Today Crikey introduces The Proposition — a provocation that bounces off a hot topic. Our first respondents are five Crikey regulars. And we’d love to have your responses*.
Here’s today’s proposition:
If China won’t agree to an investigation into the cause of coronavirus, should Australia be prepared to downgrade our trade relationship?
There are reasons to rethink our relationship with China, but they are human rights, not virus-related. While China’s initial handling of the outbreak reflected fragilities with its authoritarian approach to governing, the speed in which the Communist Party course-corrected was astonishing.
Despite having the lockdown blueprint, the US, UK, Brazil and various others completely botched their handling of the crisis, which indicates that other countries would probably have done a worse job than China.
Investigating China is not merely a waste of time, it’s economically idiotic and self-defeating.
— Adam Schwab, business operator and creator of The Schwab Test
Western economies took a risk when they decided to bring China into the economic fold thinking they would then be part of the rules-based order.
The World Trade Organisation and the World Health Organisation are perfect examples.
Instead China ignored those rules and exploited the democratic processes to use against the rest of the world.
Australia led the world in free trade reform and we need to continue to support it — but we must also begin to decouple economically from China as much as is practical.
— Janine Perrett, Crikey columnist, radio/TV journalist and presenter
Australia and China indulging in some rage-based voluntary protectionism at each other will principally hurt their own consumers who’ll be forced to pay more or have less choice about the goods and services they buy.
Australia’s construction sector already pays billions in higher costs because of our protectionism against Chinese steel. Why would we want to make that any worse?
There will, however, be an inevitable program of government support for local manufacturing of medical and pharmaceutical products deemed essential — with all the risks of rent-seekers and rorters — designed to ensure there’s no repeat of Australia having to go begging to China for testing equipment and personal protective equipment (PPE).
But what happens when other countries make the same decision to onshore “essential” manufacturing and it affects Australian, not Chinese, exports? We won’t exactly be in a strong position to complain.
What should be “downgraded” is the deference paid by the media to billionaire appeasers who take Beijing’s side over Australia’s because of their commercial interests. Oh, wait, some of them are the media. So much for foreign interference laws.
— Bernard Keane, Crikey’s political editor
An independent and thorough investigation of the causes and spread of the SARS-COV-2 virus is in everyone’s interests.
China will also benefit from such a review; that is, unless you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that China deliberately engineered and released the virus – a theory our Prime Minister rejects.
But the surest way to discourage China from supporting a review is political pressure. It would be a further mistake to link the review to trade. We have everything to lose, nothing to gain, from a trade dispute with China.
— Stephen Bartos, Crikey columnist, consultant and former deputy secretary of the federal department of finance
As a trading nation Australia has a reputation for quality, value, and reliability, and we would be foolish to compromise on any of them for political reasons even in the event of a new cold war.
We traded directly with China at the height of the first Cold War, when the US placed a ban on trade with the PRC, and I imagine we’d do the same in the new cold war if it came to that. Then again, if there’s a hot war, all bets are off.
— John Fitzgerald, Crikey columnist, China expert, emeritus professor at Swinburne University of Technology
*Our next proposition is: the current crisis has highlighted the need to substantially cut Australia’s immigration levels, even if that hurts the economy. Tell us your thoughts by emailing a response of no more than 80 words to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication.
Some sort of investigation into COVID 19 pandemic will have to be held, but our boorish, trumpean way of just blaming China is ridiculous if the end game is a better future response to similar outbreaks. No country’s response has been perfect and one country in particular, with over 80,000 dead so far, has had an appalling response. Surely a multinational investigation including all countries without fear or favour would lead to a better outcome.
This issue was handled poorly by the Morrison govt. The more important issue is identification and communication of new diseases (seems room for improvement), information about handling /treating the disease ( sharing information seems to have been good), elimination or control of the new disease ( work in progress). A new disease can come from anywhere, so undertaking the above is essential – and in everyones interest. Yes, understanding how covid-19 arose is important – but that will take time and we may never know.
