JAMES CURRAN. Canberra’s wolverines threaten our connection (AFR 8.5.20)

Beijing deserves scrutiny for little transparency amid the pandemic, but Australia’s proposal for an inquiry is badly timed.

Only the muddle-headed would demur from the need, once the coronavirus crisis has passed, for a rigorous investigation of its origins, the initial reaction to its outbreak and lessons to be drawn from this global catastrophe.

In dealing with the diplomatic fallout from the Coalition government’s proposal for an independent inquiry into COVID-19’s origins, the question has never been about the justifiable desire to derive greater knowledge about the pandemic with a view to being better prepared for future contingencies of this kind. Rather the question has been about its timing, as well as the febrile domestic context into which it was pitched.

Warnings from the Chinese ambassador about potential boycotts of Australian products, front-loaded with intimidation and laced with mockery, have only served to push the government and the opposition towards solidarity on the issue. So a relationship already ailing at the most senior levels is plunged into another round of spiteful recrimination.

It is difficult to know where all this ends: whether Beijing will act on the threats of boycott or, more likely, whether this simply sees Australia-China relations settle into a longer term pattern where their management – not repair – becomes the norm.

Australia is not the only country feeling China’s wrath. Chinese ambassadors around the world are using the occasion to showcase party loyalty and assertively respond to criticisms of China’s initial handling of the crisis, or to suggestions that Beijing is curating a global disinformation campaign about its source.

All this hardly bodes well for EU China policy, where foreign investment laws and 5G communications security are up for discussion later this year. The European debate over how to manage China had been in its formative stages prior to the virus outbreak, but China’s diplomatic heavy-handedness will undoubtedly harden attitudes.

A central question in Australia is why the Morrison government felt the need to launch this initiative now. And why it was done with precious little guile, with so much noise yet so little substance.

Foreign Minister Marise Payne resembles something of a rogue archer, firing a diplomatic arrow into the ether but with little forethought about either its trajectory or landing point. Its target, though, was clear enough.

Nevertheless, without consulting regional partners, and with no evidence of serious reflection about the context in which this proposal was floated, this arrow has already suffered a rather deflating droop.

It may be nothing more than a touch of Australian hubris at work here, but no amount of stirring appeals to ‘‘Team Australia’’, however critical they have been in successfully marshalling the country behind its flattening of the curve, should prevent scrutiny of the government’s diplomatic modus operandi.

Canberra’s laudable efficiency in tackling the crisis might have brought on the feeling once more that Australia could ‘‘punch above its weight’’ by leading from the front.

While the President of the European Commission has supported similar calls from European politicians for an investigation, Britain, France and Germany gave the Australian proposal short shrift. Japan has remained publicly silent. Even the US has been unsure, as Colum Lynch argued in Foreign Policy, since it ‘‘could potentially expose Washington to an embarrassing assessment of its own response to the pandemic’’.

The optics of pushing the proposal in a conversation with Trump will not help the Australian image in regional eyes. But the government is unlikely to mirror Trump’s desire to litigate Beijing for its handling of the pandemic, and the prime minister doesn’t share Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s conviction the virus was deliberately started in a Wuhan laboratory. Nevertheless the US will further push Australia, along with other allies and partners, to support its move to restore Taiwan’s status as an observer at the WHO. That too, though a worthy move, would unquestionably stoke again China’s ire.

The atmosphere here, as elsewhere around the world, is tense. Feelings are raw: people have lost loved ones, others have had their lives turned upside down. The search for a scapegoat and the appetite for finger pointing becomes instinctive as these emotions are unleashed.

The government’s proposal seemed oblivious to the risk it poses for community cohesion. Some Chinese Australians have already been the subject of racist insults and attacks. The prime minister was quick to condemn such acts, but he surely must have recognised the underlying hint of retribution some discerned in this proposal would work in the opposite direction of his call for calm.

It is a sad but accurate truth that crises like this habitually bring to the surface cranks and crackpots. And it has been no different in Australia, particularly from the frenetic thumbs of the twitterati. But others should know better.

