The Challenges of the CCP

This week’s announcement about Australia’s future submarines was preceded by the usual criticism from the Chinese Communist Party [CCP].

Mao Ning, spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said at a press conference that ‘China believes that the trilateral cooperation (AUKUS) poses serious nuclear proliferation risks, impacts the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, stimulates arms race and undermines peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, which is widely questioned and opposed by countries in the region and the international community.’

The Chinese spokesperson urged the US, the UK and Australia ‘to abandon the Cold War mentality and zero-sum game, faithfully fulfill their international obligations and do more to contribute to regional peace and stability.’

These remarks follow the assertion by the new Chinese ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian that obtaining nuclear powered submarines would not be constructive. It would not be helpful, he added, saying it would set, a bad example.

‘The US is pushing Australia to the forefront in the zero-sum game against China in a bid to serve its own interests,’ Chen Hong, president of the Chinese Association of Australian Studies and director of the Australian Studies Centre at East China Normal University, told the Global Times last week. If the purchase of nuclear-powered submarines and other new development of the AUKUS pact are officially announced, Australia would take a dangerous step on the road to nuclear attack possession, which will pose big threat to the peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, Chen warned.

These threats were repeated this week with the CCP saying the acquisition of the nuclear submarines would turn Australia into a ‘haunted house’!

Clearly the CCP does not follow its own advice. The restrictions that China wants applied to Australia are totally breached by China itself. Of its 56 submarines in the PLA navy, 12 are nuclear powered, and more are being built. Its navy is being expanded at a fast rate. Not only are its submarines nuclear powered, six of them carry intercontinental nuclear missiles. It also has some 400 nuclear warheads, a number expected to increase to about 1,500 in coming years. Vast nuclear silos have been constructed in the west of the country.

The AUKUS announcement coincides with military escalation by China, which announced a 7.2 per cent increase in its defence expenditure at the recent annual parliamentary meeting.

In his final work report, outgoing premier Li Keqiang claimed that ‘external attempts to suppress and contain China are escalating … the armed forces should intensify military training and preparedness across the board.’

‘China’s armed forces should devote greater energy to training under combat conditions and boost combat preparedness.

‘Our armed forces, with a focus on the goals for the centenary of the People’s Liberation Army in 2027, should work to carry out military operations, boost combat preparedness, and enhance military capabilities.’

Li’s remarks were followed by threats from the new foreign minister Qin Gang warning the US of ‘conflict and confrontation’ if it did not ‘hit the brakes.’ He also spoke warmly of China’s relationship with Russia.

These comments follow remarks by the Chinese leader Xi Jinping last year. According to a report in the People’s Daily last November, Xi told the People’s Liberation Army to ‘focus all its energy on fighting’ in preparation for war. Pictured in military clothing on a visit to the PLA command centre, Xi said the army must ‘comprehensively strengthen military training in preparation for war.’

‘Focus all [your] energy on fighting, work hard on fighting and improve [your] capability to win,’ he urged.

Authoritarianism vs democracy

While the CCP decries a ‘Cold War mentality’ China is actively engaged in a hybrid war against the West.

This war was launched - and is being prosecuted - by the Chinese Communist regime under the leadership of Xi Jinping.

Xi is adamant that this war is a contest between authoritarianism and democracy.

In November 2020, Xi told President-elect Biden that “democracies cannot be sustained in the 21st century, autocracies will run the world. Why? Things are changing so rapidly. Democracies require consensus, and it takes time, and you don't have the time."

Xi uses Cold War language to describe his objectives. In April 2021, the Chinese Communist Party’s People’s Dailynewspaper highlighted a newly published book, Questions and Answers on the Study of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. The book is replete with Cold War rhetoric. The world is described as a field for “competition of two ideologies and two social systems.” History should be interpreted though “the fundamental point of view of historical materialism” and truth will be found by applying Marxist tools, this truth being the truth of Marxism as formulated by Marx. Like Marx, Xi is convinced that communism will prevail.  According to the Chinese leader, China is at “the centre of the world stage” and “the historical evolution and competition in the world between two ideologies is being solved in favour of Marx.”

He also accuses nations that promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law of causing wars, chaos and human displacement around the world.

In a recently released read-out of his remarks to a Politburo study session in February, Xi asserted that some Western nations ‘forcibly promote the concept and system of Western democracy and human rights . . . taking advantage of human rights issues to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.’

