When Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison defended the Australian credentials of the first ethnic Chinese person elected to Australia’s parliament as a ruling party member, he apparently won appreciation in some quarters in China.
The member of parliament (MP) in question had come under question in the parliament, largely from the opposition Labor Party, which wanted her to explain why she had not declared, as required, her membership in some of the front organizations of the Chinese Communist Party.
In defense of his party’s MP, Morrison attacked the implied racism in this inquiry, which questioned the patriotism of 1.2 million Australians of Chinese descent.
It is easy to see why it would have been well received in the relevant quarters in China, after all the scandals in the media of foreign (mainly Chinese) interference in Australia.
However, any positive impact from this in Australia’s tense relationship with China was negated by Morrison’s statement — made during his US visit — that was supportive of the US position in the ongoing US-China trade dispute.
Morrison reportedly said that China was no longer a developing country and hence not entitled to special treatment, like preferential tariff and related concessions.
He seemingly supported US President Donald Trump’s position that only a “sustainable outcome” was worth signing between the US and China. Morrison said: “It’s got to be a durable outcome; it’s going to deal with the real issues that are there in their relationship [apparently the entire gamut of it].”
He added: “And I’m quite confident that’s what President [Trump] is seeking to achieve.”
He also reportedly said that Australia would push for strict rules to protect intellectual property, technology transfer or how foreign investment operates.
These are precisely the issues that the US is pushing for in a new trade deal with China. As Trump reportedly said, “The second-largest economy in the world should not be permitted to declare itself ‘a developing country’ in order to game the system at others’ expense.”
Not surprisingly, Beijing is not happy, to put it mildly. This sentiment is best captured in East China University Australia Studies Director Chen Hong’s (陳弘) statement that Australia had played a “pioneering role in an anti-China campaign.”
He added that Australia-China relations had entered a freeze “which in Chinese means a very cold period.”
The question is: Who should take the initiative to unfreeze the relationship?
From China’s viewpoint, it is Australia that started it all with media reports over increasing Chinese interference in Australian political affairs and the follow up legislation to deal with it.
With Australia’s ban on Huawei from participating in Australia’s 5G network for reasons of national security, the relationship became even more tense.
Now, with Morrison questioning the ‘developing nation’ characterization of China with preferential treatment in trade terms, Beijing apparently is not taking it kindly.
Against this backdrop, China might think that Australia would need to do some soul-searching and take the initiative to mend the relationship.
As Chen said, “I think the responsibility [to unfreeze] is totally on the Australian side. China always promotes friendship.”
One way, of course, would be to invite Morrison to visit China to discuss the state of relations between the two countries.
However, China is playing hard to get because, in its view, it is Australia that is responsible for the dive in Australia-China relations.
According to Wang Yiwei (王義桅), a professor at Renmin University in Beijing, an invitation for Morrison to visit China remained out of the question without Australia offering to compromise on Huawei and other issues. In his view, “The thing about any political visit is to do something. Solve the problem first and then visit.”
In other words, Australia would need to follow China’s script for relations to improve.
This was the broad message conveyed by China’s foreign minister Wang Yi (王毅) to his Australian counterpart Marise Payne in a meeting at the UN.
Expressing China’s concerns in a formal meeting, he urged Australia for a “constructive” approach in handling sensitive disputes, apparently referring to the entire gamut of issues from the ban on Huawei to Morrison’s remarks on trade issues.
Morrison has sought to fend off criticism on remarks about China. He said: “The United States is our great ally, China is our comprehensive strategic partner.”
He added, “We continue to maintain that this isn’t a matter of choosing, it is a matter of working closely with both nations in the spirit of both of these histories and those relationships … I reject the binary narrative that keeps being thrust towards me on this … I think it is a very narrow-cast analysis.”
Beijing, though, is unlikely to be impressed by this. Hence, the China-Australia relationship is likely to remain troublesome for quite some time.
Sushil Seth is a commentator based in Australia.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry