The same names. The same arguments. History off their backs like water off a duck.
We begin with Geoff Raby:
In politics a catchy phrase can be used to devastating effect, such as John Howard’s assertion that his Labor opponent, Kim Beazley, “had no ticker”. With this, the Liberals could focus on Labor’s perceived weakness on national security and border protection. It may well have cost Beazley the 2001 election.
In international relations, such glib catchphrases can frame serious policy choices, divide countries and lead to countervailing reactions. In 2002, president George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil” linking North Korea, Iran and Iraq led to the creation by Iran of the “Axis of Resistance” – and concern among key US allies not to be seen standing too close to Washington.
With the outrageous Russian invasion of Ukraine, our Prime Minister’s speech-writers have come up with “Arc of Autocracy”, linking Russia and China in an alliance of autocratic states that stand opposed to democracies. Without nuance or subtlety, it presupposes a neat alignment of interests, divides the world order into two hostile groups, and implies undifferentiated policy responses towards the autocracies.
…Far from alignment among the autocracies, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a foreign policy nightmare for China that may carry serious political consequences within China, and for President Xi Jinping in particular.
…By not condemning the invasion at the outset, Xi has made a major foreign policy blunder that he may long rue. He has missed a historic opportunity to reset relations with the US and the West more generally.
While the uninformed look at China as a political monolith with Xi at the centre and all bowing before him, the reality is far from this. Elite politics in China are dynamic. As in democratic systems, rival factions compete for influence and even power.
Many of China’s elites would be extremely unhappy to find China aligned in this way with Russia. While most buy into the narrative of a rising China, righting historical wrongs visited on the country by a hostile West, they also have a vision of a China that stands tall in the world, respected by all, especially by its benchmark the US.
…The best thing for the Prime Minister and Defence Minister to do is to give up on the empty mindless slogans, put the megaphone away, and start to listen to diplomats who understand the complex forces at work, not only in China but elsewhere, and then try to work out how to influence those currents. The megaphone and the one liner will serve only to harden opposition against what we hope to achieve.
Readers will know that I, too, have been having some fun at Morrison’s expense over his senseless “Hexagon of Horror”. But, not for the same reason.
The Raby argument is basically that we should re-engage China to peel it and away from its Russian alliance to reset global relations.
How does that serve Australia’s interests?
If the Ukraine conflict and the sanctions have so rocked Beijing that it can be lured to betray Russia then good. Keep doing them and have Beijing live in fear of more coming its way. This has obviously decreased the possibility of China invading Taiwan which is a far greater threat to world peace.
Engaging China after a few weeks of a proxy war will only make us look weak-kneed for the short and, more important, long term.
Second, I have noted many times that Morrison’s hawkish Chinese rhetoric is more psychopolitics than it is strategic calculus but he can still be right for the wrong reason. Pushing China further away from Australia and keeping pressure on interests to diversify is in the national interest. The Morrison foghorn is a great way to do this.
Who cares about Beijing’s lies? It says whatever it needs to on any given day. The best (and only) reason to attempt to wedge the Sino/Russian alliance is to engage the latter against the former not the other way around.
Third, if you want to be really mercantile about it, Australia’s foreign revenues are booming thanks to war and China being drawn into it, though that probably won’t last.
The answer for Mr Raby is always the same: re-engagement with China at all costs. We’re yet to see him recognise that Australia cowed the Chinese trade war by doing the exact opposite of everything that he suggested. He still sits on the board of an Australian subsidiary of a Chinese state-run coal mining company with no acknowledgment of the fact in the AFR byline.
Our second Bejing faboi is serial pest James Curran:
The fundamental changes wrought in world geopolitics point to the emergence of a new cold war. What remains at issue is whether, over coming weeks, that extends to China.
Brookings’ Ryan Hass argues that China’s subsequent actions may well validate the fault line between democracy and authoritarianism. But he deems it “premature to automatically default to such a conclusion”.
…Beijing’s diplomatic charm offensive now supports the Ukrainians’ plight. There are signs that it supports the drive to isolate Russia economically.
…In his ringing declaration that Canberra would be in “lockstep” with the US in enforcing possible economic sanctions against China, there is nary any grasp from the Prime Minister of the possible high economic costs to Australia.
And what, pray, of India, a key Quad partner? Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been unmasked. He still looks to Russia for weapons in the event of possible conflict with China.
More recently, India’s central bank is reported to have commenced consultations on a rupee-rouble trade arrangement with Moscow, potentially enabling New Delhi to keep buying Russian energy exports and other goods.
…For those in the Australian strategic debate clinging to the “Indo-Pacific” as the titular proof of a new regional zeitgeist, where India is concerned, they are relying on a strategic partner that simply does not exist.
And what is your solution, Professor Curran? Re-engage Beijing and resume the silent invasion? Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
Russia is not the existential enemy of liberalism. China is. Any extension of the former’s blundering into strategic inhibition for the latter is bloody brilliant for the same reasons written in response to Raby above.
As for India, it can chew gum and walk at the same time. It has a long Cold War history of engagement with Russia. A swag of its state governments are still Communist.
Why is it that Curran’s reasoning lets us see China as not part of the “arc of autocracy” yet India has to be seen as some kind of part of it?
India can see clearly that Russia is no threat to itself. The fact is, Russia is no threat to anybody outside of the poor souls that live between it and NATO.
India knows the real threat is an aggressive and illiberal China with the ideology, resources and manpower to launch multifront wars on its borders. It’s a great shame Australian “experts” aren’t so incisive.
Pity your humble blogger when Labor wins.