Although Xi has referred to democracy ‘with Chinese characteristics’ he rejects the central tenets of it.

Speaking last year, Li Zhanshu, then Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, enunciated in detail what Xi had outlined previously. Li listed five ideas that are rejected by the CCP, namely, “so-called ‘constitutionalism’, multi-party elections, the division of powers, the bicameral system, and the independence of the judiciary.”  What remains of democracy after the removal of these foundational pillars?

The answer is the same one to most questions about the Chinese regime: the CCP leadership is supreme and must be protected at all costs. Li Zhanshu spelt this out in 2021, enunciating six doctrines of Chinese democracy, insisting that adherence to the “Party’s overall leadership as the highest political principle” and “firmly upholding the authority of the Party Central Committee and centralised and unified leadership.”

Understanding China

The first lesson in analysing the Chinese Communist Party is to recognise that everything written and said is self-serving. It is in the service of the Party itself, and, increasingly, its leader, Xi Jinping.

All nations seek to advance their own sovereign interests, but the most successful ones recognise that compliance with an international rules-based order generates advantages for all and compounds the benefits. China however proclaims one thing but does another. There are many examples.

When Xi Jinping stood next to Barack Obama in 2015 and proclaimed that he would not militarise the artificial islands in the South China Sea, the PLA was already building military installations on them.

The Party’s recent 100th anniversary publication, The CCP - Its Mission and Contributions, is replete with further examples. ‘China has strictly enforced international conventions such as the Paris Agreement, the Convention on Nuclear Safety, the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Bacterial) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction . . . it has actively engaged in international exchanges and cooperation under the UN framework in such fields as . . . cyber security and biosafety, as well as polar, outer space and ocean affairs.’

Compare these claims to China’s actions in rapidly building coal fired power stations, constructing new nuclear missile silos, developing hypersonic weapons, and snubbing international rulings on the South China Sea. And what about the gain-of-function biological research in Wuhan that is most likely the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic?

There are still some people, albeit in diminishing numbers, who believe that China under the CCP will evolve into some form of liberal democracy. Their view of China is the nation opening-up under Deng.

But that era has closed and is being reversed. Under Xi, China has become increasingly internally repressive and externally aggressive. Xi accretion of almost total power at the recent Congress affirms his ideological direction.

While Xi and the CCP often use terms like democracy, the rule of law and human rights, they have very different meanings to our understanding of the concepts.

Let me illustrate by reference to four matters: democracy, the rule of law, human rights and freedom of religion.

Chinese ‘democracy’

In doing so, I am reminded of Humpty Dumpty’s reflection in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass that words mean what you chose them to mean. Having previously informed the world that freedom, democracy, and human rights are not universal values – despite a Chinese scholar, PC Chang having been a member of the drafting team for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Xi Jinping’s regime now insists that democracy ‘with Chinese characteristics’ contains none of the principles that constitute it. This should be the final confirmation, if still required, that the CCP is a totalitarian regime dedicated to preserving its own existence, rather than the dignity and freedom of the Chinese people.

The CCP has substituted its own definition of democracy. The Chinese Communist Party’s media outlet the Global Times published an Op Ed by Liu Dongchao, a professor at the Party School of the CCP Central Committee, in which he outlined the benefits of China’s so-called ‘whole-process people’s democracy’. It is a model, he claimed, that had been formed at the grassroot of the Chinese nation: ‘It is democracy in its broadest, most genuine, and most effective form.’

 ‘Whole-process people's democracy and US-style democracy are different in class attributes. The first is people-centred and devoted to serving the Chinese people at all levels and of all ethnic groups, while the second, by nature, is monopolistic bourgeois democracy — democracy of a few people and groups.’ US-style democracy is costly and wasteful of resources, Liu claimed, and can lead to stalemates. ‘In stark contrast, whole-process people's democracy is highly efficient. Its operating mechanisms can rapidly and efficiently incorporate the will of the Party, the State and/or the people in policies to improve governance quality and capability.’

