, seem to be exemplifying the maxim that ‘to rule, you first need to serve.’ That may change of course.
Sorry, Malcol; I prefer to believe Wikipedia:
“Xi’s political thoughts have been incorporated into the party and state constitutions.[3][4][5] He has often been described as a dictator and authoritarian leader[6][7][8][9][10] by political and academic observers, citing an increase of censorship and mass surveillance, a deterioration in human rights, the cult of personality developing around him, and the removal of term limits for the leadership under his tenure.[a]”
Sorry to hear that, Charles. Wikipedia is these days probably regarded as a highly contaminated and propagandised source of information. Ideally though, you shouldnt be ‘believing’ anyone, but doing your own research. Otherwise you wander around like a lost soul, looking for clues. Happy wandering.
The “president for life” is another of the repeatedly printed lies from the stable of find, distort or make up items that show China in a bad light – its part of the ongoing propaganda war.
The previous limit on a President’s term in office was removed – as Malcolm notes.
Good or bad, it not so unusual for countries not to have a limit on their leaders’ time in office.
……. and in Australia the term limit for our political leaders is ….?
Charles has taken Godwin’s Law to a whole new level.
Let’s not forget that Hitler was a vegetarian. It all makes sense now…
Xi burnt down the Great Hall of the People? Wonderful satire. Champ you arent associated with Chongyi Feng are you?
Its by Chongyi Feng. Says it all.
After biting China on the ankle, we scream blue murder at being kicked away.
This is another of those “China Made Sinister” masquerading as a “China Made Easy” from the Anglosphere. Having been an avid reader for more than six decades, I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as objective or impartial writing. Only articles that are written in good faith.
The lines trotted out above seem to have been taken straight out of a Sydney Morning Herald or any of the Australian mainstream media about Australia being bullied by China. The following are jaded phrases or descriptions milked to death to describe a very sinister country and leader:
“flexing muscles”
“Chinese bullying”
“regional domination”
“expansionists”
“threaten its neighbours”
“wolf warrior”
“outrageous attacks on Australia and the US”
The last one is even implying that the US too is being bullied. Are they kidding? The trade war initiated by the US was to force China into buying more from the US. The US and Australian warships swept up and down the South China Sea to challenge China for taking a couple of uninhabited islands to protect its trade lane to and from China.
I have not learnt anything new from it – maybe I am stupid. Against such intelligence, anyone else would be stupid. If you use all the descriptives about China and substitute “world domination” for “regional domination” and “China” for “Australia and the US”, you have a perfect description of the US and its allies.
The only part that has any credibility to me is the phrase “profound sense of insecurity” to described Xi Jinping – and even that is nothing more than speculation. My logic tells me that no one ruling 1.4 billion people made up of more that 50 ethnic groups , united only by a common written script would feel secure. The late PM of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, a very well respected observer of geopolitics, once described Xi as a very calm person.
For an idea of what he (the author) thought about Xi, the following site makes very interesting reading:
https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2128295/getting-know-real-xi-jinping-could-mean-preventing-conflict
It at least puts a human to human dimension on a complex evaluation of a leader.
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
Teow Loon Ti I agree. I am an avid reader of the Sydney Morning Herald, a newspaper I once trusted to be reasonably fair, although not so now. I agree, reading this article was like reading an iteration of the SHM. Apart from the Spratley Islands issue, where is China actually expanding militarily by having bases in other countries housing Chinese military hardware. Remember that after WWI, Australian acquired New Guinea as a buffer state with the view to protecting the mainland from invasion or attack. Others I have read recently refer to China’s ‘attack on Korea’ during that war. The nuclear armed Americans moved their forces right up to the Chinese/Korean border and the Chinese obviously felt threatened. It had to protect itself. And we have the ludicrous situation now where we are involved in protecting shipping lanes used by the Chinese in trading with Australia from…..the Chinese!!!! Eh??? I believe that those countries who have suffered catastrophic invasion from other nations are very keen to have some protection, some buffer where it is possible. But apparently the Chinese are not allowed to have that same consideration.
Disclosure: I lived and worked in China for near 8 years, 1998 to 2006.
Sir,
I too have a disclosure to make. I visited China only once in an eleven day conducted tour of 6 cities. I enjoyed the visit but I must say that even that short visit told me that China isn’t anything that the mm make them out to be. Of course one knows that it is a totalitarian regime but I have visited many other countries were people suffer abject poverty. When hordes of people sleep in the streets and had to scrounge for a living, one learns to be more circumspect and less judgemental.
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
I find the word ‘totalitarian’ troublesome. It comes with considerable baggage, being a word we used often to describe SovietRussia. It seems to be a synonym for dictatorship, and China is not a dictatorship, so far as I can see. It does have an authoritarian core, but it also has a complex system of political arrangements with its own idiosyncratic checks and balances. At the present time, it suits the west to focus on the authoritarian core for political reasons, and also to ignore the reality that Chinese governance is a work in progress.
Mr Harrison,
Thanks. I agree with your observation. Unfortunately, I had used the word “totalitarian” because I do not have an adequate understanding of how their government works. Perhaps the nature and form of their government are so novel that no one has as yet coined a word for it. I only know that it is a one party state and elections are carried out to choose leaders within that party.
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
Australia insists on its right to bite the hand that feeds it, because ‘values’.
We are America’s proxy to the extent that we will fall on our own sword simply upon request.
Significantly this champion of ‘shared values” does not call for his own country NZ to follow the Morrison path to economic suicide and international ridicule.
“shared values doesn’t mean shared stupidity.
Apologies to all mate. The author is Chongyi Feng. Look him up.