While it went down a treat with the press gallery and right-wing media at the time, Scott Morrison’s hasty and furious response to the trolling of a junior Chinese official last week now seems increasingly ill-judged. Even extreme reactionaries in News Corp have begun questioning whether Morrison has any plan for the escalating dispute with China.
Morrison would have better off leaving the response to Marise Payne, or noting that the Brereton report was something literally impossible for the Chinese government to ever produce given its incapacity to acknowledge wrongdoing or tolerate questioning.
The real response should have taken the form of actions, rather than words. Fortunately, with the imminent passage of the Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill, the government has a useful option on that front.
The impact of the bill on universities is deeply concerning: the government despises universities and refused to assist them in the pandemic, while steadily increasing the amount of control it exercises over them on the basis of national security. The new bill is that latest such extension of control.
But its provisions in relation to state and territory governments are amply justified by the Victorian government’s obnoxious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) agreement with the Beijing tyranny.
The agreement dates from 2018, when the federal government itself was still in thrall to the Abbott-era idea of truckling to China in order to secure more trade and investment opportunities. There was little complaint about it back then; Andrews was merely doing what a gung-ho Abbott government had encouraged us all to do when it signed us up to a trade deal with China.
More than two years later, of course, we’re supposed to forget everything the government said about the joys of being ever closer to Beijing.
The Andrews deal is bureaucratic waffle about consultation, coordination, cooperation and connectivity. Its primary benefit appears to be to add to the number of memorandums of understanding (MOUs) the Chinese dictatorship can boast of having signed in relation to the BRI, which is little more than straightforward colonialism aimed at securing Chinese control of extractive resources. Neither the Liberals nor federal Labor support Australian involvement in the BRI.
With the MOU already a dead letter, the government has an opportunity to do more than fulminate from the Lodge about nasty tweets. Overruling the agreement will send a signal that Australia’s federal system is not an opportunity for China to leverage Australian governments against one another. It would have been far more effective to let the tweet be addressed at officials’ level and let the cancellation of the Victorian agreement serve as a response.
Critics and the China lobby might say this is unnecessarily provocative, but every olive branch extended by the government has been rebuffed by the Xi regime — indeed, met with escalations of rhetoric and trade sanctions.
Other options exist for pushing back against China. Beijing still blocks any participation, even as an observer, by Taiwan in the corrupted World Health Organization, despite Taiwan’s remarkable success in dealing with COVID-19. Australia should be much louder in support of a role for one of the Asia-Pacific’s most successful democracies in planning for future pandemics.
Then there are the 2022 “Genocide Games” — the winter Olympics to be held in Beijing while China continues its brutal campaign of oppression of Uyghurs, its crushing of dissent in Hong Kong and its long-running suppression of Tibetans. Why Australia would participate in an event deliberately overlooking atrocities on a mass scale is a question that should be asked increasingly loudly.
“Vic Govt’s obnoxious deal with the Beijing tyranny”. Come on Bernard, you can do better than that. If you’re indigenous in Australia, had your land swiped and then your kids incarcerated at a rate 20 times Anglo kids would that also be a tyranny? Or the US founded on religious fundamentalism, bigotry and slavery? Yes, treatment of Tibet and the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region has been disgracefully tyrannical. But piling on just now doesn’t cut it, I don’t reckon.
Yes, treatment of Tibet and the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region has been disgracefully tyrannical.
And it’s not as if our treatment of refugees is anything to be proud of. Manus Island, Nauru and that family of four who have now spent 1007 days on Christmas Island are reminders of incarcerations that shame Australia’s name.
Tibet has been a part of China for longer than Australia has been around and the Uighers concerned were all linked to the East Turkmenistan Islamic Movement which is a terrorist organisation. Strange how Australia hasn’t called out India for Kashmir, Myanmar for its HR breaches, Saudi Arabia for its ongoing breaches and last but not least, the US for its extensive human rights breaches, journalist oppression, illegal detention etc etc. You cant just be seelective on your “Australian values” and only single out non-white countries for criticism. Obiously its OK for “Democracies” to commit HR breaches, foreign interference and illegal wars otherwise the US would be getting the same treatment as Hillsong Scotty gives to China. This “journalistic” article is nothing more than a Newscorp/ASPI policy document.
Not to mention Israel.
