Pearls and Irritations

From China’s perspective, Australia will always follow the US no matter what. And the US is out to contain China – there is nothing that China could do to change that. Australia has made relatively little effort to change this perception. This means for China, there is little point in putting much effort into dealing with Australia directly. The only way for the China-Australia relationship to be noticeably improved is for the China-US relationship to be improved first. This all sounds dismal. But in fact, nothing is inevitable. Both sides have agency to change those perceptions.

A sense of certainty and inevitability pervades strategic thinking in many countries around the world. Some of these strategic experts believe in the Thucydides’ Trap – that a superpower showdown is unavoidable between China and the United States.

From the perspective of most international affairs experts in China, as a result of this unavoidable showdown, the US is actively rallying countries around the world to contain China, and Australia has firmly fallen into the US orbit, become a US vassal state and lost independence in foreign policy making.

According to this perspective, China has no agency in shaping world affairs and is merely a victim of US forces and pressures. This stands in contrast to the nationalistic public image promoted by the Chinese government that China is a country that has become strong and powerful.

There are two explanations for this that are common among the Chinese public. Some genuinely believe that China is still weak and thus subject to the whim of the US. The strong public image projected is merely nationalistic propaganda, designed to make the population feel good about the country. All the wolf warrior rhetoric is thus used to distract the people from the fact that there is nothing China could do to hit back at the US. The most it could do would be to punish smaller countries such as Australia. Such actions would make the government and the people feel better but ultimately would not change the international order.

Another popular explanation is that China is just too “nice” to exert pressure or influence or coerce others. This view is aligned with official government discourse. The government accuses the US of using its hegemonic power to bully and coerce others while vowing that China would never do the same. According to this, everything China has done is merely to defend itself or a reaction against US containment. Comparing this with the previous explanation, it appears that China might accept that it is powerful but constrains itself from wantonly using its power. Thus, unlike the US, it avoids forming clichés and blocs with other countries. This restraint is what makes China reactive instead of assertive.

Both explanations ultimately stem from the belief that China has no agency (or chooses not to use its agency) while US has all the agency in shaping the international order. Due to this belief, China is the victim or passive recipient in every scenario. Thus, these Chinese experts could not fathom that China’s actions or changes within China could affect other countries’ attitudes towards it. They may be puzzled as to why individuals might have become less friendly to China in recent years. Similarly, countries cooperating against China’s interests is interpreted as due solely to pressure from the US.

The notion that Australia has no independent foreign policy is common in China. For many experts there, Australia, just like China, has no agency. However, some experts on Australia have pointed out that, in fact, Australia is ahead of the US in targeting China in many ways, including the ban on Huawei and the call for an independent inquiry into the origin of COVID. But, mostly, these incidents are dismissed as due to political influence from the US. Thus, punishing Australia is not intended to change Australia’s decision-making, but to make the Chinese government feel more emotionally satisfied.

Many in China apparently cannot accept that countries could independently choose to align with the US. Hedging – choosing neither China nor the US – or becoming more friendly with China are both taken to be signs of an “independent” foreign policy. Here, other countries’ choices are seen primarily through a US-China competition lens. Countries are either influenced by the US (interpreted by China as becoming a US vassal state), or resist its influence (seen by China as independence).

Most strategic thinkers in Australia would disagree with these characterisations of China-Australia relations. Australians tend to believe their country has agency, just that it chooses the US on almost all matters, and certainly on strategic alignment. Many also believe that China is not the victim but the culprit in a coercive campaign against Australia. “It is China that has changed, not Australia” Prime Minister Albanese said. According to this view, Australia has no other viable choice but to respond appropriately.

Yet despite these beliefs in the agency of the two governments, there is still a sense of inevitability among many experts in Australia that conflict will occur in years ahead, and the country should be prepared for that scenario now. This is because the established view in the national security and strategic circle is that even though Australia has agency, it has already chosen the US and will stand by that choice, even if Trump or a similar president was elected for another term.

In both countries, hope is in short supply that the bilateral relationship can be improved significantly. From China’s perspective, Australia will always follow the US no matter what and the US is out to contain China – there is nothing that China could do to change that. As for Australia, it has made relatively little effort to change this perception.

This means for China, there is little point in putting much effort into dealing with Australia directly. If Australia is perceived to be always following the US, then the only way for the China-Australia relationship to be noticeably improved is for the China-US relationship to be improved first.

This all sounds dismal. But in fact, nothing is inevitable, and certainly not conflict. The Chinese government could move away from the victim mentality and accept its agency in the world as a great power. This includes recognising that its actions can drive other countries away. It should consider more the international consequences of actions it deems “domestic”, including in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.

Australia could do more to change the perception that it will follow the US on all matters. While it will do so in strategic matters, there are many other fields, including trade, economics, and technology, where it does not absolutely need to follow the US lead. A more liberal approach to these would require a reversal of the securitisation trend, whereby more and more issues are considered strategic.

Read more articles in our China series below:

China: Perspectives beyond the mainstream media

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT