On June 5, China’s National Ministry of Culture and Tourism issued a travel alert to visitors to Australia warning of “a significant increase” in racial abuse and violence. Four days later, the Ministry of Education issued a similar warning to Chinese students planning to study in Australia.
There’s been evidence of racial abuse in Australia during the pandemic, but hardly on a scale warranting international travel warnings. As Trade Minister Simon Birmingham observed, the travel advisory “does not stand up to scrutiny”.
Does it matter? Similar warnings in 2018 had little effect on enrolments of Chinese students, and China’s local envoys have strongly denied connections between warnings on tourism and education and import restrictions on beef and barley.
Yet there’s a common thread running through recent threats and warnings that sets them apart from earlier examples, and it has nothing to do with racism or tainted beef or underpriced barley.
What draws them together is Beijing’s fury over Canberra’s call for an independent review of the origins and spread of COVID-19. That anger went far beyond any reasonable response because the mere suggestion of an independent inquiry struck at President Xi Jinping’s credibility.
As far as China was concerned, this was another Mack Horton moment: a naive second-ranker appeared to be calling out the winner as a liar and a cheat.
Beijing refused to concede that the call for an inquiry was in any sense authentic. Canberra was acting not on its own initiative, but on behalf of Washington, “dancing to the tune of a certain country” in the Foreign Ministry’s cynical turn of phrase.
Not surprisingly, the call for an independent review drew a warning from Ambassador Cheng Jingye that education and tourism and trade in general would suffer if Australia persisted. And so they will.
A big shift is underway. Public reprimands from Beijing are hardly new, but before this incident they tended to be spontaneous and inconsistent.
In December 2013, Foreign Minister Wang Yi rebuked Foreign Minister Julie Bishop to her face over the South China Sea dispute. It was an awkward moment, but it ended there. Further criticism and name-calling followed the Australian government’s decisions to limit foreign political interference in 2017 and to ban Huawei from tendering for major telecommunication contracts in 2018.
In each instance, Australia acted well ahead of the US and other countries, prompting one of China’s top Australia watchers to accuse Canberra in September 2019 of playing a “pioneering role” in a global anti-China campaign. But there was little sign of coordination among the accusations.
In the wake of the call for an inquiry, however, a decision has been taken at the highest levels in Beijing to consolidate earlier random and inconsistent critiques of Australia into a common communications strategy in support of a unified approach that involves leveraging trade and investment to punish Australia for challenging Xi’s version of events and his vision for the region.
This approach is wrapped in a communications strategy branding Australia an irredeemably racist country in thrall to US hegemony — incapable of thinking independently or pioneering China policy for the world, as critics had indicated earlier, but instead tagging lamely along in the superpower’s lumbering tread.
It is being implemented methodically across many arms of government, including five ministerial-level agencies that have taken action so far: Trade, Education, Tourism, Foreign Affairs, and Propaganda (the home of the People’s Daily).
Following Canberra’s call for an inquiry, Beijing notified the world of Australia’s pariah status through a strongly worded editorial in the state-run paper on April 28 under the byline Zhong Sheng, or “Voice of the Centre”. This byline is reserved for editorials signalling central party views on important international relations issues. It’s fair to say it is the voice of Xi, one or two steps removed.
The target of the rebuke was Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, which the editorial accused of “evilly associating” the pandemic with China by defacing the country’s national emblem with a graphic image of a viral crown.
Why such a fuss over the Tele? Australian media commentary on China and the Chinese Communist Party has been a source of low-grade tension between Australia and China, dating back to the early 1970s, and the Telegraph is hardly a model of civilised behaviour at the best of times.
Still, someone near the top of the pyramid in Beijing decided to make an example of the rambunctious Sydney tabloid to signal an important message about Australia to every official, every business and every family in China. The charge that the People’s Daily levelled against Australia was that by associating an infectious disease with a national emblem Australians had engaged in racist behaviour.
Defacing a national symbol may be juvenile and offensive but it’s not generally regarded as racist. China’s communist party-state is not a race. For Beijing’s purpose, the distinction is immaterial as the CCP regards itself as the people of China and interprets mockery of the party-state as an act of racism.
So a Foreign Ministry official explained, when justifying the issue of a travel warning on grounds of racism, that “some Australian politicians and media called the coronavirus a ‘Chinese virus’ and maliciously tampered with the Chinese national flag and national emblem”. To drive the point home, central party authorities selected a local tabloid with little claim to prudence to signal to everyone in China that Australia is racist.
The American connection wasn’t left out either. China’s own Daily Telegraph, the Global Times, answered Birmingham’s response to the travel warning with a claim that Australian politicians are not to be trusted because they are “too easily swayed by US political attitude and too eager to win US favours”.
In light of this alleged American connivance, the paper went on to point out that the travel warnings were just the “tip of the iceberg” of punishments in store if Australia failed to mend its ways.
