For decades, and in the face of evidence, Australian policymakers have told themselves they could compartmentalise when it came to Australia’s relationship with China: the grisly, brutal nature of the Communist Party’s tyranny could be put to one side as a “difference of values”, as something to be overlooked in the focus on its extraordinary success in lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, while we got on with the business of making as much money as possible from the huge Chinese market.
In time, this created a Sinophile lobby in Australia — successful, well-connected business people for whom making money from China was the only goal, and everything else, certainly human rights, but eventually, Australia’s sovereignty and security itself, should be subordinated to that.
But murder, as they say, will out. The horrific nature of the regime would eventually be put on such vivid display as to make the compartmentalisation no longer possible.
It happened to Bob Hawke, who in a few years went from boasting of a “very special relationship” between China and Australia to tearfully condemning the mass slaughter in Tiananmen Square.
Now it’s happened to the Coalition — mugged by the reality that China is a hostile, brutal major power that believes it can act with impunity — and probably can.
It’s hard to overstate Tony Abbott’s slavish embrace of China when prime minister — and the support he got from News Corp at the time. The rhetoric around Abbott’s trade agreement with China, as Crikey showed yesterday, was ridiculously overheated.
Things hadn’t changed since Tiananmen — the Chinese Communist Party had just become more effective at enforcing its will, creating a state surveillance system far beyond Orwell’s most dystopic dreams. Its suppression of Tibetans continued apace. Its genocidal oppression of Uyghurs — in the name of counter-terrorism — has been known about for over a decade, and has only escalated in recent years.
None of that shifted the needle for Australian policymakers, who could see only the commercial opportunities of the Chinese market.
The same brutal awakening is now the lot of the current generation of politicians and senior bureaucrats. You can’t compartmentalise with a monster. Once again, its brutal oppression has been on display in Hong Kong, even if there aren’t tanks and piles of student corpses (yet). And the brutality has been directed toward Australia. Just a little, mind — a nasty tweet, some trade sanctions, more of the usual overblown rhetoric from the permanently febrile state press.
There are still many who hope for a “reset” with China, including Scott Morrison. A “reset” means going back to a world where we could pretend to overlook the grotesque brutality of Beijing and Beijing pretended Australia was anything more than an irritant in a region it expects to dominate — and everyone could make a lot of money. But it won’t change the reality of what the Chinese Communist Party really is.
The One Hundred Years of Humiliation is over. The Middle Kingdom is back – and this time no more Mr Nice Guy. It’s their time to pick and choose. Deal with it – that’s why diplomacy was invented.
‘The One Hundred Years of Humiliation,’ trademark CCP. Chinese kiddies have never heard of the Tiananmen massacre but the humiliation of the Opium Wars still burns in their gut.
And, Australian kiddies hear bugger all about the slow motion murder of Julian Assange, by his own government, in cahoots with their 2 colonial masters.
Have you ever ever been in a classroom in either the PRC, HK, or T.wan Jack. Given your remark, I doubt it. Most students (age 11 – 17) would say that those who offended were disloyal and arrogant. There is some variation of opinion but not a lot.
As for 1937 one will find either an interview, doco or a film on most channels throughout the day and night.
You are correct, I have never been in a PRC, HK or Taiwanese classroom. Are PRC students taught about Tiananmen? Do HK and Taiwanese kids think tanks against students in Tiananmen were justified?
Answers your questions : 1 yes. 2: yes – supplemented with an explanation..
At about page 160 of vol. 1 of “Governance of China” disloyalty to the State renders one a ‘non-person’ (translated badly). As I conveyed above, a teenager has, in general, very little (if any) sympathy for those involved in 1989. Their deaths were justified by their disloyalty.
There is an adage to the effect ‘in order to teach the monkey one may have to kill the chicken’. Every child from the age of eight or nine is familiar with this expression.
As an aside, what annoys Asians, with regard to Westerners, is that the Westerners will make a point of NOT minding their own business. No Westerner was either injured or killed in 1989.
The only bits of history that Chinese students are a bit thin about are The Boxer Rebellion and the interval from 1951-8 (Korean War and Mao induced famines for arms from Russia in exchange for grain) and 1967-70 (Cultural Revolution stuff). Otherwise, it is a very fact-based education.
Thanks, Erasmus. I understand PRC students are taught by the CCP, but why would a teenager schooled in democratic Taiwan think the Tiananmen massacre was justified?
My thoughts on the CCP are influenced by the situation of Tibet, where all the evils of colonialism, imperialism, foreign interference, cultural and racial arrogance etc that China quite rightly decries in Western nations’ historical and current treatment of China is played out by the Chinese against the Tibetan people.
The fact that PRC kids are taught that Tibet is and always was an integral part of China doesn’t make it true.
Arrogance, hypocrisy and racism are not the sole preserve of Westerners.
I suggest that you begin with an authorative history of Taiwan Jack. I have remarked on the copious executions undertaken by father and son (less so for the son) in days gone by.
Step out of line in Taiwan and your neck is going to hurt. The place IS NOT petite America.