ASPI head Peter Jennings dismissed the idea that China deliberately spread the virus, but in the next breath warned about Beijing’s biological weapons program that would be ‘‘working on far more lethal agents than COVID-19’’.

Some journalists are also reviving a view that is having a creeping stranglehold on the China-Australia debate. Chris Uhlmann said Australian business leaders and university vice-chancellors ‘‘can’t handle the truth’’ about China, while Sydney Morning Herald columnist Peter Hartcher said the Chinese ambassador’s threats amounted to ‘‘gangsterism’’ and that China ‘‘seeks dominance through any means possible’’.

It is one thing to be rightfully wary of the brand of Chinese exceptionalism espoused by Xi Jinping, quite another to thrash about in mouth-foaming fulmination.

Andrew Hastie, chair of the parliamentary joint intelligence committee, has resorted to the cheapest of nationalistic stunts, raising signatures for a petition to ‘‘push back’’ against China.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic hit, Hastie, backbench MPs Tim Wilson and Phillip Thompson, along with Senators James Paterson and Labor’s Kimberley Kitching, had taken to calling themselves the ‘‘wolverines’’, boasting of their preparedness to ‘‘speak out against China’s expanding power’’.

Their group’s name is a nod to the 1984 Hollywood film Red Dawn, about a team of high school football jocks thwarting a Soviet invasion of the United States. Membership of its Australian branch is signified by the appearance of stickers featuring wolf claw marks on the entrances of their parliamentary suites. It is difficult to know whether to laugh or cry at this kind of juvenilia from some of the nation’s elected representatives. But we are where we are.

Where does this avalanche of anger and indignation ultimately fall? Sure, China deserves serious and sustained scrutiny for its missteps and lack of transparency amid the pandemic. But is the latest pile on here productive?

One need only remember the constant drip of inflammatory remarks concerning Japan from prominent Australian policymakers and politicians in the 1930s, statements that hardly helped matters in what was already a flint-dry geopolitical landscape.

Do these wolverines wish a full blooded cold war, where trade and investment with China is strictly limited? Do they want to be the ceremonial attendants as Washington brings down an iron curtain on Beijing? What’s at stake here too is nearly a half century of bipartisan commitment to finding new ways for Australia to connect and belong to the region.

Morrison began his prime ministership looking to continue the Turnbull reset on China, dampening down some of those on his backbench clearly spoiling for a more aggressive stance towards Beijing. He archived the old cold war glossaries of containment.

But he has shown on occasion other tendencies which have more than a whiff of the populist – first, his rock-throwing speech at ‘negative globalism’; now this poorly conceived initiative. The prime minister will need to resist any temptation to go hunting with the ‘wolverines’ that circle both behind and in front of him in the parliament. Best he shepherds these cubs back into the cave from whence they ventured out.

On that score, the prime minister was the recipient of some timely advice from a party elder. While John Howard quietly endorsed Morrison’s move for an inquiry, his warning was unmissable. A ‘pragmatic approach’ to China was still needed. This is not a time, Howard added, to ‘suddenly turn the relationship on its head’.

More worrying is that this combination of Australian fears of China is now toxic on three levels.

There is the economic fear of an overdependent Australian economy, the military fear of Xi’s strategic muscle flexing in the South China Sea and elsewhere, and now the anger over the outbreak of a lethal virus in China that has spread worldwide, diminishing Australian prosperity and threatening livelihoods in its wake.

All of these anxieties in one way or another touch deeper chords in the Australian strategic and cultural imagination that date from the late 19th century. But they now fold in on one another, collapsing into a dangerous intensity that will make the management of this relationship even more prickly and unpredictable in the years ahead.

Originally published in the Australian Financial Review, 8 May, reprinted with the permission of the author

print

James Curran is Professor of Modern History and senior fellow at Sydney University’s US Studies Centre. He is writing a book on Australia’s China debate for New South Press.