‘Also, whole-process people's democracy reflects the will and opinions of people from all walks of life, all ethnic groups and all parties. But US-style democracy has much content that is anti-democracy or non-democratic because it serves a few. Worse, the export of US-style democracy to other countries has caused many disasters. That's why many criticize US-style democracy, saying it is discriminatory and hypocritical. People who cannot see the serious drawbacks of US-style democracy are prejudiced. And those who refuse to acknowledge that, compared with US-style democracy, whole-process people's democracy is a new and more advanced form of democracy have a hidden agenda of smearing China despite facts to the contrary.’

The irony is no doubt lost on the CCP idealogues, but the people of Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet and many of those protesting on the mainland in the past year know that China is not a democracy.

A system which denies 90 per cent of the population even a basic vote is authoritarian. At the most basic level, the vast majority of the Chinese people had never had the opportunity to vote for their leadership under the CCP.

The CCP also seeks to eliminate the very institutions that undergird democracy, free public discussion and civil association. 

At the core of authoritarianism is a belief that the political trumps all other spheres of human endeavour.

As the former Czech president Václav Havel, once a prisoner of a totalitarian regime, observed, the ‘pseudo-authority of a dictator’ is no genuine authority at all. This is why any threat to the existence of the CCP must be eliminated lest it engender growing support in a country facing an increasing number of challenging issues including an ageing population, an unstable property bubble, an uneven economy and a world increasingly resistant to its naked aggression.

The rule of law

In a directive by the Central Committee of the CCP, published in February, law schools, lawyers and judges were instructed to “oppose and resist Western erroneous views such as ‘constitutional government’, ‘separation of three powers’ and the ‘independence of the judiciary’.”

Karl Marx opposed the rule of law, describing it as ‘a great and dangerous illusion’ that protected the economic standing of the bourgeoisie. He wanted to empower the proletariat to establish their own law — as determined and interpreted, of course, by the Communist Party. This was supported by Lenin, Stalin, Mao and now Xi.

Xi not only claims that the law should be subject to the Party, but that international law should be subject to interpretation by a CCP-led coalition of fellow travellers. Those who still believe that China is on a path to greater political freedom should take note of Xi’s remarks to a conference on the rule of law held in November, at which he said he wants his Marxist model to be applied universally. As early as 2014, Xi spoke of ‘constructing international playgrounds’ and ‘creating the rules’ for the games played in them. Unfortunately, he was not referring to sport. Couched in fancy references to ‘scientific socialism with Chinese characteristics’, Xi’s goal is global totalitarianism with his ideology spread in the West by Confucius Institutes and United Front operatives.

The immediate application of this ideology can be seen in Hong Kong. The principle of ‘one country, two systems’ is subject to the rule of law, insists Xi. Hence, the laws governing Hong Kong are subject to the requirements of the CCP. With the legislature neutered, increasingly, police, lawyers and judges must comply.

The transformation from free society to closed state is highlighted by a number of cases, including the prosecution of Cardinal Joseph Zen and the publisher Jimmy Lai and the trial of 47 pro-democracy campaigners now underway in Hong Kong. Charged under Beijing’s vague and wide-ranging National Security Laws, the 47 face the prospects of life imprisonment. They include lawyers, journalists, trade union officials and academics. Most are mild-mannered professionals who have neither been near a picket line nor involved in a protest.  Their ‘crime’? Organising a pro-democracy group to contest seats in the 2020 elections. The group organised pre-selections and indicated their stance against government legislation. These actions, common in democracies, were deemed a threat to national security in Hong Kong! In Australia, the process of determining a party’s candidate is a ‘pre-selection’; in the US they are known as ‘primaries’. These processes are a common and important part of the operation of democracy. But in Beijing, they are an assault on the one-party state and a threat to national security.

Of the 55 people arrested in January 2021, 47 remain in jail. A few were released on bail and their passports confiscated.

The trial indicates how much Beijing has abandoned its obligations under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the international treaty registered with the United Nations. It also indicates starkly how Hong Kong’s Basic Law, with its protections for basic freedoms, the rule of law and the autonomy of the region has been dispensed with by the CCP. 

Human Rights

There are many abusers of human rights globally but the most egregious currently is the Chinese Communist regime. The instances of abuse are now so widespread and documented that the charge against Xi Jinping’s regime is beyond dispute. Tibetans, Fulan Dong practitioners, Uyghurs, Buddhists, Christians and now the people of Hong Kong are all victims of Xi’s totalitarian regime.

