Peter Hartcher, the Sydney Morning Herald’s international editor, maintains an indefatigable but entirely unedifying assault on China. He is by no means alone in vitriolic attacks.
Journalists, academics, politicians, and governments daily join the fray. Hartcher has become something of a symbol for the anti-China propaganda offensive, and offensive it has truly become.
Hartcher’s major concern, it would appear, at least according to Hartcher, is that China is a ‘communist’ country. It is a claim, that is used by all and sundry to instil fear and hostility.Put a nasty label on people or counties. China is about as much a ‘communist’ state as is the United States or Australia. Sixty per cent its GDP, 80 per cent of its urban employment and 90 per cent of all new jobs are the product of the private sector. Private capitalists account for 70 per cent of all investment and 90 per cent of exports, not to mention the 66 per cent of all economic growth in the country. By contrast, we have heard report after report in the past couple of years of how the public sector was keeping Australia out of recession and of how, in the year before COVID 19, 80 per cent of all new jobs in Australia had come from the public sector. Statistics can mean as much or as little as the manipulator of statistics desires. What is plain for all to see, however, is that the Chinese economy is capitalist and a part of the global economy.
There is plenty for the Hartchers of this world to criticise in China. The 46-hour week, the 5 days annual leave for workers with less than 10 years’ service, the 40,000 workers who died as a result of industrial accidents last year, the brutality with which striking workers are treated. The Communist Party that he so reviles has done little to endear anyone to the cause of socialism. Mao had little time for theory that was not his own. Marxism, for Mao, was just another word. That great ‘Marxist’ successor to Mao, Deng Xiaoping was the one who gave the world the phrase that ‘to get rich is glorious.’ None of these things seem to interest Peter Hartcher.
What keeps him awake at night is the fact that China is a rising, economy and a threat to US hegemony. He abandoned any claim to objective journalism in 2016, when he launched his infamous diatribe against China and Australian political and business figures. The 2016 article in the SMH reminded his readers of Mao’s ‘Four Pests Campaign’ when the people were urged to get rid of rats, flies, mosquitoes and sparrows. Hartcher then called for a campaign of our own. This ‘international editor’ warmed to his subject.
“Rats. We need to be alert to politicians compromised by China’s embrace. Dastyari is a case study. There will be more to come.
“Flies. Perhaps unwitting paid mouthpieces for the interests of the Chinese regime. Bob Carr is the head of the pro-China outfit called the Australian Chinese Relations Institute, set up with a $1.8 million donation from a businessman with links to the Communist Party.
“Mosquitoes. Businesspeople so captivated by their financial interests that they demand Australia assume the kowtow position.
“Sparrows. Front organisations, apparently innocuous friendship societies or NGOs, set up specifically to spread Beijing’s influence.
“Pests. Who needs them?”
Since then he has bombarded his readership with a ceaseless barrage of missiles that have one primary aim. That aim is to mould opinion. It is never subtle but plays an important role. We need to understand why?
If Peter Hartcher’s motives were simply a blind hatred of China and of what he misrepresents as ‘communism’ then it might be dismissed as merely unfortunate. He repeatedly declares himself not to be a racist. We can only accept this at face value. The results of his ‘work’ have clearly encouraged others to speak and act with racist intent. He has given others licence to behave badly. His regular columns, however, cannot be dismissed simply as personal. They serve a much broader and more dangerous purpose. It’s all about which of the ‘great-powers’ will assume dominance over a crumbling capitalist global economy.
Hartcher’s regular attacks add to the noise around the US-China dispute. But if it is simply about changing the guard, then why the fuss? This brings us to the centre of the discussion and with it some rather unsubtle messages that are being broadcast. It can be accepted that the United States, as global economic superpower, would not be prepared to give up its place of primacy. It can be accepted that it would seek to ‘call in favours’ from traditional allies to ensure that China’s rise is resisted. Some of the anti-China rhetoric is ridiculous and some of it justified. A blurring of lines is unavoidable. China’s domestic policies and the treatment of its working class is simply unjustifiable, but then many of America’s domestic policies and the treatment of its working class is hardly a blueprint for how to manage an equitable and just society. China is accused of seeking to manipulate political and economic decisions in other countries. They may, just possibly, have learned this from studying US foreign policy. What is certain is that an anti-Chinese sentiment has been engendered and that this has some echoes to historical moments that have preceded mass slaughter. The lead up to both world wars are cases in point.
