Australia’s business engagement with China — for decades the object of encouragement and enthusiasm by successive governments eager to take advantage of a massive economic opportunity — is now a potential source of vulnerability after three Australian journalists were targeted.
After facilitating the flight of journalists Bill Birtles and Michael Smith in the face of pressure from Chinese police — ostensibly related to the arrest and detention of Australian-Chinese TV anchor Cheng Lei — the Department of Foreign Affairs confirmed its advice that Australians should not travel there given “authorities have detained foreigners because they’re ‘endangering national security’. Australians may also be at risk of arbitrary detention.”
The advice is slightly more guarded for Australians already there: “If you’re already in China and wish to return to Australia, we recommend you do so as soon as possible by commercial means.”
Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne declined to clarify that further yesterday, saying that Australians no matter where they were should heed the advice, but seemed to extend that to the approximately 100,000 Australians in Hong Kong.
“They should certainly be paying very close attention to the Smartraveller advice,” she said.
The number of Australian citizens living and working in mainland China is believed to be in the tens of thousands. China has shown it is willing to use the arbitrary arrest and detention of business people for diplomatic purposes: Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor have been imprisoned in China since 2018 in retaliation for Canada’s arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou.
It’s unclear whether the Chinese regime’s actions toward Birtles and Smith were part of its fight with the United States over journalists in each other’s countries, its ongoing hostility toward Australia or purely about Western journalism.
Swinburne University Business School Professor John Fitzgerald says China could be specifically targeting journalists, and the reasons why may become clear in time. In the meantime, however, there’s no certainty about what the risk is to other Australians in China.
“The level of risk to business people compared to journalists has been pretty low,” he says. “But we don’t know why Australian journalists have been targeted. The Chinese government may have sent a signal it didn’t [mean] to other Australians in China that they aren’t safe.”
This creates a serious dilemma for Australian companies with Australian staff on the ground in China, Australian business people there, and potentially even Australia’s large diaspora in Hong Kong.
Even if the risk of arbitrary detention is low, the outcome is catastrophic: years in jail in China’s brutal criminal justice system.
Given the government has made it clear that Australians face real risks going to China, any company sending employees there or keeping Australian staff there would be behaving negligently and in defiance of clear advice — opening the way to massive compensation claims.
This is a complete reversal of decades of Australian governments urging Australian businesses to engage with China, to forge local connections there and develop the kind of direct links necessary to succeed in the world’s biggest market.
The Australia in the Asian Century white paper in 2012 devoted an entire chapter to the importance of expanding direct links with Asian countries, especially China, including “the substantial flows of people and ideas between institutions, such as parliaments, educational institutions, business and community groups and the public service”.
That drive continued well into the current government. In a 2014 trade delegation hyped by News Corp stenographers as the biggest to ever visit China, Tony Abbott lauded Australia’s engagement with China and declared: “Team Australia is here in China to help build the Asian century.”
Later that year, Abbott stood next to Xi Jinping and lauded Australia’s “people-to-people links” as he described the Chinese autocrat as “truly, no Chinese leader has ever been anything like such a good friend to Australia”.
What’s left of “team Australia” in China is now, potentially, team hostage for a regime seemingly determined to punish Australia.
First our best and brightest de-industrialise the Australian economy, handing the management of the economy to market forces and the theory of comparative advantage, then they take us into a cold war against China.
If the Chinese start sourcing their minerals from elsewhere and their students find other destinations, where will that leave us?
While you may fondly think China will collapse into rioting if we stop buying manufactured products that we can no longer produce ourselves, where will we get those things from and how will we pay for them?
Where will our economy be headed?
Over a cliff I suggest.
The national security creeps are treading a very fine line, and frankly, it is not my responsibility to give a razoo about which fraction of the liberal ascendancy gets crunched first in this idiotic game, whether grain growers or corporate news publishers.
Let them all go to hell in a hand basket.
You seem to have a clearer head than many of your countrymen (and women).
It is doubtful if the Chinese would “riot”, as the Government has always looked after the military, and they would just roll out the tanks, as in Tianamin. the Chinese government has no compunction in killing those who dissent even its own citizens.
