GEOFF RABY. Where have all the grown-ups gone on China policy?- A REPOST from June 23 2017

Malcolm Turnbull’s glib talk of ‘‘frenemies’’ does nothing to help the urgent debate over how we handle the rising power of China.

‘‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing,’’ opined the 18th century British philosopher Edmund Burke. The recent media and talking-heads’ frenzy in Australia over China calls to mind Burke’s injunction not to remain silent.

For some time, the China threat chant has been building, reaching a crescendo with the recent ABC Four Corners program on China’s alleged ‘‘agents of influence’’ in Australia. In The Australian Financial Review , Angus Grigg and Lisa Murray have chronicled the Australian Prime Minister’s personal journey in office from ‘‘panda hugger’’ to speeches on China he doubtless regards as more clear-eyed and hardheaded.

In the hackneyed phrase, direct from the Washington neo-cons’ lexicon, Malcolm Turnbull has now ‘‘joined the adults in the room’’. The implication of this phrase for those who do not join the pack in taking a hard line on China is clear.

The Four Corners program did not attempt much balance. I was interviewed for 50 minutes by Four Corners , of which less than two minutes went to air, compared with many times that for those who had tales of dark webs being spun in Australia by the Chinese Communist Party.

The journalists had begun with their conclusions and worked back to find those comments that would best fit their preconceived story. The views of an informed observer, providing context and a degree of balance, were left on the ABC’s cutting-room floor.

In the current febrile climate, to introduce a degree of balance into discussions on China one risks being branded a ‘‘panda hugger’’, misty-eyed, naive, China lover, or any other number of derogative terms which have become a staple of high-level policy discourse in Canberra. Only one view can be accommodated by the ‘‘adults’’.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is cowed. Their minister uses an outsider to write absurd speeches on China, arguing that it can never be a regional leader while not a democracy. The intelligence and security establishment is on a China threat roll, which plays well to their bureaucratic interests and budgets.

It is perfectly proper for the media to warn of Chinese agents of influence, to out politicians who so willingly compromise themselves accepting largesse, and to expose the role of China’s diplomatic missions in monitoring Chinese students on campus. Of course, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation too has a proper role to alert Australian politicians of the possible risks of being compromised by ill-intended donations from Chinese and other community groups trying to influence Australian foreign policy. After all, we must seem a soft touch: Australia maintains an expensive and underutilised embassy in Malta because of the influence of the tiny Malta lobby.

Having a China threat at home provides a handy context for those advocating a hard line against China in foreign policy. We have an enemy within and without. It creates an atmosphere where the Prime Minister can casually refer to China as our ‘‘frenemy’’. In the eyes of the China hawks quoted by Grigg and Murray, the Prime Minister’s childish remark qualifies him as an ‘‘adult’’.

For treating Australia’s international relations in such a cavalier way, the opposition should be describing the Prime Minister as the ‘‘frenemy’’ of the Australian people. But it won’t because it has its own embarrassments over China and, like the government, no obvious policy on how we should manage our relations with a dominant China in our region.

As former prime minister Paul Keating has frequently said, Australia needs a foreign policy, especially for the new order being created with the rise of China. Australia can either be part of that, working with China on the basis of trust, and with our neighbours in the region, or we can be out of it, looking back towards a fast disappearing order of US hegemony.

So far, we seem to be doing the latter, and the China threat hysteria in Australia at present is making it much harder to have an informed, urgent, national debate about how we best engage with China and the neighbourhood.

Instead it seems that we have decided that US President Donald Trump and his less confrontational position on China are merely an aberration. Australia then needs to hold the line against China until the US administration comes to its senses or is replaced. The old order can then be at least partly restored.

In doing so, we are making ourselves increasingly irrelevant to China and within the region. As in so many things, former prime minister Kevin Rudd was intellectually astute when he said our approach to China should be to ‘‘engage and hedge’’. Pity that when in government he was so poor at execution.

This government seems to be doing neither. With its ‘‘frenemy’’ mentality, encouraged by our renewed China phobia, it is turning away from serious engagement with China while doing little to work with our neighbours to hedge.

Japan is an important ally for Australia but it also deepens China’s mistrust of our motives. India carries no strategic weight in east Asia. The ‘‘Indo-Pacific’’ shibboleth is confected: our primary area of strategic interest is still east Asia. Talk of quadrilateral alliances of democracies serves to divide the region into ideological camps. China draws the not unreasonable conclusion that this is about containment. It views Australia’s advocacy of this as a hostile act.