Thank you. Lexu. As someone who has many Uighers XiJiang friends, and personally lived in China for more than 15 years, I am amazed about the misinformation and double-standard and feel very much violated. Yes, this is appalling unprofessional journalism.
Oh dear – once again Palestinians brutalised by zionist Israel and US with Audtralia helpinh in UN dont even get a mention
I find the obsession of highlighting the darker aspects of Australia’s past as justification to diminish any outward (and politically current) commentary, quite perplexing. If the BRI deal with the Vic Govt. is indeed obnoxious, your opposing argument then is that the deal must stand, given that European colonisation of Australia from 1788 was messy?
The rate of imprisonment of indigenous people is a “past” issue, eh?
No. But your remark is completely beside the point and exploits the succinctness of my response to Gerard. We’re going down a rabbit hole here Draco.
Current issues brought up in the post you originally replied to are ‘beside the point’? Only if your goal wasn’t to engage with anyone and make a point unrelated to what you are replying to.
You are hard work Draco, and the tactics are obvious. That’s two loaded questions and a straw man. Word games are cheap.
It is Australia’s present, not its past. Sovereignty was never ceded and there has been no treaty.
Australia is built upon stolen land and treats its first people abominably, imprisoning them at a rate that far exceeds their representation.
I’m also bemused by how much of the Crikey commentariat have rushed to sugarcoat China’s human rights record and frame the discussion as some kind of zero sum contest.
Really makes me suspicious of the underlying motivations.
I’m appalled by our colonial history and hold the Morrison Government in utter contempt, but I don’t feel the need to invoke this as a reason for not calling out brutal and repressive regimes in other countries.
Its hypocrisy to only call out HR violations of non-white countries. Australia is a racist nation underneath.
Its ok to call out brutal and repressive regimes in other countries. Just don’t come the confected rage when those countries point out our deficiences.
Unjust wars, war crimes, 7 years of detention for asylum seekers, holding whole families in detention for 1000 days, indigenous incarceration rates, treatment of whistle blowers etc
There is nothing suspicious about my motivation. Just wish we could lift our game to justify the holier than thou pedestal that we so enjoy speaking from.
totally agree Gerard. “Vic Govt’s obnoxious deal” is all waffle and at least an attempt to continue some sort of communication. The biggest risk is a flood of self-satisfied Sister-City signs scattered around Victoria.
There are any number of fronts where we could stick it up China – “human rights abuses” isn’t one – that’s a boomerang.
Strange how China is now the great Satan and yet we continue sit in the picket and stay friends with the USA and wilfully turn a blind eye to their war crimes and other atrocities.
And embed our military in with theirs, and do arms deals with Israel, the piranha of the Middle East.
Thanks for ASPI press release Bernard
Even freakin’ Hardaker’s touting that foreign government and foreign weapons’ manufacturer funded you-know-what pit of frauds, today, GL.
Did you know Pete’s ASPI concession to ‘diversity’, the ‘Asian woman’, was offered a gig after she crashed and burned at her highest aspiration, to be a comedian?
B. Keane language on Oz problems with China is more of the same old, tired, uninformed rubbish. Dictatorship, escalating rhetoric and the like, from China, hasn’t helped anyone. Socialism has a very different structure of governing. It’s not a debate circus, or a competition between two heads with one body, ‘democracy’. Rather, the debate happens within the national representative essembly, which presumes that different political views are all on the same road, of building aspired common good. Hence, to call that system a dictatorship, means that the writer doesn’t understand, or doesn’t know the fundamental differences of the two socially divergent societies, and their different but equally accepted systems of governance.
When such arrogance of other countries stops, friendship and all its benefits blossoms.
Come on Bernard…You are supposed to be objective.
Using such language as.. Beijing tyranny…the Chinese dictatorship..2022″Genocide Games”..brutal campaign of oppression of Uyghurs.. makes your article an uniformed opinion piece.
It was not the Chinese Government that started the escalations of rhetoric and trade sanctions.
Not citing the Lowy Institute for your source of “straightforward colonialism” is a bit rich.
Griselda’s comment hit the nail on the head.
I see Keane’s ‘straightforward colonialism’, and raise him (on the tube facility, at least);
“Gyude Moore: “China in Africa: An African Perspective”
Moore spoke at the Uni of Chicago, last year.