Not that many teachers are party members so it isn’t correct to say that the students are taught by the CPP although various communities set the syllabus.
An explanation of the the Tibet stuff would occupy too much space (even for me) but, once again, authorative texts exist. Considering such matters as “opinion” is the western blunder.
As I say to anyone : spend some time in the region with a varsity student as a guide. The mainstream news will never be the same again. Failing that, introduce yourself politely to some students and offer a coffee at Starbucks (which will likely be declined but the gesture matters).
As to your last sentence, by comparison, Westerners do rather well. Try the various tribes from Kenya to South Africa. Better still : chat to an employer. It is the same in French speaking regions too.
Lastly Jack, a classroom of teenagers from the region would not give a damn over the Opium Wars. They are quite happy to buy British but NOT Japanese although they will listen to Japanese music.
Thanks again, Erasmus, appreciate you taking the time to answer.
But….what is your expertise on Tibet?
Are Tibetans who think Tibet is their country and not the land of the Han Chinese making a ‘western blunder?’
By a fall of the cards, Jack, I have had a number of careers at senior level but I tend to leave labels such as ‘expert’ for politicians to claim (Dutton’s professed expertise regarding security).
In a nutshell, there has never been an autonomous State comprising the Tibetan region. China’s interests in the region extend to the Yuan Dynasty (12th century). For the 21st century the region is most strategic for China. Call China the school yard bully if you must but autonomy for the region is not an option although cultural and religious lifestyles will be recognised so long as the D. L. does not become political. I was in Yuhan when he visited in 2006.
Let me recommend Sperling, E. “The Tibet-China Conflict” or the more “American” “China and Tibet” by Tserng Topgyal who is a lecturer at Birmingham and, I think, Tibetan.
Rather more theoretical is Conboy “The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet”.
A rough comparison would be the USA and the Philippines during the late 19th century.
Erasmus, I have been hearing arguments such as yours since the 1980’s and none of them take into account the views of Tibetans.
Have you been to Tibet, Erasmus?
Spoken to an ‘ordinary’ Tibetan?
Not really “my” argument Jack. I am actually a fence-sitter or spectator with no particular ideas as to how domestic or global affairs “ought” to be conducted. I have spent a fair percentage of my life living in either states of emergency or where elections are far from common.
I have spent very little time in Tibet and know no university educated Tibetans personally although I have read various Tibetan views.
Suffice to observe that the Silk and Belt is a major undertaking and anyone that seeks to impede its progress can expect to be injured. Such are the ways of the world Jack. John Mearsheimer (American International Relations academic at the U. of Chicago) comes to mind.
Jack any idea if there was CIA involvement in Tibet (out of India) before China took the joint over?
Terry, not sure of CIA involvement before China invaded Tibet, but later CIA assistance to Khampa rebels is well documented.
Just out of curiosity, do you know what the Tibetan serfs thought of the feudal theocracy pre 1950?
Try Heinrich Harrer or even some of the weirder Shamalla religious nutters who were unable to reconcile their condition.
In early 1989 I was lucky enough to spend some time in Tiananmen Square mingling and chatting with students who were gathering there. None of them really knew what to expect but all were hoping for more openness and democratic participation in the country that they all loved. I couldn’t help but be captivated by the courage, hope for the future, and solidarity they displayed. All countries have dark episodes in their past but this certainly was a turning point and I have often wondered what a wonderful country a free, democratic China could have become if those students had got just some of what they were hoping for..
We may well speculate on your last sentence but equally the rate of growth over the last 30 years may not have materialised. Aside from the deaths (who knows) the same would have occurred in Singapore or anywhere in the region.
However, what is clear, is that except, for isolated pockets, the region does not have a clear conception of democracy (and I include HK). There is little regard to the notion of another party having a right to rule if democratically elected. A case in point is the ANC.
Ditto for the Middle East and North as a whole; the whole of the African states come to that.
Most people would trade freedom for security or democracy for wealth.
Alas, those are not the options currently available so long as public discourse is so banal.
Bernard’s One Eyed article belies the facts in evidence. Australia intemperately started the spiral with our largest customer, China. Instead of maintaining and managing the relationship, Scomo berated China publicly by accusing them of Genocide (alleged), openly criticized their internal affairs (Hong Kong), declared their position on the South China Sea to be illegal and, worst of all, did not first engage with China to agree an approach to investigating the Pandemic and relied on megaphone “Diplomacy”. He is now upset that China has taken a leaf out of his Trump playbook.
All of this has come from a position where we feel morally superior in our “liberal Democracy” and, from China’s perspective, disrespectful of China, its Sovereignty and Government. From a country that committed genocide in Tasmania, had a White Australia Immigration policy for many years and that has now also committed War Crimes, our “moral superiority” exists only in our minds and is arrogant in the extreme. China fought a Civil War to install its system of government and we need to respect that.
Like the US, China uses Sanctions to encourage smaller nations to fall into line so China’s response is “Unremarkable” and should have been expected however Scomo’s arrogance means that we will now pay the penalty.
Australia needs to blink as China will not do so.