This entry was posted in Asia, Health, World Affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

For questions regarding our comment system please click here.
(Please note that we are unable to post comments on your behalf.)


7 Responses to JAMES CURRAN. Canberra’s wolverines threaten our connection (AFR 8.5.20)

  1. Thank you James Curran. I learned a lot from your “scientific” incisive analysis of our current political chaos in Australia China relations. I hope this article will guide PM Morrison back into turbo charge a new constructive journey of Australia China Relations. But first he really has to seriously look at changing the course with a new Team Australia by removing the roots of the problem he incidentally planted eg “this kind of juvenilia from some of the nation’s elected representatives” and ” wolverines”. And take a bit of advice from many learned writers and professors from among the authors at P&I group.
    I am not here to defend the folly of the members of CCP , the Governing Party of China, have committed in the past to their people but they are human too like you and me. We made just as much if not more mistakes, unthinkable human disasters for example going into many wars with USA last 100 years , that caused even more human sufferings than all the imaginative accusations that the current anti-China bashers can think of.

    China is not a devil like the extreme anti-China bashers propaganda currently painted. Their achievements in last thirty years have lifted millions and millions out of poverty not only in China but the rest of the world. Modern China’s achievements are widely recognised by United Nations in particular, in our Asia Pacific regions including Australia and USA. If she does not have a good system of governance supported by the great majority of their people, do you think all these achievements are possible?

    To be fair who is to say our system of governance and government is better than theirs? They have saved a lot of people dying from famines and diseases too. I believe they have learned their lesion and they have openly stated that China will not go to war except for defence. She also preaches for peaceful development, mutual benefit and coexistence among the global families. We Chinese Australians and many other fair-minded Australians, can empathise with over one billion Chinese people who have been through a lot last 100 years.
    Modern liberal democracy teaches us that we can agree to disagree with mutual respect to our different human endeavours and beliefs.
    I am a peace maker. I do not wish to see any more war erupting especially in our region between China and USA and their allies. That will be a catastrophe for all of us humankind with nuclear powers involved.

    Reply

  2. I enjoyed this “scientific” incisive analysis of our current political chaos in Australia China relations. PM Morrison was an expert in human relations when he used to chair Tourism in NSW before becoming a politician. I hope this article will guide him back to turbo charge a new constructive journey of Australia China Relations. But first he really has to seriously looked at changing the course with a new Team Australia by removing the roots of the problem he incidentally planted eg “this kind of juvenilia from some of the nation’s elected representatives” and ” wolverines”. And take a little piece of advice from many learned writers and professors from among the authors of P&I groups.
    I am not here to defend the folly of the members of CCP , the Governing Party of China, have committed in the past to their people but they are human too like you and me. We made just as much if not more mistakes, unthinkable human disasters for example going into wars with USA that caused even more human sufferings than all the imaginative accusations that the current anti-China bashers can think of.

    China is not a devil like the anti-China bashers propaganda currently painted. Their achievement in last thirty years have lifted millions and millions out of poverty not only in China but the rest of the world. It is widely recognised by United Nations in particular, in our Asia Pacific regions including Australia and USA. If they do not have a good system of governance supported by the great majority of their people, do you think all these achievements are possible?

    To be fair who is to say our system of governance is better than theirs? They saved a lot of people from dying from famines and diseases. I believe they have learned their lesion well and they have openly stated that China will not go to war except for defence. She also preaches for peaceful development, mutual benefit and coexistence among the global families. We Chinese Australians can empathy with the 14 billion Chinese people who have been through a lot last 100 years.
    Modern liberal democracy teaches us that we can agree to disagree with mutual respect to our different human endeavour and beliefs.
    I am a peace maker. I do not wish to see any more war erupting especially in our region between China and USA and their allies. That will be a catastrophe for humankind with nuclear powers involved.

    Sam Lee and Teow Loon Li

  3. Avatar Jon Richardson says:

    Great article. Sums up the situation perfectly. Don’t think there is much mystery about why the government went about it this way -it’s one of those foreign policy initiatives designed for domestic consumption rather than crafted in a way to maximise the chances of success.