Keane also claims that straightforward colonialism is “aimed at securing Chinese control of extractive resources”
As Moore explained, over 80% of Africa’s sovereign resources are in the hands of companies listed on the London Stock Exchange, which just happens to have the London Metals Exchange right next door, in the City of London Corporation.
As Moore also explains, only 17% of Africa’s roads are paved, and that is mostly because the Anglo-European (which includes the Yanks and Australia) colonisers concentrated on building infrastructure to link resource deposits to ports.
According to Moore, the Chinese approach is very, very different – they build infrastructure to link populations together, and to bring Africans into the, as Moore put it, “value chains”.
Further, only 17% of Africa’s debt sits with China, and that is nearly all with 6 or 7 nations. And, unlike Western debt, Chinese debt does not come with IMF designed privatisations, asset sell offs and austerity programs.
Personally, I think it preferable to listen to Africans, about Africa, rather than white blokes sitting in offices in Australia.
I may have mentioned this last week but, if Keane’s gonna keep banging about Chinese çolonialism, I’m going back there, again.
Black Agenda Report, Nov 19th, written by Glen Ford, piece headed;
“Black misleaders back Susan Rice as top diplomat”
Major highlight;
“In service to the Obama administration (ambassador to the United Nations, 2009-2013, national security advisor, 2013-2017), Rice smothered a United Nations Mapping Report that documented Rwandan and Ugandan crimes against Congo, including potentially genocidal offenses, and protected Uganda from the International Court of Justice’s award of $10 billion in damages to the Democratic Republic Congo.
“Rice was the point person in Washington’s massive coverup of the invasion, pillage and depopulation of Congo.”
When the United Nation’s highest court issued its verdict in 2005, the death toll in Congo was estimated at 3 million. By 2010, with Ambassador Susan Rice at the United Nations, the uninterrupted genocide had claimed”six million lives, while the looting of Congo’s vast mineral resources financed the rise of a gleaming skyline over Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, a nation that has no significant mineral deposits. Multinational corporations are the biggest beneficiaries of the ”blood” minerals; it is these conglomerates whose interests Susan Rice protects.”
Right, given they’ve shunted the first extract off to purgatory, I’m gonna go, again;
“I may have mentioned this last week but, if Keane’s gonna keep banging about Chinese çolonialism, I’m going back there, again.
Black Agenda Report, Nov 19th, written by Glen Ford, piece headed;
“Black misleaders back Susan Rice as top diplomat”…
The first extract was about the genocide of 6 million Congolese, and Susan Rice using her spot at the UN to stop recognition of that genocide, and preventing the implementation of an ICJ award of $10billion in damages to the DRC.
So, next;
“The unprovoked war against Libya, which removed a bulwark of African independent economic and political development, was heralded as AFRICOM’s “first major combat operation on the African continent.” There would be many more, as a Black U.S. administration methodically occupied the continent, from the Atlantic to the Indian oceans.
Rice cultivated relations with every pro-U.S. warlord in Africa. She was especially close to Meles Zenawi, the deceased former leader of the dictatorial Ethiopian regime that invaded Somalia with the full support of U.S. air, ground and sea power in December of 2006, ousting a moderate Islamic Courts government that had brought a brief period of peace to the country.
The Somali war, now effectively run by the CIA, has engulfed the Horn of Africa – another bloody feather in Susan Rice’s cap.”
Next;
“Obama claimed that the Euro-American air war in support of mainly jihadist opponents of Muammar Gaddafi’s secular government was not subject to the War Powers Act, because no Americans had died – a totally novel definition of war in which only American bodies matter. Rice was then ambassador to the United Nations, where she successfully pressed for a “no fly zone” as a cover for NATO’s war against Libya. “This resolution should send a strong message to Colonel Qadhafi and his regime that the violence must stop, the killing must stop and the people of Libya must be protected and have the opportunity to express themselves freely,” Rice “told reporters.
But the bulk of violence was committed by U.S.-backed “rebels” against Black Libyans and south Saharans working in the country.
Tawergha, a Black Libyan town of almost 50,000 people, was utterly destroyed, its inhabitants killed, imprisoned or scattered – with not a peep of complaint from the Black American woman at the UN or the First Black President of the United States.
