Speaking at the National Press Club last week, Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer was asked a question along the lines of how Australia should balance its human rights responsibilities with the fact that China was economically critical to us.
In fact, Kadeer replied, China needs Australia more than you need it. It needs Australia’s mineral resources to fuel its massive and constantly growing demand for energy and raw materials.
This week’s Gorgon deal suggests Kadeer might have a point. China continues to rail against Australia and the outrage of permitting Kadeer, whose primary offence is to note China’s continuing atrocities in occupied East Turkestan, to enter the country — whilst signing up to a truly extraordinary deal that has pushed the Gorgon project over into commercial viability and will guarantee a vast revenue stream for the project partners, and the Australian Government, for years to come.
The response of Kevin Rudd and Stephen Smith to China’s fury has been rather in the manner of a parent confronted with a protracted tantrum from an infant — ignoring it and waiting for the Chinese Government to get over it. In reality this might be the only really viable response. The alternatives — of caving in to Chinese pressure and allowing Beijing to dictate Australia’s visa policies, purchase resource companies as it pleases and hold the whip hand in commercial negotiations, or of matching Beijing’s over-the-top rhetoric and upping the stakes in any confrontation — are hardly in Australia’s short or long-term interests.
The Howard Government managed Australia’s relationship with China very well. Kevin Rudd has, unexpectedly given his background, taken it to a more complex and demanding level. So far, though, the relationship continues to produce economic results, and despite the fevered rhetoric from the Chinese media, that is the only indicator that really counts.
For the past five thousand years China’s emperors have consistently acted like school-yard bullies. China was always known as the middle kingdom-as in the centre of the world-and nothing has changed, except the colour of the emperor’s clothes, pun intended. One could be forgiven for wondering if China will ever wake up to the fact that it shares the planet with many, many different countries. If a country has potential markets, mineral wealth or room for political indoctrination interests China will at least be aware of them. Though no country will ever be as equal in Chinese eyes as China itself. This is an inalienable mind-set by the Chinese.
All good, clean fun as far as most Australians are concerned.
Where it becomes a delusional nightmare for Australia is the decision taken by big business to give our mineral wealth to China at fire-sale prices. Fortesque Minerals undercutting the prices set by BHP and Rio Tinto for iron ore being one peculiarly nasty case in point. What is so clever by undercutting companies from the same nation? Yes, Rio Tinto is ostensibly an English company but it’s interests in Australia were founded in this land.
Another, sickening example is the sale of thousands, if not millions of cubic metres of Liquid Nitrogen Gas, once again to the Chinese. This is a case of Australia selling at bedrock a vital commodity which will be needed to power Australia. If and when we ever decide to live of clean energy.
That we countenance this complete selling of Australia’s mineral wealth to a country which seeks to tell us how to run our own country, is beyond belief. Australia, you’re standing in it.
Could someone tell Julie Bishop please!!!
I think that the parental analogy is inappropriate and the ‘they need us more than we need them’ i in itself a bit teenaged.
i acknowledge having been Kevin Rudd’s boss as ambassador in Beijing before Ross Garnaut; I also have long wished our Prime Minister had taken a domestic portfolio before he became leader, for various reasons. I am not an apologist or acolyte of this government.
The government is confronted by an exceptionally difficult situation IN AUSTRALIA as much as with China, in the management of this relationship. The glare of media attention (schoolyard “fight, fight, fight, come and look!!”), the inexplicable folly of the Opposition’s conduct, well explicable maybe also in infant analogy: “That boy over there took my toy!”
It is normal and reasonable to expect differences and arguments in complex relationships. We have perhaps been very much in the habit with powerful countries in the English speaking world of acquiescing to their wishes, thus avoiding major differences with them… There seems to be an ingrained attitude in Australia, much wider than the simplistic new nationalism, that we are simply not going to acknowledge the power of China in any way comparable to our acknowledgement of the power of the United States. The Defence White Paper asserts with no possible way of arguing the case, that “[T]he United States will remain the most powerful and influential strategic actor over the period to 2030.” [4.14] This is a preference mindset, not an objective thing. Could we please move on from colonial thinking in dependence terms to notions of adult interaction with all its complexity.
Venise’s first paragraph is a good macro for
(a) lambasting powerful countries of whatever ilk whose power one wishes not to acknowledge; or, if eyes are open
(b) rational consideration of the behaviour of powerful allies one may tend to like.
Venise’s second paragraph is perfect commentary on the way Australian companies have conducted themselves earlier in dealing with Japan. Go back and check the archives on what happened when Rex Connor, Whitlam’s Minister for Minerals and Energy, seized control of coal price negotiations in the wake of the 1973 oil shock. The coal companies were angry with him for intervening and for not allowing prices settled in the $40 range. Connor wanted $55, he came down to $51 and the Japanese came up to $50. Connor (known as the Strangler colloquially) rose to his feed to the consternation of all, closing his briefcase, saying “That’s it, looks like you won’t get any coal this year.” The irrepressible Harry Messel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Messel who was there as advisor to Connor reportedly said “Hey, wait a minute. You say 50, you say 51, why not split the difference and call it 50.50?” They did. The next day the Coal Association issued a press release damning the minister for not getting what they claimed they wanted, $55. C’est la vie. Plus ça change, plus ça remain la meme chose. as they say…
We have long had the advantage in dealing with business issues with China that there has been a need for government involvement acknowledged by our side as never the case with Japan. This has now changed. as a result of changes in the Chinese economy…. but not completely. There has long been in some areas of business (but not all fortunately) an intemperate expectation of business on the run, results in a year, what’s it worth now… driven by profit-this-year, shareholders, driven also by the media mindset that its only happening if it feeds the front page today. Please do not underestimate the fact that Chinese officials have very extensive knowledge of this country, as they should. Puff a bit at the thought that someone, perhaps many, there, read Crikey. Do a little empathy, imagine yourself in China-crikey, writing an editorial about your editorial. Reflect upon their restraint confronted daily by a blather of insults from Australia. Admire the calm way they prefer to learn deeply about who they are dealing with and expect more than a slap on the back as the basis for long term relations. I do remember one Australian company which asked a very sensitive question of a very senior Chinese leader, in 1985, and the Chinese leader instantly quoted back something generous the Australian company had said and done…. in 1949. It’s going to be hard for you to adjust perhaps, but we are dealing with thoughtful people here, with memories.