  4. Avatar Andrew Glikson says:

    The international context of this article is given in the article by Patrick Cockburn in: “Trump is Igniting a Cold War With China to Try to Win Re-election (Counter Punch 5.5.20)” 11 May 2020

  5. Avatar Sam Lee says:

    Also as an ethnically-Chinese Australian I strongly support a hard-right shutdown of all trade and interaction with the PRC now. Our colonised democracy causes unnecessary grief and racism against ethnically-Chinese Australians in order to manufacture consent. Shut it all down. The old days of a white Australia that ‘belongs’ to white Australia and Western Civilisation (no trade with PRC-bloc, no investment or purchases allowed from or by the PRC, no PRC tourists and immigrants, no news or education about the Chinese etc) was a much easier place to live in than these years of dogwhistling and demonisation for consent.

  6. Avatar Sam Lee says:

    As an ethnically-Chinese Australian the PRC ambassador’s response to AFR’s gotcha questions felt very reserved if not beseeching without losing face. The interpretation of his response as threatening feels racist / deliberate but if it were not, it reminds me of a post I made on The Conversation a few years back that was interpreted as threatening by a reader who had always felt reasonable and open-minded to me. Perhaps there is a cultural and lingual difference resulting in an unintentional misinterpretation. Then again, that’s a racist problem you get when ethnically-Chinese Australians are institutionally excluded in Australia.

  7. Avatar Teow Loon Ti says:

    Sir,

    We are right to criticise when a wrong has been committed. In doing so, we also have to look ourselves carefully in the mirror to make sure that we have not sinned and are thus justified in casting the first stone. Has China ever pilloried Australia for its ill treatment of the refugees/boat people in Nauru or Manus Island? What would the Australian government’s reaction be if that were to happen? China would probably have a better case against Australia than Australia against China in the present call for an “inspection” on the origins of COVID19. After all, Australia is a signitory to the UN Covention on Refugees and has reneged on its promise to treat its refugees decently.

    If the call for an investigating on the cause and origin of the virus were purely of scientific interest, then there should be no reason for China to object to collaborative research efforts with scientists from Australia or the US. But to call stridently for an inspection of the nature of the inspections on Iraq and Iran before the US went about punishing them on “fake” evidence smacks of an attempt to humiliate one’s enemy. China is neither an Iraq or Iran. China is not, and has never been, an “enemy” to Australia. In WWII, China and Australia were on the same side. It was Japan that bombed Darwin and sent submarines to attack Sydney and Newcastle.

    If our politicians lack understanding of its Asian neighbours either from a lack of knowledge of history or life experience of its neighbours, why don’t they consult Australia’s diplomats before acting? I do not think that the adversarial style of debate in the Australian parliament is applicable in dealing with a major trading partner, or any other country for that matter. This is unheard of in any kind of business relationship. What puzzles me is that while Russian interference in the last US election has been widely publicised by the press, Australia has remained largely silent on the matter.

    At this juncture, I would like to invoke my favourite philosophy, Existentialism, to tell Australian politicians and those hawks who say that China uses threats against Australia when it says, quite mildly, that its people might reconsider drinking Australian wine and sending their children to study here (after seeing a TV footage on Chinese students being beaten up in a shopping mall?). You have a “choice” of whether or not to trade with China. Likewise China too enjoys the same right of “choice” of whether to trade with Australia. As Jean Paul Sarte says, “Man is condemned to be free”. Australian leaders tend to work out their relationship with China “a priori”. Hence the dilemma of trade (practical) against international politics (largely hypothetical). Every action or choice that we take has its consequences. Blaming China may be politically expedient but practically insane. It comes at the price of our “rice bowl” (as the Chinese would say).

    Sarte says that even bad consequences does not exempt us, or exculpate us, from making a choice. Good leaders do not make a bad choice and blame the consequences on others. Doesn’t that remind us the the current US President?

    Sincerely,

    Teow Loon Ti

Comments are closed.