Australia should not be prepared to downgrade our relationship with China over a dispute over finding out the cause of Covid-19. With or without China this will be investigated and expert panels will come to a conclusion. Yes, we should be looking at not becoming so dependent on China or any other country for goods and services of all sorts. We have seen how exposed we can become if the supply chain is broken . As well we have seen when the chips appear to be down , how countries serve there own interests and bugger understandings/agreements.
Morrison has stuffed up in my opinion- he doesn’t need to lead this rhetoric of investigation as we are such a small player in world events, he has just made us a target. Any retaliation by China will be his fault.
When Bernard was carrying on yesterday about the wonderful Chinese steel, some commenters pointed out that they were producing an inferior product for Australians because we wanted a cheaper product. Do we know if superior Australian produced steel costs more than superior Chinese produced steel? Bernard does not seem to be comparing apples with apples, he is too busy being a dog with a bone.
Gawd, where to start with that lot?! From the top, with Schwab, might be simplest;
“If China won’t agree to an investigation into the cause of coronavirus……”
From a note to the cohort, earlier today;
“…To repeat what the Chinese bloke told the Germans (Der Speigel), last week, about their interest in any ‘independent investigation’;
“We are open to an international investigation,” Wu Ken told Der Spiegel magazine in an interview. “We support the exchange of research among scientists.
But we reject putting China in the dock without evidence, assuming its guilt and then trying to search for evidence through a so-called international investigation.”
Then, last week, came the news the EU had drafted a resolution (to put to the useless European Parliament), in support of an ‘independent investigation’. Locally, that was touted as being a ‘win’ for Schlo & Co’s ‘service provision’ to the Yanks, and making it all about the ‘Wuhan virus’, China’s refusal to communicate, and good ‘ol “collusion” b/w the Chinamen and the WHO.
Thing is, it wasn’t, at all, as touted in most local political and medya circles.
Probably about the most accurate local reportage came from SBS – what the EU draft resolution actually says, and was agreed upon – in Europe – after input from the Chinamen and Amerika;
sbsdotcomdotau/news/european-union-backs-calls-for-review-of-who-s-performance-during-coronavirus-outbreak
“ The European Union wants a review of the international response to the coronavirus pandemic and an analysis of the World Health Organisation’s performance…”
Now, whack on your ‘international diplomatic speak’ translator, and tell me which of these 2 nations is happy enough with those EU agreed terms of reference, and which isn’t;
“…European diplomats said the United States and China have taken part in negotiations on the EU resolution but gave no details of their input.
A Chinese spokesman confirmed Beijing officials had been involved but US officials declined comment…”
Unt;
“An initial draft of the EU resolution, to be debated by WHO health ministers meeting virtually on May 18-19 at the World Health Assembly, includes wording on “commending the WHO leadership” but calls for “an evaluation… at the earliest appropriate moment on lessons learnt from the international health response to COVID-19″.
Emphasis…”a review of the international response” & “..lessons learnt from the international health response to COVID-19”.
Anyone reckon the likes of Trump’s Amerika, or BoJo’s Limeyland, will be interested in those terms of reference.
Always, ALWAYS, a non-starter from Schlo & Co. ‘Get outta the echo chamber, you imbeciles!’
Neither Australia nor the US nor any sovereign state would accept the blustering and blathering of Morrison, Dutton and Trump. We need to find out as much as we can, but in the light of what little we do know, it seems likely that the market in Wuhan was the first point because it would be a very good place for person to person spread. The virus could have come from almost anywhere if the first case was asymptomatic. I think Mr Bartos is on the right track. As to Bernard and his steel, all I can say is that my godson and his brother worked for a serious heavy metal firm on the mid north coast. The brother still does. His firm builds things like pieces of bridge, hoppers on coal mine sites, frames for conveyors, serious heavy steel They both maintain that Chinese steel was too inconsistent for the task, resulting in poor welding quality. Their company did not use it. I remember back to when Made in Japan meant rubbish, now it implies the highest standards. At this time made in China does not imply quality.