The branded faces of Black migrant workers sold into slave markets are Rice and Obama’s Libyan legacy.”
Next;
“When Rice was a candidate for secretary of state under President Obama in 2012, the entirety of the Black Misleadership Class circled their wagons around her, to counter Republican claims that Rice was to blame for the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya by U.S.-backed jihadists. Ignoring Rice’s and Obama’s crimes against Africans, Black American politicos rallied to Rice’s defence as a “a role model to all women” who “represents a rich and important legacy of strong women leaders in foreign policy.”
Twelve female members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including anti-war icon Barbara Lee, offered Rice their sisterly support. “We will not allow a brilliant public servant’s record to be mugged to cut off her consideration to be secretary of state,” said DC congressional delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.
“The Black Misleadership Class circled their wagons around her.”
None of Rice’s Black boosters gave a thought to her culpability in the ongoing terror in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where a 2011 study estimated that “nearly two million women have been raped…with women victimized at a rate of nearly one every minute.” (See Black Agenda Report, “The Shameless Vacuity of Susan Rice’s Boosters”, Dec 5, 2012)”
All for “resource extraction” by Western corporations, most of them listed on the London Stock Exchange, with the ‘spoils’ traded on the London Metals Exchange.
A truly remarkable piece of extended bloviation, David. I’m nominating you for the Joe Hockey 2020 Bloviator of the Year award.
Frankly Oldie, from 1991 there is considerably more to say in addition to shaking the Sleepers. Not that David made any attempt (no implied criticism) the surface has not been scratched.
You application of the intransitive verb is misplaced all together.
You’re a fair dinkum riot, champ.
All a bit much, was it? Overload light flashing red?
If you don’t like what I offer, don’t read what I offer – the name’s right there at the top.
I think he’s a 3-word slogan man, David. Not sure why he reads Crikey if he’s allergic to facts and evidence.
I doubt if there was that much warning David. It was likely a case of going into valve bounce with top overhaul, at least, being inevitable.
As a matter of interest, David, has anyone outside of Crikey ever published any of your ‘contributions’? If so, I’d be interested in any references you can provide.
Contact Walkley Award winning Richard Baker at The Age, and ask him who provided all the info about Mike Hindmarsh running the ground war in Yemen, for the UAE, along with up 100 other Australians. Ask him who explained why Hindmarsh was susceptible to war crimes charges. Ask him who gave him the info on the French law firm who went to the ICC to lodge a ‘request for investigation’ into Hindmarsh & Co in the UAE.
Then ask him about the Essendon F.C doping saga, and who explained PED ‘law’, and got him inside the AIS with a whistleblower.
Contact Anthony Lowenstein, and ask him if I know what I’m ‘talking’ about.
Jonathan Cook – heard of him?
I’ll pause now, cos odds on this will be shunted to purgatory, again.
Well, I found it rather interesting, Oldie, old bean. Not that I wish to detract from your splendid succinctness in adding nothing.
The point I am trying to make, Cap’n and David, is fairly well known and accepted, namely: data is not information; information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom. What you provide, David, is scraps of data scavenged from Grey Zone and similar sites funded by either Putin or Xi. You just throw them all together and they end up looking like Hockey Jabberwocky. The only information they provide is that you believe USA=bad and China=good. Fair enough, but why go on about it? Beware the Jabberwock my son.
Basically Oldie you are saying anything that sits outside your comfort zone is duff and ultimately put out there courtesy of Putin or Xi.
Interesting world view.
Let’s leave the mantras to those spiritually inclined Oldie because it is an understanding of empiricism (you may have to look that term up and Wikipedia is useful here) that gets us from A to B. Just consider the changes in every way technology from (e.g.) 1980.
You do seem to have distaste for research which has provided supermarkets for you so it has become optional for you to pursue and catch prey.
An excellent example of science at work is the history of the P53 gene. The number refers to its mass in kilodaltons. For that matter, research John Dalton.
You reply to Thompson amounts to a near zero mark mate but to be fair : typical of the the down-voters who have no intention of discussing the specifics.