Since 2017, more than a million Uyghurs and members of other Turkic Muslim minorities have disappeared into a vast network of ‘re-education camps’ in the far west region of Xinjiang. The ‘re-education’ campaign appears to be entering a new phase, as government officials now claim that all ‘trainees’ have ‘graduated’. There is mounting evidence that many Uyghurs are now being forced to work in factories within Xinjiang. This report reveals that Chinese factories outside Xinjiang are also sourcing Uyghur workers under a revived, exploitative government-led labour transfer scheme. Some factories appear to be using Uyghur workers sent directly from ‘re-education camps’.

Research by ASPI in the report Uyghurs for Sale has identified 83 foreign and Chinese companies directly or indirectly benefiting from the use of Uyghur workers outside Xinjiang through potentially abusive labour transfer programs as recently as 2019, many of them well-known international brands on sale in Australia.

The independent China Tribunal issued a devastating report on the plight of the Uyghurs after a year-long investigation. Chaired by the war crimes prosecutor, Sir Geoffrey Nice, the panel concluded that China has committed genocide against the Uyghurs. The panel was ‘satisfied that President Xi Jinping, Chen Quanguo and other very senior officials in the PRC and CCP bear primary responsibility for acts in Xinjiang.’  The tribunal accepted evidence of torture, mass internments, forcible transfer of Uyghur children to state-run facilities, and a mass birth-prevention strategy. China had undertaken a ‘deliberate, systematic and concerted policy’ to bring about the ‘long-term reduction of Uyghur and other ethnic minority populations.’ While acknowledging that there was "no evidence of mass killings" in Xinjiang yet, Sir Geoffrey said that the efforts to prevent births amounted to genocidal intent.

Many of the same practices have been deployed in Tibet, where some 800,000 children have been housed in state-run institutions. Chinese language and culture are prioritised over Tibetan in a deliberate policy to wipe-out the local culture.

The Tribunal’s recent report followed previous findings of Crimes Against Humanity against the Falan Gong practitioners and Uyghurs had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The direct reference to the role of Xi Jinping is significant. Leaked documents reveal that the Chinese President tied economic prosperity, including his Belt and Road Initiative, and national security directly to punishing the Uyghurs. In another of the documents, many marked ‘top secret’, the CCP Secretary of Xinjiang, Chen Quanguo, commands officials to ‘round up all who should be rounded up’ and stressed that the detention camps would operate for a very long time. Xi ordered changes to family planning policies that the Tribunal found to have involved a genocidal intent.

It is no longer credible for nations - and international organisations such as the IOC - to ignore what is happening in China under the direction of Xi Jinping.

Fortunately, the CCP is being called out for its behaviour, despite its laughable claims to being a rules-based democracy. Indeed, the Chinese regime became increasingly twitchy about President Biden’s democracy summit, not having understood that the propaganda that it can force feed the people of China is contested – often ridiculed – in the outside world.

Complaints have been filed in Europe against a number of clothing and footwear manufacturers alleging the use of slave labor. Magnitsky-style legislation to sanction human rights abusers has been passed in a number of countries, including Australia recently. The US House of Representatives passed by a vote of 428-1 the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. A similar measure had already been approved by the Senate. The UN Human Rights Committee recently called on China to dismantle all systems of forced labour and released the individuals subject t it.

The latest iteration of ‘Xi’s Thought’ on everything is the publication in many Chinese newspapers of ‘Selected Statements from Xi Jinping on the Respect and Protection of Human Rights.’ Irony has never been the strength of totalitarians, but the anthology could be a useful tool for continuing to document the CCP’s record of doing the opposite to what it proclaims.

Religious freedom

In the ‘State Administration of Religious Affairs’ order which took effect on 1 May 2022, the communist government established a system for the registration of clergy of five authorised religions. The authorised religions are Protestant Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam and Taoism. Anyone else claiming to be clergy can be criminally prosecuted.

Article III of the order provides that, religious clergy should love the motherland, support the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, support the socialist system, abide by the Constitution, laws, regulations and rules, practice the core values of socialism, adhere to the principles of independent and self-administered religion in China, adhere to the direction of the Sinicization of religion in China, operate to maintain national unity, religious harmony and social stability.