Evidence that Canberra is easily swayed by American attitudes is as thin as the claim that poking fun at flags and emblems is racist. Recent polls show that Australian misgivings about US President Donald Trump run even deeper than their concerns about Xi — although Australians continue to favour closer ties with the US than with China — and Canberra has consistently distanced itself from Washington during Trump’s term on issues ranging from multilateral trade to climate change and the role of international institutions such as the World Trade Organisation and World Health Organisation.
On matters related to China, Australian governments have never endorsed the US-led trade war, and Australia’s national intelligence agencies and Prime Minister Scott Morrison conspicuously declined to endorse claims by Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tracing the spread of the coronavirus to an experimental laboratory in Wuhan.
Australia’s record of independent foreign policy thinking makes little impression in China because, if I read Zhong Sheng correctly, a decision has been taken at the highest levels of the party to brand Australia a racist country that takes its orders from the US.
This is a game-changing decision that doesn’t require evidence to support it and that can happily contradict earlier claims that Australia is in fact a pioneering leader on China issues globally.
The Zhong Sheng editorial signalled a high-level central party decision concerning Australia to every government ministry and to officials running China’s state-owned enterprises at home and abroad, along with tourism and education agents in China, that people around Xi have adopted a hostile approach towards Australia. All need to fall into line.
While Xi is running things, we can expect to hear much more about Australian racism, about Australian lapdogs dancing to American tunes, and about steering clear of Australia. The latest travel and education warnings over racism don’t stand up to scrutiny because they don’t have to. Our problem is not racism, it is Xi.
It’s worth remembering that Mack Horton and his family had to put up with many years of vitriol and bullying before he was eventually vindicated.
This article was first published in The Strategist, a publication of the Australian Strategy Policy Institute. It is reprinted with permission of the author.
A constructive first step by Morrison would be to gag Peter Dutton to prevent his interference in portfolios for which he has no responsibility and for the consequences of his ill-considered comments he accepts no blame.
The next step would be for Morrison also to show a little discretion, back away from his “expert on everything Father knows best” mindset and start listening to his diplomats.
Which is the third step. Frances Adamson was Ambassador in Beijing. She speaks Mandarin and knows the lie of that land. Graham Fletcher, currently Ambassador in Beijing, is a career diplomat specialising in the Middle Kingdom. As Nicki Hutley noted on The Drum last week, foreign policy is best left in the hands of the diplomats, where expertise resides and the national, rather than the domestic political, interest is the priority focus.
Morrison launched his call for an ‘independent investigation’ about 24 hours after a phone call with Trump.
Fitzgerald also omits the element of Morrison’s ‘independent investigation’ call that most offended Beijing, as it would any nation that holds its sovereignty paramount.
When Morrison called for ‘independent investigators’ to be given the powers to ‘intervene’ in sovereign nations, powers akin to those vested in “UN Weapons Inspectors” (Morrison’s words), he was never going to be able to sustain an argument that Australia is not a “running dog” for the US.
Further, Australia’s biggest problem isn’t Xi, it’s everybody’s ‘favourite’ ‘strategic think tank in Australia, The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, run by Howard’s favourite public servant, Iraq war fan, and warmonger, more generally, Peter Jennings.
Heading and subheading from an article by a fine independent journalist named Alam Macleod;
“Hawkish, Gov’t Funded Think Tank Behind Twitter Decision to Delete Thousands of Chinese Accounts
Twitter’s decision came after close collaboration with a deeply controversial U.S. and Australian government-funded think tank that has been denounced by Australia’s former ambassador in Beijing as “the architect of the China threat theory in Australia.”
And, from the body of that article, from June 12th, so Friday;
“Twitter worked closely with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) in making yesterday’s decision. ASPI is a deeply controversial U.S. and Australian government-funded think tank based in Canberra, and was denounced by Australia’s former ambassador in Beijing as “the architect of the China threat theory in Australia.” Senator Kim Carr claimed ASPI was working hand-in-hand with Washington, trying to push “a new Cold War with China.” Former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bob Carr (no relation), agreed, saying it pushed a “one-sided, pro-American view of the world.” This certainly seems to be the case, judging by their website, which appears uniformly dedicated to demonizing China.
Perhaps most notable, however, is that ASPI is also funded by a myriad of weapons companies, including Raytheon Australia, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin, all of whom would greatly benefit from a war with China. And as The Grayzone’s Ajit Singh pointed out, ASPI is headed by ultra-hawkish defense official Peter Jennings, who defended the Iraq War, supports regime change in other Middle Eastern states, and argued that “the West is setting the bar for military response too high”…
Australian Senator Kim Carr has slammed ASPI for seeking to “promote a new cold war with China” in collaboration with the US. In February, Carr highlighted that ASPI received $450,000 funding from the US State Department in 2019-20….”