The world is in deep crisis. After the pandemic we will be confronted with the rubble of the world economy. Before either of these crises, the USA was facing the crisis of a rising China and a threat to its supremacy. There is a very real possibility that these crises might lead to war. This scenario has been well documented. It is a possibility that must be faced and overcome. The partisanship being exhibited from the likes of Peter Hartcher simply makes that task more difficult.
Dr William Briggs is a political economist. His special areas of interest lie in political theory and international political economy. He has been, variously, a teacher, journalist and political activist.
Comments
19 responses to “WILLIAM BRIGGS. What Drives Peter Hartcher”
While I can hardly add to Dr Briggs excellent critique – and the many supportive comments – my own look at this might be of interest:
https://ahtribune.com/world/asia-pacific/australia/4134-peter-hartcher-cheng-jingye.html
Reading carefully what the Chinese Ambassador said in interview with Andrew Tillett revealed not just Hartcher’s unacceptable bias but also his twisting of the truth, and unfounded accusation that the Chinese government was threatening trade boycotts against Australia. I also examine the subsequent “secondary boycott” attack by Hartcher on Andrew Forrest and his nicely written reply to the media attacks.
It’s important of course – fundamental in fact – to note that “there is no evidence the viral epidemic began in China”, and much evidence to the contrary. Which is why we need an independent inquiry.
Hartcher is not the only obsessive anti-Chinese commentator. Take Clive Hamilton’s comment last night ( 5 May) on SBS that : “The United States is not going to unilaterally undertake some sort of military action, but Beijing may well do that.” He apparently does not know about Iraq War, Afghanistan, US airstrikes on Syria, not to mention the Vietnam War.
Kerry-Anne Walsh’s book ‘The Stalking of Julia Gillard’ provides a detailed account of how Hartcher played the more than willing confidant to Rudd, while the latter was on the back bench destabilising Gillard. He was ably aided and abetted in this subversion by Peter Hartcher, who seems to me to have no real or even apparent sympathy for the Labor side of politics, and probably had none for Rudd himself. I believe he sees himself as a ‘player’, rather than a commentator, and in that respect seems more like a Murdoch tool or polemicist than a SMH journalist. The SMH and The Age are no longer what they used to be, but Hartcher is still there and probably more comfortable than ever.
We have previously published our response to Peter Hartcher “Chinese community reaction to Peter Hartcher “Red Flag” Waking up to China’s Challenge”. See http://www.au123.com/view/ocean/20191203/510961.html
Recently, the US containment of China had gone on overdrive in Australia. Having an independent geopolitical view of China is fair enough, but riding side saddle as American deputy sheriff in all things anti-China will only let the world knows what a great American puppet Australia is.
We as a nation must learn how to deal with the rise of a potential superpower in our northern Asia region. History has taught us this – yesterday’s friends is today’s enemy and vice-versa. Joining one side against another is no guarantee of friendship and it only lasts as long as you remain useful. Hence, we must have our own national policy on China and how to deal with a rising power.
Having followed Peter Hartcher on SMH for some time, the Chinese Australian community feels, in writing Red Flag, Hartcher has gyrated to the far right – his views are no longer moderate but reflect those of the eloquent Americans, Bannon, Pompeo, Bolton and Pence.
From William Briggs’ article I learned about Mao’s Four Pest Campaign which has been adopted by Oz and under the Hartcher’s Nomenclature, the Rats, Flies, Mosquitoes and Sparrows have been personified.
May I be bold enough to suggest that an additional pest be added to the list and this pest must qualified as the worst pest in the world. In my search, I found the insect ‘tick’ that fits the worse pest and by co-incidence the name of the tick is
Amblyomma americanum – aka, the Lone-Star Tick. With one bite, the lone star tick causes your body to swell, break out in hives, and can even cause life-threatening anaphylaxis. And the honour being called a tick goes to Mr PH.
Anthony
Thank you so very much for that. My day was considerably brightened by your ‘fifth’ pest contribution. Beautifully observed.
All the best
William
Firstly, Peter Hartcher plainly has a problem dealing with issues related to China and as such is unable to provide reasonable, sensible commentary on Australia – China relations. Why is a person who is incapable of balanced commentary on such an important topic still in his position as international editor at the SMH? He need to be replaced by someone less unhinged.