Kyle, Johnb, I’ve taken your advice and decided to expand expand my horizons and look outside my comfort zone and found the following interesting article:
http://livingotherwise.com/2020/07/13/uyghurs-are-so-bad-chinese-dinner-table-politics-in-xinjiang/
I would have thought confirmatory bias Oldie rather than out of comfort zone. Interesting author, I found he had done an article for Conversation some while back https://theconversation.com/i-researched-uighur-society-in-china-for-8-years-and-watched-how-technology-opened-new-opportunities-then-became-a-trap-119615. I’ll leave the critique for others but I remain curious as to why it is Western nations who sustain such concern for an ethnic Muslim community whilst the nations of the Umma, including the Guardian of the Holy Mosques, fail to show similar concern. One of life’s puzzles doncha think.
Oldie, I seem to recall a previous discussion about the nature of the sources being no less important than the content itself. May I remind you that you, recently, dismissed Berki (a recognized writer on ideology) in favour of Bernie Sanders and Wikipedia so as to accord with YOUR perception of Socialism. That is loose behaviour, Oldie, with all due respect.
Do you have former students who have graduated from Oxbridge or USA Ivy League universities? The interviews are competitive and the examiners are looking for analytical thinking in addition to aptitude. A major discussion point is data sources and I spend a lot of time role-playing this aspect of the interview with the students.
As an aside, the Xinjiang stuff is promoted by three (at most) independent outlets; the others being duplicates. I have made this suggestion previously : offer coffee to some Chinese students and see where the conversation goes.
Kyle, I don’t recall dismissing Berki since I’ve never heard of him before this post. I’ll look him up when I get the chance. As for my definition of socialism, I would not attempt to define it since there are so many versions of it that the word itself has become highly ambiguous, if not meaningless. I was only attempting to simplify matters by saying there are a wide variety of “socialisms” and some of them are at opposite poles. Many people say it is worthless and we should stop using it but I think we can still use it as long as we modify it with an adjective which tells us which pole you are close to, the 2 poles being democratic socialism versus authoritarian (mainly Leninist) socialism. You know which side I’m closest to. How about yourself.
I wonder if your advanced years are undermining your memory Oldie. As a point of balance I possess similar anxieties for myself over the next two decades or so.
As a “jogger” you may recall Bernie’s article regarding China on 1 Dec. where I replied “Berki, R.N. Socialism stands out from the pack because, in addition to the content, it is about 50 years old and still in print (Amazon)” Your response was (in short) “Democratic Socialism = Bernie Sanders type policies and Socialism = Xi Jinping. They are at opposite poles of the political spectrum.” after you you had pronounced the inhabitants in the PRC as donkeys. As an aside the Bernie-type ‘socialism’ was known as ten-bob-a-day socialism in Australia and NZ during the 1950s.
There are in fact few variations as to what constitutes socialism and fewer still definitions of communism; fascism for that matter too. That ‘everyone’ as a view suffices, in general, as a display of ignorance of political ideology.
As to simplifying complex problems I have been building (mathematical) models for some time and I am a fan of William of Ockham (1287-1347); if we can rise above the latent Lutherism – which was the price for trashing the doctrines of Aquinas. It was a fascinating time to have been alive.
Yet ‘complexity’ remains with us Oldie and we over-simplify at our peril as the diplomatic fiasco with our largest trading partner and the ad-hockery with C-19 attest. Previous references to HL Mencken refer (and one was utilised by a writer for Cky recently).
Come to that, ‘ave another quote from Mencken Oldie : “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
Frankly I suggest that we are not that far away and thus meritocracy (e.g. Xi) does have an attractive side. Yet, we will see just what “the plan” is.
There is a good deal more (no pun intended) to what Moore has offered. He needs to explain the demise of Kenya, Nigeria, Zimbabwe and South Africa for starters and not in terms of FDI.
What remains of their middle and lower classes prefer a return to Colonialism. Moore scores a point here and there but considerably more has been omitted.
Moore had around an hour, and his ‘skill set’ lies in public works and infrastructure, has experience in dealing with Yanks and Europeans, and with China.
For a more complete picture, I suggest going to the Black Agenda Report, and typing ‘Africa’ into the search field.
For a bellwether, for mine it is, and long has been, the DRC.
If the DRC can resist the Yanks and Europeans ongoing use of Rwanda and Uganda to terrorise and enable the long destabilisation and pillaging of the DRC, lots of Africans will change their minds about a return to colonialism.
The assassination of Patrice Lumumba set the terror marker, and the West has made much hay ever since.