Han Yang is a former junior diplomat of the Chinese Foreign Ministry. He writes today:
The recent debate about whether China had issued a list of demands for improving relations with Australia reminded me of those anti-anti-Trumpers. To this native Mandarin speaker, it was clear from the Chinese language readout that Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi had demanded that Australia take the steps, in a half-conciliatory, half-lecturing tone. A search on Chinese social media of the word demand in conjunction with the bilateral meeting turns up plenty of references.
Yet a chorus of Australian commentators objected to this characterisation. The attention on the word by these critics – including former politicians, retired diplomats, business people and academics – reflects a prevalent mindset among them that the deterioration of our relationship with China is not due to China’s policies and tactics but the result of the “anti-China bias” of our national security establishment and the lack of awareness of Chinese culture by our media.
…Former prime minister Paul Keating is the leading voice of this position, vehemently opposing Australia’s bipartisan plan to acquire nuclear-powered submarines from the US and Britain, which he claims will hand over our sovereignty to Washington and London. Left unresolved in his “strategic realism” is how Australia, with a population ranked 55th in the world, can defend a resource-rich, strategically important continent without a close alliance with the biggest military power that shares our values.
Not his values. Keating has long put his dystopian vision of an Asian Australia above the national interest. It was his idea, and nothing is going to stand in the way of that.
Why is Beijing’s intention even a subject of debate? It handed us the 14 conditions to end democracy in black and white:
The question is, how deep does Chinese influence run in Labor and what harm can it do while in power? Remember how Albo responded:
“I remember Prime Minister [Kevin] Rudd giving a speech in China, in Mandarin, of course, which was critical of human rights issues, but done so in a way that also was designed to make clear our values but not designed to offend for offence sake,” he said.
“And what we were able to do, and the Howard government was able to do as well, is have relationships that built that economic interaction that was very important for us.
“This government seems to have presided over a complete breakdown of relationships.”
Albo’s…err… poor judgment at a critical moment for national security provokes a central question in the appointment of Australia’s new Ambassador to Washington, under debate today.
Let’s look outside the ALP ranks for our man in Washington. A technocrat or LNP appointee would offer the chance of greater objectivity, technical expertise, and bipartisanship as AUKUS is brought to fruition.