Secondly regarding your statement that “What is certain is that an anti-Chinese sentiment has been engendered and that this has some echoes to historical moments that have preceded mass slaughter. The lead up to both world wars are cases in point.”
A more recent example of mass slaughter is the massacre in Christchurch early last year, by an Australian, ‘engendered’ by repeated anti-muslim sentiment and statements from right wing media and politicians. Hartcher’s commentary and the statements from Morrison et al are laying the groundwork for a similar massacre in one of our major cities Chinatowns. Commentary like Hartcher’s has real consequences and is dangerous.
Finally, Peter Hartcher may not consider himself a racist but if he behaves like one he might as well be.
Hi William,
A thought provoking article. Sadly most Australians have never done any studies on Chinese history. I was very fortunate to have done a post graduate course with the late Dr. Sinclair – Wilson at the UNE in the early 1980’s. We explored Chinese history , religious customs, political and social history. China is an incredibly complex society with a history going back way beyond Western Civilization. They have had great moments of glory as well as periods of subjugation, particularly in the last three centuries at the hands of the ‘western imperialist’ powers. China has a very long memory. I suspect that memory plays a huge role in how it interacts with the world, particularly the western powers , notably now the United States.
We would be well advised to examine China’s view of the world before hitching ourselves to the coat tail of the shrill voice of the Trump administration . Trump seems to display little knowledge of diplomacy and considerable ignorance of China’s culture. We risk being dragged into yet another conflict with a predicable result- another defeat!
I wrote this the other day to The Age:
I read today yet another hawkish rant against China by Peter Harcher. He is getting a lot of space to air his negative views about this country. He plays the same tune in each article.
Are there no respected commentators who could give us a more nuanced impression of this country and its actions? How does China view the ring of American, Japanese, Phillipines, Taiwanese bases and ideologies ringing its only coastline? Would Australia or the US stand for that from countries of different ways of seeing the world? No, they would not. Naive questions you say, from a non-expert. But Harcher is sounding naive in his single, hard line view. He’s sounding like a good- guys-bad – guys western movie, only black and white, no grey.
I love the Age, always have, hopefully always will. It’s a thoughtful, fair publication.
How about something different about China? It’s a country with many aspects. Let us see them. Bring in some other views. Stop sounding like the Murdochs on this issue.
The Age rarely publishes letters critical of Peter Hartcher and I’d be surprised if it was because they don’t get any.
Hi William. Have you read Richard McGregor’s book, “The Party?” I read it at the time of publication and I’m sure it is still relevant. I also liked Stan Grant’s recent post on China on the ABC site.
We don’t see Peter Hartcher’s columns here but he pops up on television panels and I read his Quarterly Essay and recommended it to friends. A few outspoken critics like Peter and Clive Hamilton are not a big deal. The greater danger is a reverse Australian McCarthyism led by people who should know better that discourages unfavourable comment on President Xi and even stops us having a cup of tea with the Dalai Lama.
You are right about war. It can happen any day but it won’t come from Australia or Trump. The drivers of war will be the old North Atlantic establishment — Oxford, Cambridge, Ministry of Defence, Foreign Office, Yale, Harvard, State Department, Pentagon. They just don’t want to hand over control.
“We don’t see Peter Hartcher’s columns here …”
You are not missing much but they are easily found on the SMH website (with soft paywall) – along with contributions from some other (and weightier) commentators.
When elephants fight the grass dies (a popular African proverb).
As l remember there is a similar Asian proverb
When elephants find the grass gets crushed but even when elephants make love the grass still gets crushed!!!
He’s a hack. More than likely left school with the School Certificate to be “trained up” by similarly qualified people in the corporate media. His shrillness demeans him which, unfortunately, doesn’t alter the fact that Sinophobia has just about become the conventional wisdom now with all media including the ABC on board.
What I don’t understand is how people like Peter Jennings can still be the ABC’s go to guy when he is yet to make a correct call about Chinese “interference” in Australia and some of them have been biggies like the Census “hacking” event. What about “Fool me once…”?
You are aware that Peter Jennings heads up the ASPI; this so-called independent think tank lists a number of major ‘military-industrial’ corporations as its major sponsors e.g. Locked Martin. Northrop Grumman, SAAB, Raytheon etc and has an impressive list of specialist, analyst, commentators.
As the ABC funding cuts reduce its ability to source news from its own staff, so it becomes more dependent on feeds from the likes of the well-funded ASPI; this is evident in the number of appearances of ASPI personnel on The Drum, current affairs and news programs not only on ABC but SBS.
