The Coalition government went into the election with a “China problem” and, despite Scott Morrison’s constant talk of a so-called “reset”, it still has one.
Ultimately, Beijing believes that Canberra should be more solicitous of its major trading and exports partner, but Australia is still struggling to find a fresh approach to the country while maintaining its main strategic alliance with the United States. The US is diving deeper into a trade war with China, and any deal seems further off than it was when the Australian election campaign began a month ago.
In case that wasn’t enough tension: Beijing was clearly hoping for a Labor win. Chinese social media site WeChat was flooded with pro-Labor posts, many of which reportedly originated from accounts affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This message was clear in state-run media too. On May 20, the nationalistic tabloid The Global Times ran a piece titled “Will Coalition win benefit China-Aussie ties?”:
We believe some Western countries, including Australia, need to ditch the outdated Cold War mentality and embrace a more pragmatic, constructive and mutually beneficial approach in dealing with relations with countries like China.
Bad blood
Morrison was a senior member of Malcolm Turnbull’s cabinet — as was his presumptive foreign affairs minister Marise Payne and home affairs minister Peter Dutton, who now has purview over Australia’s security agencies — when things began turning sour from Beijing’s point of view.
Australian security agencies are very, very wary of China and the Turnbull government was responsible for the introduction of laws banning foreign political donations (Chinese businessmen had been hefty donors) and new foreign interference laws. In his last act as PM, Turnbull banned Chinese telecoms companies, led by Huawei Technologies and ZTE, from Australia’s 5G mobile networks. Australia then actively lobbied its anglophone Five Eyes intelligence sharing network to do the same.
It was also Morrison who announced an extra $3 billion to be pumped into the South Pacific in early 2019. This was in belated recognition of China’s increasing influence in the region — a region which has traditionally seen Australia and New Zealand do the heavy lifting on aid and security.
This was explicitly mentioned in the Global Times piece:
It is deceitful that some countries attempt to disparage China’s aid programs and BRI-related infrastructure projects in South Pacific nations, or even to coax and coerce some island nations’ governments to edge out China’s business engagements there.
Furthermore, former spymaster David Irvine — who has headed both ASIO and ASIS, and who also served a term as ambassador to China — was appointed by Turnbull and then-treasurer Morrison to head the Foreign Investments Review Board (FIRB) in April 2017. He has taken a tougher line than his predecessors. Under Irvine, FIRB has recognised the truism that the line between “state” and “non-state” enterprise in China is so blurred as to be impossible to discern.
The leadership of China’s ruling Communist Party has not liked this at all. During the past years of Coalition administration, a narrative has emerged that China is trying to influence Australian academia, politics and business. Beijing figured it may get an easier ride with a Labor government, no doubt encouraged by some vague cooing noises from Bill Shorten and the extraordinary entry into the campaign by Paul Keating (a long-time adviser to the China Development Bank). Keating attacked Australia’s security chiefs as “nutters” and said:
I think a Labor government would make a huge shift, just merely making the point that China’s entitled to be there, rather than being some illegitimate state that has to be strategically watched.
Keating has had able assistance in his pro-Beijing stance in recent years from former Labor foreign minister Bob Carr, now widely nicknamed “Beijing Bob”. Unfortunately for China, this didn’t matter in the end.
Where to from here?
Morrison’s problem is now what to do, if indeed there is anything that can be done. If he chooses to redress perceived wrongs, his task has been made significantly more difficult by having three foreign policy-based departments (the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Defence and Home Affairs). Defence and Home Affairs are, instinctively, more wary of China than DFAT. Still, this may change with party heavyweight Christopher Pyne retiring and Linda Reynolds slated to take over the defence portfolio.
But Canberra’s fears about Chinese influence and cyber-spying are well founded, and it has a rapidly growing number of significant allies in what can only be described as the war against Chinese tech companies. Last week Donald Trump declared a national emergency that effectively bans Chinese tech companies like Huawei and many are saying officially announces the beginning of a technology cold war. Last month Japan confirmed its move to ban Huawei from its 5G networks and Vietnam has also announced that its military-controlled state-run telco Viettel will develop its own 5G chips with the help of European partners, also excluding Chinese firms.
The silicon curtain, as it were, has fallen.