The Prime Minister’s initiative to hold an ASEAN Summit in Australia next year was a bold and welcomed move. One meeting, however, does not make a hedging strategy. The half-heartedness of our regional diplomacy can be seen by the infrequency of prime ministerial travel to near neighbours, apart from Indonesia and Singapore. It is more than a decade, for example, since an Australian Prime Minister made a purely bilateral visit to Thailand.

It should not be news to anyone that China remains a one-party, authoritarian state; that the party-state seeks to exert influence abroad, including in ways that the Australian community finds unacceptable; that its human rights record continues to be disturbing; and that it is increasingly asserting itself internationally by fair means and foul. China is also of preponderant importance to Australia’s future wellbeing.

The challenge is to have a mature national discussion on how our foreign policy should be framed – free of glib quips about ‘‘frenemies’’ and the China threat hysteria in the media and security circles – so as to secure our interests in the evolving order by having an impact on the shape of it. It is time for adults to return the room.

Geoff Raby is a former Australian Ambassador to China.

This article first appeared in The Australian Financial Review on 21 Jun 2017


This entry was posted in International Affairs, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to GEOFF RABY. Where have all the grown-ups gone on China policy?- A REPOST from June 23 2017

  1. Dennis Argall says:

    The problem is rooted in history. As well as in the brain, see my note in reply to Tony Kevin today.

    In 1980 the Fraser cabinet made a decision that shaped the construction of the modern China relationship. My concern had been that with a love-in by Fraser with China against the USSR and Vietnam after the invasion of Kampuchea, there was risk then to the China relationship, ironically, becoming something divisive in Australian politics. The decision set out an array of things to be done to widen the relationship and to contribute to all the practical administrative skills and legal frameworks needed by China in the construction of a civil society with a private sector and private citizens. This was endorsed and further built upon by the Hawke Government.

    Issues in China were clouded by the supreme leader Deng Xiaoping. I regarded him as capable of great violence, the second most divisive figure in modern China after Mao. As so revealed in his sacking of party General Secretary Hu Yaobang for his 1986 ‘sankuan’ campaign advocating ‘generosity, tolerance and relaxation’… not penetrating Australian political thought till Hua’s death led to the Tiananmen events in 1989, China thereafter to be seen as pretty bad guys.

    With Howard, we seemed to lose sight of broader visions of helping China into civil society and focused on dribbling over the wads of mining cash. Which (the money and the dribbling) was spread in large amounts to taxpayers, augmented by the selling off of the family silver and offices, reducing debt to a notional zero with future generations to bear the rental costs.

    With Rudd, China seemed a part of the Rudd show.

    In recent years there has been a general decline in understanding of international issues at the centre. I remarked to a mid-senior ADF officer recently that there seemed no one in the parliament able to take on the ADF command over strategic policy, to which he replied that he didn’t think they wanted to.

    I have noted Geoff’s ironic quotation of Edmund Burke against the Liberal party berks.

    In reply I offer the response of National Party MP De-anne Kelly to the letter by the gang of 43 against the Iraq war in 2004:

    “I think we have to ask the question, these doddering daiquiri diplomats, would they have done any different?… The world has changed too from the comfort zone they lived in. We’re now post-Bali, post-September 11, frankly they should keep their opinions to themselves.”

    I have contemplated making a submission to the foreign policy white paper but what is the point? There should be a green paper with various ideas first.

    We will remain a nodding ally, not a poodle as people used to speak of Howard and Bush but more like a dog sitting on shelf inside back window of a car, with loose nodding head … but clear of eye and hard of head, as discussed.

  2. James O'Neill says:

    Thank you Geoff for this clear eyed analysis. I think Hugh White put his finger on the problem when he said that for the first time in Australian history the major trading partner is not also an ally. The conundrum this poses for foreign policy has not been addressed. Instead we have an intellectual lightweight as foreign minister and a PM for whom glib phrases are increasingly a substitute for actual thought. The latest American idiocy over Syria should give us pause for real thought about where we go from here. Unfortunately the vacuous response to the BRI is all to typical of what passes for thinking in Canberra these days.

Comments are closed.