I have always taken the view that we should have a clear and independent voice on human rights and other issues in the region. I also take the view that we have to conduct ourselves sensibly. My despair with the Greens in foreign policy is their failure to comprehend that international relations constitute an ecology, not a megaphone opportunity. There have to be ragged edges and discontinuities in our relations with China. Consider also, in relation to the Uighur issue, the complexity of the issues in China’s west. Do we have any issues related to multiculturalism? Do we get worked up by the Indian media’s agitation? Imagine running the China relationship if the Chinese media was full of shock jocks… Xinjiang province, where the Uighur population is mostly located, has the population of Australia, half of them Uighur. Consider drafting a defence white paper, connecting with your social and economic policy in Xinjiang. Take into account the fact that unlike Australia’s infant white colonial situation surrounded by sea, Xinjiang has land borders with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrkyzstan, Kazakstan, Russia and Mongolia. No wonder they want fridges, national security fridge magnets must be very important out there.
All our dealings with China take place in the context of radical reforms in China. Cabinet decision in Australia in 1980 paved the way for our involvement at many levels in China in the important business of reform… a shift from party and state control of everything, including the right to birth, shelter, education, work, marriage to building legal systems, notions of business operations, concepts of profit and loss, employment and unemployment, bankruptcy and social security. We did this because of the importance on the global stage of China as a positive actor. We avoided the provocative approach of the United States towards China on many issues. We never failed to make our own values clear, but we did that with manners, not with turnBull in the China shop or Hockey with Bishops or other arrogance. People of weight may consider arrogance as a means of expression, the weightless should not. We saw, at least until Howard’s narrow-cast focus, that the broad issue of China’s place in the world was actually very important. It is NOT all just about trade, trade is NOT the bottom line.
To come to terms with the complexity of the reform process in China at political level read “Prisoner of the State: the Secret Journal of Premier Zhao Ziyang” Simon and Schuster 2009 and discover how very like our own politics China’s are in many ways, when we stop our mindless bigotted finger pointing (“Ooh look at that funny little man over there” as one senior Australian politician once remarked to his wife in my earshot in China): they too have cronyism, snakiness, backstabbing, rivalry and reluctance of old geezers to let go and accept democratic process. Consider the workings of the Chinese Communist Party, compare the NSW Labor or Liberal Parties and their madness (where did I ever imagine we could be a model, geez, so naive), please don’t compare with the National Party (as Billy Hughes remarked when asked why he had joined every party except the Country (i.e. National) Party he replied: “You have to draw the line somewhere.”)… Consider how well our parties might do running a country with the size and complexity of China. Marvel that what gets done in China gets done. Consider that the evolution of the political situation in China, is still far from resolved, and that we do, we really do, have capacity to tip it the wrong way if we stand long enough in our thongs and tinnies, scratching our bums, slagging off at them.
China’s transformation in the past 30 years has been on a scale without historical precedent, with per capita GDP growing from about $US400 in 1980 to near over $3000 in 2008. China has had no large country as model for its political reform and has done it’s economic reform in a manner comparable to servicing 50 semitrailers while they fly at 120 down the Hume Freeway.
Count to ten and smile… perhaps then send all your computers back to China if you need them less than they need you?
This conclusion of yours:
“The Howard Government managed Australia’s relationship with China very well. Kevin Rudd has, unexpectedly given his background, taken it to a more complex and demanding level. So far, though, the relationship continues to produce economic results, and despite the fevered rhetoric from the Chinese media, that is the only indicator that really counts.”
is muddled, misguided and dangerous nonsense.
DENNISEARGALL: Thank you for your excellent post.
I admit to over-emphasizing China’s xenophobia and do not, in any way, begrudge the Chinese people their hard-earned economic wealth.
The thing which fills me with despair is this ‘cap in hand attitude’ which so many Australians possess. This was, is and probably will be for ever, a sort of hangover from Australia’s Colonial cringe. A man in your position would have noticed how, during the British era, we groveled towards the English. (I can remember my mother who was born in South Africa, and of a menial class of people, always kowtowing to anything English. Because England was home, pronounced heme.)
When the Brits departed the scene we groveled to the USA, even, as with the English, fighting their wars.
Then Japan became the ruling economy, and as you correctly pointed out, our big business mining industries virtually allowed the Japanese to dictate the price of our minerals.
If I am right, and I think I am, Japan has sewed up one company’s supply of Liquid Nitrogen Gas, at three cents a cubic metre-if that is the correct terminology-for some time to come.
Australians, for some mysterious reason, like to think of themselves as rugged individualists. The reverse is true. As a nation, we have no self-respect at all. Therefore to hope that China would respect us would be the equivalent of finding the Strangler Rex, alive and well in Antartica.
The shocking capitulation by Fortesque Minerals is but a signal of worse to come.
I feel I don’t know enough about the issues involved to criticize China’s treatment of minority groups.
Once again, thank you for your comment.
I think you have put the problem of habitual mendicancy very well Venice, we are on common ground.