Kow-towing to the CCP

Most Australians do not read the Global Times, the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of Australians have never heard of the newspaper, published online by the regime.

They would be surprised to learn that the publication devotes regular space to criticism of Australia, often citing ‘experts’ on a range of issues concerning relations between the two countries. The editorial reinforces the views of Chinese officials.

The tone is often belligerent. Any criticism of the CCP is condemned as anti-Chinese, unhelpful, pro-American, or war-mongering: sometimes all of the above.

Legitimate questions of the regime are treated as an insult to the Chinese people. 

The latest example concerns the dangerous actions of the PLA Navy activating a sonar system close to Australian divers.

Accused of activating the sonar system close to the Australian naval personnel who were attempting to disentangle fishing nets from the propeller of their vessel in Japanese waters, the Chinese responded with indignation. How dare you raise this matter? 

Whether it was call for cooperation about tracing the origins of the Wuhan virus, or concerns about the CCP’s continual breaches of international laws, the response is the same: we are always correct and you have no right to even ask questions.

The reasons are usually links to threats about how Australia is damaging good relations, peace and prosperity.

Take this week’s Global Times articles. According to Liu Jianchao, a Chinese official, the sonar incident arose from Australia's behaviour in the region that gave "Chinese people a message that Australian naval vessels are there to contain China. What would happen if a Chinese naval ship came to your waters or waters near Australia? Naturally you send your ships to monitor and identify.”

No mention of Japanese waters, or even the dangerous use of sonar. Just the usual dismissive rhetoric.

“Australia should not believe it can provoke China freely with US support. While China values its political and economic relations with Australia, it will not compromise on national sovereignty and security. Serving as a US hatchet man to provoke China and being an accomplice in the US pursuit of global dominance will inevitably harm Australia's own national interests. Australian politicians with rationality and wisdom should strive to avoid confrontation with China and to maintain regional stability and security.”

On other occasions, these comments are often linked to international trade, with threats of retaliation for raising any inconvenient issue, that is, any view other than praise for China.

How should countries like Australia respond to the Chinese regime?

In a recent opinion article, the Australian journalist, Cheng Lei, who had been capriciously detained by the CCP for three years on flimsy grounds, suggested that Australia should defer criticism of the CCP. She wrote: “China sees itself as having been a doormat in the early 20th century; it carries a chip on its shoulder. ‘Our spines are tougher now. We’ve taken calcium supplements.’ This half-joking phrase, heard among the masses, is a mixture of propaganda rhetoric and heartfelt pride.

 “We hear a lot about how dealing with China takes a ‘nuanced’ approach. But what does that really mean and how might that apply to recent incidents? It means knowing when, where and how to communicate and, crucially, to whom. It is between hard-line and kowtow.”

Cheng continued: “Australia should and does have principles. But, as with all relationships, to live and die according to principle all the time is unreasonably rigid – you’d clash an awful lot and be quite unpopular. It doesn’t work in families, businesses or politics. The problem with standing solely on principle is twofold. One, you can fail to see things from others’ point of view; and, two, you are never open to the possibility that you might be wrong.”

Yet she concedes “what happened to me strengthened the case for a hard-line attitude because it highlighted China’s regression in citizen freedoms and heightened security paranoia.”

Her conclusion: “Aussie journalists who would have obtained a better understanding of China’s perspective are now advised to not go. The Aussie audience keen to know more about China will know less. That to me, in the long run, is more disturbing than investigating what channels Australia used to raise concerns with the sonar incident.”

Apart from seeming to associate with Labor’s approach to China, perhaps because it was the current government that secured her release, the difficulty with her argument is that it plays into the CCP narrative and its expectation of subservience.

Australia has three options. First, it can accept the CCP narrative of events, but this will encourage a more strident approach. It is not a realistic scenario.

Instead, it can hold a firm and principled response to issues, and express our national interest without the faux outrage the CCP often deploys.

These principles include respect for a rules-based order and for human rights, and the rejection of unfounded propaganda and naked aggression.

In addition, it can push back firmly from time to time, especially where our national security is jeopardised. It should respond in a timely and consistent manner.

There is no place for wishful thinking about the CCP. It is not about to change - but we don’t need to agree with jt. We don’t have to accept the Chinese narrative - nor their claims to saving face. A firm line with Beijing, as the late Shinzo Abe demonstrated, is even more necessary now.

 First published in the Epoch Times Australia.