WHERE WOULD CHINA BE IF AUSTRALIA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD STOPPED BUYING THEIR CRAP PRODUCTS, THEY WOULD HAVE MASSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT AND A COLLAPSING ECONOMY AND RIOTING IN THEIR STREETS AND WOULD BE FORCED TO LOOK INWARD AND ADOPT MORE CONCILLATORY POLICIES TO OTHER COUNTRIES JUST FOR THEIR GOVERNMENT TO SURVIVE, BUT I CANT IMAGINE A SHORT SIGHTED MORRISON MORAL FIBRE LACKING GOVERNMENT DARING TO SUGGEST THAT, INSTEAD HE
S HAPPY TO BE TRUMPS LACKEY AND FALL GUY LOSING OUR MARKETS TO TRUMPS AMERICA, I BET THEY LAUGH THEIR HEADS OFF BEHIND OUR BACKS AND CANT BELIEVE THEIR LUCK AT HAVING A MONGREL DOG TO BE EXPLOITED AT THEIR WILL AS AN ALLY. GOD IM EMBARRASSED AND ASHAMED TO BE AN AUSTRALIAN IN SCOMO`S WORLD.Did you say the same about Japanese products 30 years ago?
I don’t think the Japanese were looking to global domination, in the way that the Chinese clearly are so bent on.
Plenty of complaints here when Japan was buying up everything. So is the US just entitled to world domination?
I find it hard to reconcile China’s apparent desire to be considered a world power and its childish responses to what it sees as acts of provocation, or hurtful criticisms. No country likes to have its transgressions pointed out, witness the US and Julian Assange and our own Witness K/ Bernard persecutions of bastardry, but so far reporters covering those stories are relatively free to do so. China’s heavy handed treatment of forign reporters and its actions over Barley, wine imports etc., remind me of a kindergarten yard bully. I like the idea of a voluntary withdrawal from purchasing anything Chinese knowing my own buying choices, and finances, will take a hit as better products are invariably costlier. We can’t whinge about Chinese expansionism and imperialism if we are not prepared to act ourselves. From now on I will not buy anything Chinese. Sorry Bunnings.
I am horrified at the Chinaphobia that readers have displayed here. Prior to the orchestrated, official campaigns against China by Australia and others, which has elicited worrying responses,I don’t recall China ever doing anything unfriendly towards Australia.
Before pointing accusatory fingers, people really should look at the disgraceful goings-on of our own country and our major blood-spilling ally (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, S.America, etc, etc). We should worry about the attacks this year by Australian authorities on our own journalists – and ask for the details of alleged harrassement of Chinese journalists here in June.
And should you think suppression of speech does not happen here in Australia, then your views will be seriously challenged if you read today’s article in The Conversation desribing how our scientists are prevented from speaking out or publishing, particularly on environmentally sensitive issues.
Well put.
What is said and what is reported (if you have had any experience) are two different things.
As to Chinese products, you will have to include Target and similar chains and about 80% of pharmaceuticals, almost all CDs/DVds and office stationery. Good luck. It it is going to be a large project for you.
It is certain that the Chinese leadership is playing a long game when it comes to being able to dominate globally and assert its will, and from that it will not deviate.
China expects to have its wishes and expectations agreed to by all, and it equally ignores the rules of International law and human rights conventions.
China also shows a willingness to expend considerable resources in attempting to infiltrate and manipulate the democratic processes of other countries to further enhance its power.
While our sycophantic politicians blindly continue with a policy of appeasement and acquiescence in the vain hope that China will change its long-term objectives, China just keeps moving the line using their buying power and coercion as leverage towards attaining their aims.
The Chinese have a long history of using trade sanctions to either bully their way to achieving their ends, or with the objective of taking control of those resources or trading entities they desire. Bellamy’s milk, being one example.
Very soon they will be in a position to play with our iron ore exports as their partnership with Rio kicks off in Africa. Rio’s loyalty is to itself, and Rio will still be making a profit from Iron ore, just not Australian iron ore. Mining companies are not citizens.
Currently with China hammering our exports, we are propped up by mineral exports, and when that option declines, we will be even more at their “mercy” economically, then politically.
Our politicians don’t have any time to delay with working with industry and investment to get Australia back value adding on our raw materials and actively broadening our market options.
As consumers, we should look carefully at all options whenever we purchase, and consider country of origin, remembering than in purchasing “made in ROC”, we are in fact giving them the means to achieve their role to dominate the world and limit our freedoms and the freedoms of our children.
It should not be hard to see limiting further Chinese investment in Australia as “not in the national interest”.
Actually, Made In ROC is Republic of China, Taiwan. I think you mean PRC.
It seem to me that the fellow would benefit with a comparasion of the claims that he makes for the PRC with behavour of the USA; just from circa 1962.
It certainly is an awkward situation for Australia, with so much of our prosperity tied to China’s rise. I wonder how many of us would be willing to take the prosperity hit for our middling nation to take a stand against the economic powerhouse? A dark China is bad for the world, and especially bad for its own people.
Still trying to work out which is worse, China or Thanksgivingland. 7 in every thousand Thanksgivers are incarcerated (Australia 1 in a thousand). Per capita, Thanksgivers are three times as likely to die in a car accident and 11 times as likely to be shot dead, by themselves or someone else. Theirs is a primitive, bloodthirsty nation that decided some time ago that voting and democracy are for losers.
Whatever the faults of Thanksgivingland (clever nickname), it’s still a liberal democracy with enshrined rights, a free press, due process, etc.
That’s great for the people who live there, but little comfort for the non-US citizens (or citizens who are less equal than other citizens). China is doing horrible things to (some of) their own citizens, the US is doing horrible things to other’s citizens.
I don’t know how it is we’re talking about the US, and I feel very strange in being the one defending the US. I suppose one cannot criticise China without needing to go through some kind of tu quoque equivalence exercise on the various vices of the US.
In any case, I’d be surprised if anyone would truly favour China’s judicial system to the US’s, citizen or otherwise. As a non-US citizen, I know which one I’d prefer to be on trial in…
THAT is the theory. Try the practice (of their judicial system alone). Dickens counciled his readers to have noting to do with the law. His comments as to the USA mid 19th century are more than interesting.
It seems that someone in Crikey Land desires additional discussion on the matter. Happy to oblige but first some questions.
I wonder if Kel (or our intrepid ‘clicker’) has lived and worked in (both) the USA and China. I have done both and I am a frequent visitor of both places; circumstances permitting!
Secondly, I wonder if Kel (or anyone) has read any text on criminology or sociology as it pertains to criminal activity and the judicial system in the USA. If so – what texts or journals exactly?
A taste for those who are curious. About two years ago The Guardian published a story : “12 years in jail for shoplifting: how Walmart is helping prosecutors hike up sentences”. It is available from most search engines.
The point is that the prison system in the USA is big business. There is a correlation between incarceration (having increased) with privatisations of the prison system; the inference that judges receive kick-backs or at least encouragement. Be that as it may.
However, It is not uncommon for a teenager to be imprisoned for petty shoplifting in any State. Undertake the research for ones self. As one digs one discovers more.
One has to do something quite serious to find one’s self in a Chinese slammer and any offence against the State will achieve the goal. Its quite simple really. As an aside, very few juveniles (especially compared to the USA) are locked up in the PRC.
“One has to do something quite serious to find one’s self in a Chinese slammer” such as being a Muslim.
Numerous Muslims across China Oldie and they are not all in gaol. However, proselytizing receives zero tolerance. One can have a religion but only up to a point (and behind closed doors).
Proselyizing is presuming that there is something higher (or superior) than (or to) the State – and THAT is serious.
Don’t like it Oldie : don’t live there. Me : atheism suits me fine.
“proselytizing” meaning fasting, not eating pork, eating specially prepared food. So yeah, I guess those Muslims and Tibetans should just leave those places where they’ve been living for hundreds of years.
I think we KNOW that the world ‘proselytism’ was intended Olide! I Appreciate your keen eye nevertheless.
As to your second sentence, take a long look at history Olide. Nothing stays the same. Are you going to go to the north of France and wag your finger at the Normans even though the invasion was largely Harold’s fault? Then we can waft back to major changes in empire to 1,500 BC or forward to circa 1700 with the dawn of the British Empire.
Do you think that the South Pacific, including Oz and NZ were just going to remain an idalic paradise for the inhabitants? Damned lucky that the Brits shoved the Union Jack into the ground first. Take a look as to how the regions of Africa faired under the differing colonial empires.
Last point : the FAMILY of the wife of Henry II (Eng.) owned almost ALL of France except for odds and ends around Paris.
No, that is not what proselytising means – it is nothing to do with “fasting, not eating pork, eating specially prepared food”.
It simply means attemting to convince someone of a different point of view, usually religious but not necessarily.
Converting the heathen, as it were.
Thanks for the support but I suspect that Oldie (not for the first time) was taking the piss out of me.
No, I haven’t lived in either, but yes I have read up on it. Yes, there are some bad things with the US system, especially pertaining to race, and the desire to lock people up there is one of those strange quirks of a system that has democratically-elected judges.
I would take that system any day, however, over a state that would massacre its citizens for protesting. Where people can openly and vocally dissent without fear of being arrested or locked up.
The various municipal committees in the PRC and in HK are quite responsive to orderly objections from citizens. Stand on a street corner with a sign and you won’t last – literally – three minutes. The same is the case in Singapore. It is a lot more tolerant in South Korea but fairy tight anywhere else (e.g. Thailand).
“No men are less addicted to reverie than the citizens of a democracy.”
Alexis de Tocqueville