One of Australia’s leading China grovellers, James Curran, simply can;t break out of the 1970s.
In his talks with then-Chinese premier Hua Guofeng, Fraser had proposed the formation of a quadrilateral pact – comprising China, the US, Japan and Australia – to hedge against Soviet ambitions in the Pacific and Indian oceans. It never eventuated. But the point was that an Australian leader had proposed an independent initiative without checking with Washington first.
The Sydney Sun newspaper thought Fraser had gone “all the way with Hua” and frowned on the prime minister for calling into question “our dealings with traditional connections in Washington, London and Europe”.
…The prime minister knows that today’s world is not some kind of cartoonish game. He knows that most, if not all countries in the region are still balancing in some kind of way: wary of China, leery of US President Donald Trump. Though Australian officials would no doubt have briefed their Five Eyes counterparts and Japan prior to the China visit, Canberra does not need to seek permission to run its own foreign policy either, nor apologise for growing its biggest market.
But it appears that the alternative being demanded by some critics, such as John Lee, Greg Sheridan and Peter Jennings, is a return to the “drums of war” rhetoric characteristic of the Morrison years. The catastrophising over Albanese’s lack of a meeting with Trump and the fretting over his private lunch with Chinese President Xi Jinping betrays the very mindset Peacock critiqued.
…To Washington, the prime minister has sent a reminder of that tradition in Australian foreign policy where Canberra, knowing that great powers often play fast and loose with this country’s interests, can express its independence both within and without the alliance. So Albanese stands firm on American demands for greater defence spending, just as Trade Minister Don Farrell is emphatic on Australia wanting to do “more, not less” business with China.
These China grovellers are addicted to 1970s analogues even though they are wildly wrong.
In the 1970s, China could not have sailed three junks to Sydney, let alone a flotilla of nuclear-capable missile frigates rehearsing the annihilation of our largest city.
In the 1970s, as China mulled an embrace of liberalisation, there was every reason to expect political loosening would come with it.
We can’t say that today unless we have our eyes closed.
To demonstrate, I ask you, how would Cold War warrior Malcom Fraser be handling today’s China?
Fraser was a deep Soviet skeptic and would not have been impressed with China’s “no limits” alliance with the former USSR.
He was also a pragmatist, so it is unlikely he would have gone entirely the other way.
But what Fraser would have done today that the China grovellers do not is recognise the imminence of the threat the CCP now poses.
Fraser was an advocate of strong defence spending, lifting it by a half percentage point of GDP during his tenure whilst cutting wider spending.
There is no way known that a Fraser government today would be running down defence whilst distancing Australia from ANZUS.
Likewise, in power, Fraser was a strong advocate of ANZUS. Later in life, he became more skeptical, but even then, he advocated much higher defence spending to support the notion of Australian strategic independence.
The China grovellers these days want Australia to trash ANZUS whilst embracing China and keeping defence spending low.
This is a recipe for CCP takeover without a shot being fired.
