Pearls and Irritations

It would be very comforting if Anthony Albanese and Richard Marles were adopting the ‘status quo’ stance regarding China’s aspirations in respect of Taiwan. Sadly, the evidence says the opposite, according some other recent P&I posts.

In his Aug 6, 2022 post to P&I (Bob Carr – Keep the peace between China and the US: our goal) Bob Carr wrote: “The new Labor government has tugged Australia’s diplomatic language back to where it had always been before the Turnbull-Dutton-Garnaut heresy. This may be the single most weighty contribution of the Albanese government.” He goes on to praise Albanese and Marles for stepping around hypothetical questions, and advocating for maintenance of Labor’s long-term stance supporting the status quo regarding Taiwan, and thus preserving the peace.

 Oh! That it were so!

On 6 July 2022 Brian Toohey posted on P&I in What is Anthony Albanese up to: “He (Albanese) told NATO leaders China aimed to become the most powerful nation in the world and its strengthening relations with Moscow ‘posed a risk to all democratic nations’. ‘China faces a growing number of countries, including those in NATO, which are committed to containing its military and economic growth.'”

Toohey continued: “Albanese said in Europe that China is trying to ‘build up alliances to undermine what has historically been the Western Alliance in places like the Indo Pacific’.” Maintaining the status quo? I don’t think so. And then: “Albanese told President Macron in Paris that France was an Indo Pacific power which could help contain China’s ‘growing ambitions’ in the region.” Maintaining the status quo?

Toohey again: “Albanese blasted China for not condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine but exempted India which did the same. Labor’s Defence Minister Richard Marles earlier warmly praised India and said it is “central to Australia’s worldview and defence planning”. It also has a Hindu supremacist government that actively discriminates against Islamic members of the population.” Maintaining the status quo?

Then, on 9 July 22 Percy Allan posted on P&I in Anthony Albanese on China – What next? The Taiwan conflict: “The large Chinese diaspora that helped Labor win office in the hope of better relations with China could switch its support to less hawkish Teal candidates likely to contest Labor seats at the next election.” And in the same post: “Enragement or engagement? Australia has now decided to fuse its navy with America’s (via AUKUS) and to confront China by undertaking military surveillance of its contested waters.” Maintaining the status quo?

And on 26 July Robert Barwick posted on P&I in: This is real foreign influence as Crocodile Dundee would say – the Australian American Leadership Dialogue: “If you were wondering why Australia’s bombastic new opposition leader Peter Dutton has been quiet lately, and why he gave an interview to Sky News with the Washington Capitol building in the background, it’s because he has been on the latest AALD (Australian American Leadership Dialogue) junket to the USA. At the event he joined Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles…”

And again: “In a 10 November 2016 ABC 7.30 interview, former Australian PM Paul Keating blamed the AALD for making Australian politicians of both parties subservient to the US alliance: “We’ve got into this almost sort of crazy position now where the American alliance, instead of simply being a treaty, where the United States is obliged to consult with us in the event of adverse strategic circumstances, it has now taken on a reverential, sacramental quality”, Keating said. “It’s like a sacrament. I’m not talking about simply the government; I’m talking about some people on the Labor side as well.

“There’s a view, there was a thing called the Australian-American (Leadership) dialogue, which by the way I never attended, which is a sort of a cult thing that’s gone on for years and I don’t know what the Americans put in the drinking water, but whenever the Australians come back, they’re all bowing and scraping and going on.”

“What Keating describes goes a long way towards explaining why new PM Anthony Albanese, one of many Labor participants in the AALD, is barely different from his predecessor on the US alliance. Meanwhile, nothing China has been accused of in terms of foreign interference comes close to the influence the AALD has over Australian foreign policy.”

Fortunately, Foreign Minister Penny Wong seems to be sensibly advocating for the maintenance of the status quo regarding Taiwan, but so far the PM and the Defence Minister seem to be singing from a much more dangerous hymn sheet.

As Cavan Hogue wrote in a P&I post on Jul 18, 2022 entitled Power, rules and camp followers: “Jocelyn Chey and Geoff Raby have shown how his (Albanese’s) statements on China are little different from the Morrison Government”. And “His foreign minister has been able to acquire a better understanding of the world in opposition and in her life. He would be well advised to listen to her instead of Coalition left-over wolf warriors.”

If what these writers say is accurate – and the detail they supply in their posts seems to me to make them sound credible and well-informed – then what Bob Carr is saying about the stance being taken by the new Labor PM and Defence Minister, as quoted at the start of this post, is not what they are saying, but what he would like them to be saying. He seems to be viewing their comments through rose coloured glasses.