Religious clergy are also directed to ‘safeguard the national interest’ and ‘follow the instructions of the religious affairs departments’. They are required to be registered by the state and allocated a special twelve-digit identification code. Criminal penalties apply to persons who are not registered but are found to be acting as clergy, such as those ministering to home and underground churches, as well as non-recognised religions including Judaism. Known as xie jiao, the followers of unauthorised religious groups are routinely sentenced to labour camps and prison where torture is commonplace.

In what is a clear rejection of the secret agreement the Vatican entered into with the CCP, the order requires the ‘democratic election’ of a bishop. While the relevant article also refers to approval by the Chinese Catholic Bishops’ Conference, this body is effectively subject to CCP control. There is no mention of the Vatican at all! So much for the naive trust in totalitarian regimes by the Vatican diplomats.

If the failure of concordats with dictatorial regimes in the past was not lesson enough, the CCP treatment of Tibetan Buddhists should have been a clear warning.

In May 1995, just three days after the six-year-old Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was named the 11th Panchen Lama – the successor of the Dalai Lama – as spiritual head of the Geluk School of Tibetan Buddhism, he and his family were kidnapped by the regime, not to be seen since. Instead, the regime organised its own replacement Panchen Lama, the six-year- old Gyaincain Norbu. A decade later, in 2007, the regime issued another decree for the administration of the succession of the Dalai Lama. The usurpation is reinforced in the latest decree, which asserts that ‘Tibetan Buddhism’s succession of living Buddhas should be regulated in accordance with the “Regulations on Religious Affairs”, the “Tibetan Buddhism Reincarnation Management Measures”, and other relevant provisions.’

Leaving aside the irony of the atheistic communist regime determining the process for the reincarnation of the Lama, these events should have been a warning to other religions, especially those with a hierarchical structure not beholden to Beijing.

Having illustrated the CCP’s rejection of the foundational pillars of democracy, let me turn to Taiwan and the South China Sea. 

Taiwan and the China Sea

The South China Sea is an international space in which Australia has a real economic and strategic interest. Australia’s top five trade partners are all in the Indo-Pacific, and approximately 98 per cent of our international trade by volume travels by sea – and more than half of that through the South China Sea. By 2030, the Indo-Pacific region is expected to account for 21 of the top 25 sea and air trade routes and one-third of the world’s bulk cargo movements. By 2050, almost half of the world’s economic output is expected to come from the Indo-Pacific, and the region will be home to four of the world’s top economies.

In 2016, President Xi Jinping, delivering a speech to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Korean War, declared that the ‘Chinese people understand fully that [China] must use the languages that invaders understand to communicate with them. It is to use war to stop war, to use force to prevent conflict/war and to use [war] victory to win peace and earn respect.’ The phrase ‘using force to prevent war’ has been used by Xi and some of his top military commanders on various occasions, as has references to the ‘peacetime employment of military force.’

While the idea of using force to prevent war is common to the military strategies of many nations, like most Chinese notions, it must be understood in the context of the CCP’s aspirations. The detail is found in the People’s Liberation Army definition of using military power to warn ‘relevant parties not to cross [China’s] redlines.’ These redlines are being redefined by Xi to include as Chinese territory everything within the so-called ‘nine dash line’, including the China Sea and Taiwan. These lines were repeated by China’s Defence Minister at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. China believes that its aggressive tactics will frighten other nations into compliance. The notion is not new in Chinese thinking. The revered military strategist of the 5th century BC, Sun Tzu, whom Xi has referenced, wrote that ‘the greatest victory is that which requires no battle.’

The CCP subsequently asserted it owns the vast expanse of water known as the Taiwan Strait. A foreign ministry spokesman, Wang Wendin, declared that the Taiwan Strait belongs to China. It is a claim that Chinese officials have been making privately for some time. As Beijing doesn’t recognise Taiwan, ‘China has sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the Taiwan Strait,’ added the official. This approach supports Beijing’s claim to Taiwan. The US administration has rejected the claim, as it should.

The dubious claim is made on the basis of the so-called ‘nine dash line’ an obscure chart that the CCP has produced to assert its claims. These claims have already been rejected in a dispute about artificial islands that China has constructed. The former Dutch diplomat, Gerrit van der Wees, concluded that Beijing’s claim to Taiwan has ‘no historical basis, and second, historically speaking it is relatively recent.’ It was not a part of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644). ‘The inhabitants [of Formosa] viewed the [subsequent] Qing Dynasty as very much a colonial regime and in no way saw themselves as “part of China.” It was not until 1887 that Taiwan was formally elevated to the status of “Province of China,” but that only lasted eight years – an inconvenient truth for Beijing.’ From 1895, the Japanese ruled the island, establishing the basis for its modern infrastructure. Under the Treaty of Shimonoseki that ended the war between Japan and the Qing over Taiwan, all Qing subjects had a two-year opportunity to decide to return to China or remain on the Island. Less than 10,000 people, of some 2.5 million, returned.