With Huawei and the now immutable foreign interference laws remaining the sticking points, Beijing’s belief that it would have had a better deal with Labor may have ultimately been unfounded. After all, it was under the Rudd Labor government that the first ban on Huawei was instituted.
Yes, Morrison now has a mandate to shape a new China policy. But it’s hard to see, practically, how he can reverse any decisions that have been made by successive Coalition governments or, indeed, if he would want to.
What do you think needs to be done to improve China-Australia relations? Send your thoughts to boss@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name.
The academic and education perceived influence is an Australian neoliberal own goal. Provide proper funding so this industry can give up it’s grovelling reliance on Chinese and other overseas students, perhaps bloated ABF budget could be trimmed to provide the funds.
As for the latest Huawei issues, nothing has ever been produced to explain why my Huawei phone is a threat to me or others compared to any other smart phone. I can only surmise it’s because it’s price/features ratio is an outstanding star in an envious and plateauing 1st world market.
Well put, applet.
As usual, ‘Bubble Boy’ Sainsbury’s presentation suggests ‘acceptance craving myopia’.
So, a couple of facts;
Huawei shipped 50% more phones in the March quarter just gone, than they did in the same quarter in ’18. Samsung (the No 1) and Apple (the No 3, having been been toppled from No 2 by Huawei, recently) both shipped less than 5% more phones in the March quarter, than the pcp.
Huawei have been working on their own Operating System, to replace Android, since 2012. Their chiefs have said it’ll be ready to rock and roll globally, within months.
Much fuss has been made about Trump banning Qualcomm and Intel from supplying Huawei, and other Chinese firms, with chips for their devices. Most Western news consumers have been told Huawei are totally dependent on Qualcomm and Intel chips. That’s wrong – their devices already have about 50% of their own, and other Chinese chips.
If you look further behind the ‘curtain’, not only did the likes of Google get Trump to push the ban back by 3 months (some of that was due to threats of suits from INSIDE the US), but the Huawei chiefs are now reporting they’re in talks with Google on how to limit the impact of the ban(s).
And, then there’s the real kicker – Rare Earth Elements. China control over 80% of the world’s RRE supply.
No RRE’s – no chips, no high tech gadgets, no magnets, no EV’s, none of a range of medical diagnostic gear, no telly screens, no catalytic cracking in oil refineries and on and on the list goes.
A couple of headlines from the last 24 hours;
“Rare Earths stocks soar on US-China trade war speculation” (Reuters)
“Xi Xinping flexes China’s trade muscle, with visit to Rare Earths hub” (The Australian)
“China Raises Threat of Rare Earths cut off to US” (Foreign Policy)
The world’s a whole lot bigger, and rapidly becoming more multi-polar, than those in the ‘bubble’ like to admit.
As for China being the headline meddler in our ‘democracy’, perhaps people might like to visit Wikileaks, and seek out what they revealed about Hawke’s undermining of Whitlam, in cahoots with the US.
Hawke was just another Australian ‘of influence’ who trod a well worn path to the back door of the US Embassy in Canberra.
One more snippet David : Huawei rivals Microsoft (or exceeds the company) Oppo isn’t all that far behind. The major market for Oppo is India (go figure!)
No mention of the stupidity of Turnbull appointing a Journalist (Garnaut) to undertake a review of ‘foreign interference’ when, as far as I can see, his qualifications for such a task were 8 years in Beijing working for the SMH. No mention of the alacrity with which the organisations of Porter and Dutton and Hastie and Lewis would seem, to the uninitiated, to be providing ‘backgrounders’ to the SMH and their willingness to print this stuff. Incidentally, does any one of the aforementioned have a national security clearance?
In a sense it is a problem of ethnicity. Each ethnic group likes to think that it is superior to other ethnic groups. The Chinese government acts upon that premise in dealing with internal minorities and looks to extend such practices more broadly. Fortunately we already know which is the superior ethnic group.
Very droll Abbott, or are you Costello? Very neat indeed.
No mate. you have your terminology confused. It is about hegemony rather than ethnicity.
Accepted that racism is rife in Asia but its only ever a matter of degree and extends to the Roman period which, in turn, brings us full circle back to the reality of hegemony.