Having visited China over a number of years until retirement I wonder how people get these ideas. Traffic police are no where near as authoritarian as the Australian version. Government officials very much on the gravy train of free dinners like their counterparts in Australia. People are friendly and open, and extremely honest, possibly moreso than Australians. (My experience).
I live by the moto of treating people and businesses like I myself would like to be treated and have been rewarded appropriately.
In general the Chinese citizens know about Australia and its current affairs more than Americans.
The BIG BAD CCP – never encountered it although I did send some critical e-mails whilst in China. Perhaps if one was involved in political activity but it was never mentioned by us or locals.
We are only getting what we deserve – ie how we treat them.
The problem lies with our politicians and the right wing nuttere egging him on (includes the media). Hasn’t Scomo got the balls to lift the phone and say Giday Xi how can we work on this together. He crawled up the Trump anus.
A most sensible post. I will make one qualification.
One can form the XYZ Action Peoples Party and have open discussions in Starbucks or any bar. After a few meetings the local cops will have photos of the entire group. So long as the group remains private (no overt recruiting) and takes no physical action the group will be left alone. Similarly for religious groups.
100% correct. I also have spent quite a bit of time in China and never had any issues with the BIG BAD CCP either. I did see the impact on HK of the Rioters (our media calls them Protestors) however and suffice it to say, I am not on the side of the Rioters. Scomo can travel to Japan to kiss the new PM’s arse but can’t get on a plane to sort out the issues. Most Australian’s are completely ignorant of China itself.
The extent of the ignorance, in general, is one thing. That the ignorant will do nothing to edify themselves is quite another aspect.
Yes, I call them rioters, self haters, traitors and criminals backed and exploited by right wing groups, so numerous my friends and families in HK, Indonesia and Singapore. The moment we saw them glorifying the Nanjing 9.18 massacre on HK University walls and on SM, the moment they have lost any respect & support from 99.999999999999999% of the Chinese, mainland and abroad, this includes myself.
I read a Chinese journalist writing that when the average Chinese person sees what ‘democracy’ is achieving in the US, they’re more than happy with their political system.
Yeah, hard to argue how our system is enlightened. I know autocracies are not really desirable, but if you don’t follow the line here, you may find yourself somewhat harassed as a result. We are much less free than we think we are, since 9/11.
It has been an eye-opening short period – for those that are blind to what has been going on in the world for years. We have seen petulance writ large from Trump post-election, showing without doubt that he lacks and more importantly, has always lacked, the qualities that would make him anything but a laughing stock – in between his puerile tirades, he plays golf! Then there’s President Morrison – showing yet again why he should be remembered as one of Australia’s worst PM’s. But it was always there to see; at least for those who could look past his pretentious self-obsession and vacuous ineptitude and see the “real Morrison” (nothing in his CV suggests he has ever come close to having the qualities needed as PM and that he has backstabbed his way to the top). Then there is China, showing exactly why Australia should never have embarked on the trade relationship with China that led to nothing but economic dependence. I’m not suggesting we should not trade with China, but there are industry sectors that have become virtually totally dependent on that relationship and it was always a fragile relationship that could be taken away at China’s behest. All we needed was for President Blunderbuss McSmirkyface to shame China and the result was inevitable – China is a bully and a petulant bully at that and responded in a very predictable way. Then there’s the blatant hypocrisy – Australia is more than happy to treat people disgracefully when it suits the government agenda – Witness K and Bernard Collaery for a start; the ADF whistleblower who “let the war crimes cat out of the bag” and was pilloried for doing so; the AFP raid on the ABC. These are the acts of a totalitarian government proclaiming itself to uphold democratic principles and, the ultimate shibboleth – “Australian values”.
Awww, I dunno, I reckon McSmirkyface (brilliant summary), with his years of experience in the froth and bubble of the marketing world, has all the ‘qualities needed as PM’ in Australia and any other modern ‘democracy’.
We are so much closer to a totalitarian regime than most realise. But we have votes, that largely means nothing, so apparently we’re the good guys.
Bernard, hate to give you a history lesson but Britain invaded Hong Kong in 1841 and gave it back to China 156 years later. At no time in those 156 years did it offer Hong Kong independence or a vote. In 1997, when finally the place that had been part of China for nearly 2000 years was returned, an agreement was struck that Hong Kong would be part of a one government 2 system policy until at least 2047. The agreement never mentioned democracy and certainly not independence. Surely you could not expect the Chinese government, nor its people to accept the latter especially as the British invasion came as part of a brutal invasion of China that cost millions of lives. I hesitate to use the word ‘brutal’ but you use it to describe the Chinese response to the riots even as you say; “there are no tanks or piles of student corpses (yet).”
This is something that always annoyed me about western commentary on HK. If they’d actually cared to make HK an independent democracy they had more than someone’s lifetime to do it. Shot some protesters instead.
Strictly, it was not within the ambit of the lease to afford independence to the colony. Gunboat diplomacy may have been an option after 1949 but it would have also opened another can of worms.
A USA invasion of China circa 1948 would have altered the political face of the world as would have blowing the Russians out of Eastern Europe in 1945. Such is life.