A seminal study of the Taiwan’s history last century reveals that the leaders of the CCP consistently recognised the Taiwanese as a distinct ‘nation’ or ‘nationality’ (minzu). The ‘founding father’ of Taiwan Sun Yat-sen and the subsequent leader Chiang Kai-shek equated Taiwan to colonised Korea and Vietnam. Mao Zedong was quoted as saying in 1937 that ‘we will extend to them (the Koreans) our enthusiastic help in their struggle for independence. The same things applied for Taiwan.’

In reality, the People’s Republic of China has never controlled Taiwan, while the Republic of China, Taiwan relinquished its authority in the mainland after moving its capital to Taipei in 1949. Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui ‘s statement in 1999 on the ‘special state-to-state relationship’ may have surprised some, but it was no sudden policy shift or declaration of independence. ‘Only the implementation of a comprehensive democratic system, through the rule of law and transparent political processes will mutual trust be enhanced between the two sides,’ he said the year before. ‘And only democracy will ensure that both sides in fact honour their agreements and guarantees a win-win situation.’

As President Tsai Ing-wen has said, Taiwan does not need to declare its independence. The West must push back against the CCP’s historic distortions that serve their cause to control Taiwan. In the past two decades, especially under Xi Jinping, China has become the new imperial coloniser. Its actions in many parts of the world, ranging from Africa to the South Pacific, are evidence of this.

China’s hybrid war

China may not be engaged in a full-scale kinetic war, but it would be a grave mistake not to see its activities as a hybrid war against the west. Let me describe ten aspects of it.

First, there is the physical aggression that includes border clashes with India in the Himalayas, the militarisation of artificial islands in the South China Sea, the interception of foreign aircraft and vessels in international waters, and the firing of missiles over Taiwan and into Japanese waters.

In each case, China is the aggressor. Chinese military aircraft regularly breach the air warning zones of other nations, and have dangerously intercepted aircraft in international space. The CCP has also claimed that the whole of the Taiwan Straits belongs to China, contrary to all historical fact and international laws.

Xi recently authorised 59 new articles that seek to legitimise the CCP’s external use of force in other nations.

Second, there are the grey-zone activities especially around Philippine islands in the South China Sea. There are hundreds of Chinese militia vessels patrolling disputed artificial reefs and islands in the South China Sea such as the Spratly Islands. These so-called ‘fishing vessels’ are deployed in ‘grey zone’ tactics against other nations. Satellite imagery shows hundreds of vessels anchored around disputed reefs and islands in the region. Both the Spratly and the Paracel archipelagos have been claimed by Vietnam since at least the 15th century when the Nguyen Dynasty collected taxes on ships passing through the islands. Vietnam has built modern facilities on the Spratlys including schools for the children who live there. In the 1890s the Chinese government refused to pay compensation for a ship incident in the Paracels, claiming it was not its territory.

Currently the PRC is engaged in disputes with 17 surrounding nations. The maritime disputes involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Brunei, and even North Korea.  It has land disputes with another seven nations: India, Nepal, Bhutan, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar and Tibet.

Third, the CCP is engaged in a massive cyber war against the West, including Australia.

Fourth, it has in place various information collecting surveillance devices, ranging from Tik Tok to security cameras capable of transmitting to China.

Fifth, there are credible reports of direct interference in elections including in Canada, the Solomons Islands and Micronesia.

Sixth, it has been building ports and other facilities for use by both mercantile and military ships in strategic locations.

Seventh, it has engaged in a long-running exercise to steal intellectual property from the West for which a number of people have been convicted.

Eighth, agents of the United Front Work Department operate amongst the Chinese diaspora in many countries, spying on ethnic Chinese and promoting the CCP message.

Ninth, its Confucius Institutes spread pro-CCP propaganda in western nations, including Australia.

