Julie Bishop’s start in the crucial role of Foreign Minister has by no means been an unalloyed success. But her stance in relation to China’s aggressive behaviour over the Senkaku islands in the East China Sea is entirely appropriate, and efforts to portray it as another stumble are wrong.
To recap, China has arbitrarily declared the airspace above the disputed islands (which are far closer to Taiwan than China) to be subject to airspace restrictions and demanded other countries observe them. Bishop’s comments on this provocation echoed the line taken by our allies Japan and the United States; that the move was unhelpful and destabilising.
China’s shrill insistence that Bishop’s comments were “irresponsible” and that they should be corrected was entirely predictable. Alas, there is no “mistake” to correct: China’s actions were indeed destabilising and have only raised tensions in the region.
There’s a certain sentiment of appeasement toward China in Australia; it can be found in part of the foreign policy establishment, led by the likes of academic Hugh White, who demand we offer obeisance to Beijing in recognition of its coming dominance, and can be found in some business circles, where economic relations with China are regarded as so important that nothing can in any way upset the Chinese Communist Party leadership.
Governments of both sides of politics have resisted this insistence that we subject all other priorities to keeping Beijing happy. Kevin Rudd, in particular, showed a healthy, well-informed scepticism toward China that upset many foreign policy establishment types more comfortable with getting along with the Chinese government. Bishop’s response to China’s actions was entirely correct, and continues this tradition.
Agree. Presumably this is part of China’s long term goal of reunifying with Taiwan.
1. the Senkakus are really none of our business.
2. If concern over this move is genuine, it could have been raised through diplomatic channels – in private.
3. Bishop is right to ask questions and seek assurances from the chinese ambasador in order to be prepared for questions – in Parliament or from the media.
But why the megaphone? It seems like picking fights with the Asians is getting positive feedback in the focus groups.
According to both the PRC and Taiwan governments Taiwan is part of China; they just disagree on who should be running the place. Have you forgotten the history here? A defeated Kuomintang government fled to Taiwan (the then Formosa) and was a propped up by American warships cruising in the Formosa Straits. That was in Chinese territorial waters.
Taiwan makes the same claim to the (Senkaku) Islands as does the PRC, and a host of other countries.
Last time I looked I couldn’t see Chinese nuclear armed bombers flying provocatively close to the US coastline; nor do I recall any Chinese warships in the Gulf of Mexico, or the west and east coats of the US. Neither does China have a ring of military bases around the US, all aimed at “containment” of China. Indeed China doesn’t have any military bases outside its own territory. At last count the US had more than 1000.
It is not a question of kowtowing to the Chinese. It is a question of having a clear eyed view of just who is being provocative here. It is also a question of recognising China’s legitimate interests as the superpower of the region. That is not the same as offering “obeisance” as you misrepresent the views of Hugh White.
It will be a cold day in hell when Julie Bishop does say something that is calm and constructive. Her recent statements re Indonesia and Sri Lanka and the cowardly capitulation to the Zionist lobby over voting in favour of UN resolutions condemning the continued illegal occupation of Palestinian land and the building thereon and instead abstaining (as in the Howard era) fails to convince me that she is other than the worst person in the Foreign Minister role in living memory.
Strangely enough there are two sides to every story and I am not prepared to judge the issue until I hear both sides. I wonder if Bishop has investigated the issue enough to be able to make a fair judgement on it before making public statements.
We also need to look at this in the light of the US and its allies’ aggressive moves in the Asia Pacific region. The Asian Pivot and the new US base in the NT as well as the secretive TPP Agreement and the undisguised moves to court Burma all point to an increasingly confronting posture towards China by the empire and its minions.
By the way we need to be very, very wary of this corporate designed TPP thing. Thanks yet again to Wikileaks for exposing at least one of its chapters.