Take a look at Kissinger’s book that I have quoted.in my substantive post. His motivation for writing the book was to marshal the western forces.
Thanks Michael, a nuanced report. I’m ambivalent and looking for more facts, but it is a game of nuance.
Huawei decisions plus Google’s defection from all things Huawei means this is now in the real economy. Of more importance is that reportedly China/Huawei are way ahead of the competition on 5G, so we will now have a sub standard NBN with a lightweight 5G. That’s also moving into real economy stuff (Thanks LNP).
I’m with applet though, it makes no difference to me if China is reading my emails or the USA through Apple, Google and Microsoft. Probably both.
Conservatively, Dog’s, Huawei are 2 years ahead of the pack on 5G.
And, if they stop or limit the supply of Rare Earths into the US and the West, you will not see them for dust – it’ll be all over bar the shouting, and we’ll be back to a coupla tin cans and a bit of string.
If China was hoping for a Labor win and was actively trying to push that on Chinese social media, they obviously aren’t anywhere near as good at this game as the Russians. It seems Labor didn’t even win Chisholm.
Haven’t you heard, Arky? Macron has just hoisted the US “government” to the top of the podium for ‘meddling’.
I kid you not. After fingering Russia for ‘always’ meddling, ‘everywhere’, particularly Europe, since he got the top job in France, Macron has seen Bannon dealing with Le Pen in the lead up to the EU Parliament elections, and concluded;
“I see for the first time a collusion between the nationalists and foreign interests, whose objective is the dismantling of Europe,” Macron said on Monday, adding that Bannon is a “lobbyist close to the American government.”
Like that? “I see for the FIRST time a collusion……..”.
Man’s an idiot, but not untypical.
You’re approaching the matter in the “hard” way David. A few lines as to the nature of The Monroe Doctrine AND the myriad of subsequent transgressions would have sufficed, in my opinion, in regard to interferrence. Evidence exists in regard to the proceedings of Whitlam in ’74 and 75.
As for history, May’s maverickisms were perceived as features but, for well over 18 months, they are (clearly) now recognised as an impediments. Similarly for Macron (who was only ever a tolerably well disguised populist. The populism has been evident for well over a year but, compared to Hillary and Obama (Bush come to that) so is it with Trump but more so.
Numerous ways to skin the cat, Kyle.
On the Monroe Doctrine, apart from Sergey Lavrov suggesting the notion of “backyards” was “insulting” (to Central and South American nations), and that he’d ‘looked’ and couldn’t find any mention of the ‘Monroe Doctrine’ in the relevant International Law, I reckon his spokeslass, the “indomitable” (Pepe Escobar) Maria Zakharova said it best, when she summed up the US claims on Venezuela (according to Monroe);
“In fact, at one point, Zakharaova pointedly touched on the Trump administration’s Munroe Doctrine, asking in an acerbic tone, “What are they (US) themselves doing in Eastern Hemisphere? Perhaps, they believe that the people of this part of the world will be thankful when Washington wilfully changes their leaders and kills the unwanted ones. Or the US still believes that people are waiting for the Americans to bring democracy to them on the wings of their bombers. Ask Iraqis, Libyans or Serbs about it.”
Does a mean more than adequate Kalinka, too, Maria.
The quintessential example was the “establishment” of the Shah in 1953. Having made that point the Brits and frogs were no less “civil” when they constructed the present borders (more or less) with their fountain pens [a quip from Churchill to Lady Morell and also confessed, in the same letter, his recovering from a hangover that Sunday] in the Middle East.
Now, to the chagrin of the USA the Pacific region (the Islands etc) are being overtly courted by the PRC. Hitherto, the best that a Pacific region political leader could expect was a coffee and a photo on the steps of the White House with, perhaps, a handshake in favorable instances. We aint seen nothin’ yet David!
Naval bases chocked with the latest gear from the PRC in exchange for write off of debt along with infrastructure goodies : its a past the post bet (and a familiar story. Take a look at Africa. Its only a matter of degree.
I don’t know what to make of these claims Arky but I do have access to the “China Daily” which is a good PRC proxy for what would be “nice”. On my reading there was NO overt clamoring for a Labor win; indeed there was very little mention. The spilling of Abbott and Turnbull got more page area.