Sometimes the reference to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute is very fleeting – but worth looking out for!
I am glad someone finally has an opportunity to say something about Peter Hartcher and his permanent attacks on China. Well said Dr Briggs.
Hartcher’s articles are always utterly biased and clear evidence that he knows nothing about Chinese culture (or misinterprets it), the difference between Western and Eastern thought, customs and behaviour, or even how Chinese politics works. He’s the media’s leader of neo-McCarthyist push in Australia and virtually sings from the same hymn book as the US Republicans and hard right within the Liberal party. He always reminds me of the imperialist age where Western countries considered their cultures as holding superior views, and that gave them the right to act in any way they thought valid for their own interests, backed with the only true Christian god as well. And speaking of gods, Chris Ulhmann is Hartcher’s religious right wing kindred spirit with his permanent attacks on China as well. I wonder how such biased individuals can hold such high positions in the SMH and Nine Entertainment, especially when the former claims to be ‘independent always’? It’s written at the top of the front page. Funny that. It is becoming more and more like a Murdoch newspaper every day. Readers comments on either journalist’s Sinophobic and condemning articles reek of racism, but I don’t see SMH cutting any of them out.
I even question their motives as being being self-appointed protectors of Australian sovereignty when they seem to reiterate the views of Trump’s administration. Is not American sovereignty more important to them, don’t they hold exactly the same views and repeat them like parrots? To boot they are playing dangerous games with Australia’s economy because in know way can our economy survive a rapid reduction in trade with China. See the current GOP directives sent out to Trump’s party members right now if you want to compare the common threads of their views: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/24/gop-memo-anti-china-coronavirus-207244
Sure China is not perfect, along way form it, but at least they should have the right to sort out their own political evolution themselves. The problem is that since the Russian revolution, the US has wanted regime change in any country influenced by Marxism, yet they claim China is forcing its political views on the rest of the world. South and Central America suffices as and example.
It seems that the Chinese can never get it right for certain Western imperialist-minded administrations and their onside journalists like the two I have mentioned: When China did not want to trade, they paid a hell of a price for not accepting addictive opium with two Opium Wars, loss of Hong Kong, and a massive compensation payment to the UK (stunning even in today’s terms). It is said that the US however, built their early railway network out of opium money – paid that much, and with low paid Chinese laborers as well. Now that China has turned capitalist and scientific after Deng Xiaoping’s influence, and that they seek to open up and trade with the rest of world they are also wrong. Damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Rivaling the US economy is the real reason for all of this, nothing else.
SMH newspaper, for several years it has written negative articles about China, never a positive thing to be said in the least. No truer words were said when Noam Chomsky came up with the term “manufacturing consent” (in this case for another war against China, the world must be monopolar with one sheriff). I doesn’t matter what China does or achieves, it is always patronized, demonized, made to look stupid, apparently incapable of building anything, devoid of any kind of democratic process – they simply just want to throw dirt.
After sleeping for more than 70 years, issues like Tibet become important to politicians and the compliant media, and the Uyghur situation which has been going on since 1923 hits the headlines. Ironically when George W. Bush was in power the US praised China for its hard work against Muslim terrorists in the same region.
The only lesson for China in this is to sit back and follow orders as they have been expected to do for the last 300 years by the West, or by the US proxy Japan, otherwise they are in trouble.
Peter Hartcher’s neoliberal US-centric reporting I find lamentable.
But China is communist – and the way it treats its citizens is scary. And communism is political not just economic. And the politics influences the economics – in the US and Aus. political operatives don’t sit on company boards in their political capacity. (Class analysis is another matter.)
Should we not be concerned by the likes of Dastyari? Are business people who care only about money admirable? Are front organisations operating here ok?
Why the fuss about changing the guard? Because there are differences in how the US and China treat their citizens. (Though the honours aren’t as one way as Hartcher thinks in my view.)
Peter Hartcher I think is one of the better partisans for the US hegemony.
I think we need to discuss an independent Aus. foreign policy.
Why does the name Dan Andrews, Dan Andrews keep reverberating in my head?
Terrific article Dr Briggs. Kudos.
There are both journos and academics (https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/great-china-debate-clive-hamilton-v-hugh-white) on both sides of this debate. I only hope there are also those in DFAT and our security services that have not been seduced by either camp and can plot a path in Australia’s interests.