‘Alan Macleod 12/6/2020 Mintpressnews’
Actually, I omitted the fuller book of ASPI’s ‘sponsors’;
As well as Lockheed Martin, BAE, Northrop Grumman, Thales and Raytheon, there’s the Embassy of Japan and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office (that is, Taiwan), and NATO, the US State Department and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
And, there I was thinking the “NA” in “NATO” stood for “North Atlantic”.
Accolades to the Murdoch Mouthpiece? .. That tells us all we need to know and saves reading any more xenophobic shite.
Apples : oranges?
“Evidence that Canberra is easily swayed by American attitudes is as thin as the claim that poking fun at flags and emblems is racist. Recent polls show that Australian misgivings about US President Donald Trump run even deeper than their concerns about Xi….”?
“Canberra”= government?
“Recent polls” = people?
Who funds ASPI and to what end?
The things China does that we don’t like : that we do pretty much ourselves? They’ve even got their own Daily Teletrash? ….. What about their own “The Oz”?
Aren’t the “origins” of the virus pretty well accepted – they’re not the “embarrassing for China” ones being touted by Trumpites and their agents.
As for Oz being ahead of the US? When you throw a stick for your dog to retrieve – do you throw it behind? It would get pretty boring/predictable if the US was the one always making allegations, isn’t that why they deal them out – for someone else to run with them? ….. “Pass the WMDs”?
…. Where’s Sharri Markson and her “5 eyes bat-sh*t crazy” theory?
What a load of disingenuous nonsense as usual from the warmongering ASPI hawk farm.
I could understand blithering incompetence from Julie Bishop. She was always out of her depth but at least had the sense most of the time to follow departmental advice. She was obviously put up to it with her ignorant and undiplomatic commentary over South China Sea – that would be the one right next to China through which most its trade flows.
I’d hoped we may have reverted to proper diplomacy now with the new girl whatever her name is. It would indeed be wonderful if Australia really did choose an independent policy approach to China.
Only true fools could not see that covid is a sensitive matter to China requiring quality diplomacy. The worst of it is that this threatens the real work being done by real professionals in depth and at speed about this matter. The ASPI apologists will of course blame everyone else for these failures and our leaders will happily play along.
It might pay to remember that Brazil iron ore will come back on stream soon and that the world’s largest producer of iron ore and coal is China.
I have a bit of news on the ‘new girl’ (that’d be Payne), and what she did very, very shortly after Morrison tabled his call for the ‘independent investigation’ into China and the virus.
And, this was not reported by a single Australian ‘big’ (‘medium’, even) news provider, and none of them will allow a reader, viewer, subscriber, whatever, to mention it for them to convey to their audience.
Nor did it receive any mention from outlets amongst the nations’ ‘allies’.
If you go to wwwdotmiddotru, and look for a press release from May 20th, you’ll find one headed;
“Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Marise Payne”
It opens with;
“On May 20 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia Marise Payne on the Australian side’s initiative.”
From there on, in some of the finest diplomatic speak, you’ll see the ‘new girl’ was utterly schooled.
Great link. Thank You.
And like clockwork with any China article on China, the usual suspects enter the comments section to shoot the messenger and claim that the US is somehow worse.
I especially like the comment that Australia’s biggest problem is (somehow) The Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
Big fan of long time war mongering creeps, working in the service of foreign governments and weapons manufacturers, then, Phen?
Good luck to ya.
Tell it to an Iraqi, et freakin’ cetera.
Phen, don’t worry about this Trotskyist bot. He’s just acting under orders from Trotsky HQ.
More rapier like wit from the ignorants’ bleachers, I see.
‘Trotskyist?’ Again! Obviously a very, very slow learner.
Maybe you’re not a Trotskyist, you just like using their sources and saying how brilliant they are. You could be a mate of Steve Bannon who has at times claimed to be a Leninist and you’re following his advice to “Flood the internet with sh*t”
Something about the facts you don’t like?
I don’t know David from a bar of soap but I do know the truth when I see it.
And of course, much of what he reminds us of is either very recent history or very easy to corroborate ..
And you??
Richard, I’m not saying you’re a fully functioning Trot-bot yet. Just that you appear to be headed in that direction. Only time will tell.
Yup, you don’t like contrary opinions that you can’t refute.
And Yup.. You are correct on one thing.
I am an advanced fact finding device that easily passes the Turing Test.
PS … I reckon you must be an IPA-AI (Actual Ignorance)-Bot.
Richard
“Something about the facts you don’t like?”
“There are no facts, only interpretations”, Nietzsche.
Passed the Turing test? Just to confirm, could you give me you response to these tweets?
https://twitter.com/hashtag/WaterGait?src=hashtag_click
“Beep, Beep, Buzzzzzzzzz…
Looks like the Orange One has had a mild CVA.
Bzzzttt….. Burppppp!!”