Tenth, it rejects the international rule of law, uses economic coercion as a strategic tool and wantonly breaks agreements that no longer suit its purpose.

Other activities range from its “wolf warrior” diplomacy to flooding the illicit drug fentanyl into the United States and supporting other authoritarian regimes such as Russia.

This does not mean that the CCP is about to invade Taiwan as there are many reasons for it to be cautious, but to ignore the hybrid war that China is prosecuting is foolish.

This week’s AUKUS announcement is a necessary response to the security challenges facing the region. It must be a part of a more comprehensive program to counter the CCP’s hybrid war.

A trade thaw?

The prospect of a return to the previous era of trade between Australia and China has been the subject of considerable speculation in recent weeks following meetings between officials from both nations.

The prospective thaw in relations saw corporate executives, including university vice-chancellors, flocking back to China with excited alacrity, eager to recreate the business model of the past.

While some commentators have concluded that the thaw in trade relations was due to a new more conciliatory approach by the Labor government to the CCP, the reality is that China is acting out of its own economic interests.

Products that China relied on such as gas and iron ore were not subject to the sanctions.

The reopening of coal exports is a response to China’s needs and Xi Jinping’s new drive to bolster the economy. The Global Times recently quoted a Chinese industry insider as claiming it was a good time to resume coal imports from Australia. “In January, the cost, insurance and freight (CIF) of Australian coal stood at 2,450 yuan ($361.3) per ton, while the CIF of coal produced in North China’s Shanxi Province was 2,700 yuan per ton,” he said.

While lobster and wine sales were impacted, other exports such as barley were unaffected as Australian producers turned to other markets.

If there is a lesson from the trade sanctions it is not to become dependent on one trading partner.

The current Australian government should recall that China initially welcomed new prime ministers only to subsequently condemn them for defending Australia’s interests or asserting international norms.

Bob Hawke’s condemnation of the Tiananmen Square carnage ended the then Chinese bromance. Kevin Rudd’s reference to human rights at Peking University began the more recent estrangement. It continued under subsequent Liberal prime ministers. Scott Morrison was binned for asking for an independent investigation of the origins of Covid.

China may be changing its tactics, but its long-term strategy remains the same. 

How do we respond?

First, we need the intellectual clarity and the moral courage to call out this hybrid War and to name the perpetrators.

This is not some great game: it is a real threat to the peace and security of the world.

Secondly, like-minded nations must defend democracy against its authoritarian attackers. They must recognise that the authoritarian rulers of China will never willingly share power; they refute the practice in their own country, and would do so abroad. 

Whatever its faults, liberal democracy remains the best chance to uphold the dignity and freedom of the individual, to nourish human flourishing and to promote peace and stability. It is worth defending.

Thirdly, we must continue to uphold and defend universal human rights and the rule of law. This includes responding to the flouting of international agreements and the manipulation of international organisations.

Fourthly, we must act in unison with other democratic nations and states against authoritarian regimes.  We must be clear that force will be resisted. As former Japanese Prime Minister Abe has said, there should be no ‘strategic ambiguity’ about this fundamental principle. In this context, we must recognise that Taiwan is the first chain of defence in the fight against the authoritarian CCP. If China was to invade Taiwan, the ramifications for the world, including Australia and Japan, are enormous. It must be clear that any attempted invasion of Taiwan will be resisted militarily by allied nations.

That does not mean democratic nations pursue war. To the contrary, our objectives should be to maintain peace, but that will only be achieved through strength and deterrence, not appeasement.

Fifty, we should identify and warn susceptible nations of the dangers of colonisation by authoritarian states, and support them to resist this assault on their freedoms.

Finally, we must match Chinese propaganda, both in their own countries and elsewhere with a spirited defence of democracy and freedom.

What the CCP fears most is the fate of the Soviet Union, which fell ultimately not from external force, but from an unquenchable desire for freedom by many of its own people.  

In this context, we should never underestimate the power of the human spirit.

Contrary to Xi, there are many good reasons to believe that his assertion is incorrect, that in fact democracy will prevail in the 21st century, but it will not be without a struggle. As an opponent of authoritarianism, Vaclav Havel, once said: the only struggle that is lost is the one we have given up on.

This is a struggle that all believers in human dignity, individual freedom and democracy must engage.

 A presentation to an Ambrose Centre seminar, Brisbane, 16 March 2023