Obviously no Australian, much less an MP, should ever sell out his country to any foreign power. However, in recent times, some actions taken by certain MPs arguably amount to doing just that. Mike Burgess, chief of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) appointed by the previous Scott Morrison government, gave an example of this in his recent annual report on Australia’s security.
He said an Australian MP had “sold out their [sic] country, party and former colleagues to advance the interests of a foreign regime.” Although not specifically identified, the media had no difficulty pinpointing them. After all, the ASIO chief had dropped a big hint, viz the MP was someone planning to introduce the Australian Prime Minister’s family member to spies for China. In other words, this cat-n-mouse game with the media looks suspiciously more like a rouse by the ASIO chief to rebrand China as the bad foreign power Australians should be aware of.
He obviously chose not to identify the elephant in the room – the Force Posture Agreement (FPA) signed by Australia in 2014 even though that’s a more obvious and concerning example of Australian MPs selling out the country to a foreign power. This is because the FPA effectively enables the US military to have “exclusive control” and unimpeded access to “aerial ports and seaports of Australia and other locations” and to use different parts of Australia as a launching pad for a potential US war with China. Through this FPA, Australia has lost any say in what weapons may be launched from Australian soil whilst, at the same time, we have effectively become a nuclear target.
Dr Mike Gilligan, in a recent podcast, sums it up by saying it gives the US rights to combat on our soil as, “Apart from some fig leaf of consultation, the gates had been flung open… we’re US toys.” In less refined language, the FPA has rendered Australian sovereignty to something no more dignified or useful than toilet paper to wipe the bum of the US.
As such, the FPA should have been given as an example of Australian politicians hijacking Australian sovereignty.
But the ASIO chief did not choose it as an example as it involved some powerful Australian politicians. More to the point, and as the ASIO chief would be aware, mainstream politicians do not regard Australia’s military and other Defense arrangements with the USA as in anyway affecting – much less diminishing – Australian sovereignty. Yet the hypocrisy is conspicuous – the same arrangements entered into with China, instead of the USA, would have instantly caused them to jump in utter horror.
In short, it’s all about which country Australia’s security arrangements are entered into with. The ASIO chief’s chosen example happens to nicely tie in with the neocon view of Australian sovereignty.
As evidently perceived by the ASIO chief, questions of Australian sovereignty become relevant only where the foreign power is China and, according to the anti-China lobby, it is an unfriendly or hostile foreign power seeking to exert undue influence on Australian politics.
More particularly, to them, it is effectively Australia’s enemy. This vision of China ignores an inconvenient reality, viz Australia’s trade with China constitutes some 35% of its trade with other countries and China is actually Australian’s biggest trading partner. As the anti-China lobby must know, if China is an enemy, Australia should stop trading with China instead of actively trading with its enemy.
Also, on this view, China is showing two characteristics.
Firstly, it is said to be “getting aggressive.” China’s history-based claims to territory in the South China Sea is seen as “aggression.” This is even though there are conflicting (albeit smaller) claims by neighbouring countries (Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei and Malaysia) to the disputed same areas.
Secondly, as presented by the anti-China media, it is a “threat” to Australia. To them, both China’s rise as an economic powerhouse and the expansion of its military (in response to US surrounding China) indicate a potential military invasion of Australia. This is even though China has a foreign policy that does not seek to imitate US hegemony. They also ignore the fact that China’s foreign policy is based on non-interference and the seeking of peaceful co-existence with other countries, as may be seen in its highly successful belt-n-road initiatives across the globe. More to the point, they ignore the fact that, unlike the US which has been invading other countries and interfering with their domestic affairs over the past 70 or so years, China has not in recent decades been involved in any war.
In other words, to the ASIO chief, Australian sovereignty is only about protecting Australia from China. That necessarily involves seeing – and expecting – the US to be Australia’s defender in a likely war with China.
However, this version of Australian sovereignty does not take account two inconvenient considerations. Firstly, in any US-China war, apart from the likely collapse of its economy, Australia is very likely to become a legitimate target for China’s military retaliation. An obvious example is the likely ‘taking out’ of Pine Gap, presently serving as the powerful electronic eyes for the US on military movements in China. Thereafter, escalation of the war will involve Australians being sent to the front line to die. Secondly, getting involved in any war is never a good idea. Much less so in a highly destructive war with China, a nuclear power with a formidable military.
In the circumstances, it is arguably about time Australians concerned with these developments do something before the country is taken down a path to its inevitable ruin. A good starting point is to get Australia to end the FPA as, under article XXI, clause 3, it can be terminated by either party giving one year’s notice.
Article updated March 28, 2024.
Gim Teh
Gim Teh is a retired Australian law academic. He has an interest in misinformation and imperialism and has written about US-Australia-China relationship.
Gim was a member of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. He retired in 2003.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
