The Truth About China
A panel of four journalists and researchers reflect on Kevin Rudd’s FODI digital conversation and Australia’s current position between the US and China. With an escalation in global tensions, supercharged by the blame-game around COVID-19, the prospects of equilibrium are threatened to be shattered.
Below is an abridged version of the conversation, ‘The Truth About China’ with Jason Yat-Sen Li, Yaqui Wang, Vicky Xiuzhong Xu and Peter Hartcher.
You can watch the full discussion here.
Peter — Yaqiu, we heard Kevin Rudd there projecting that it would be a very damaged America that emerges from this pandemic. He also said that this was an America that was going to be accelerating into its geopolitical confrontation with China. From where you sit in New York, do you see a damaged America emerging from this? Do you see a turbocharging of its confrontation with China?
Yaqiu — I think so, because, we have all seen on the news of the two sides accusing each other for bringing the virus. So I think from being in the US, this is very clear, and there were already a lot of tension. The relations are already deteriorating, and this has been exacerbated by the virus.
I think Donald Trump is using China, is blaming China in order to shift the blame on himself, so they have this theory of the Wuhan lab and all that stuff, which has been questioned, and then the rhetoric. I follow the US government’s all kinds of Twitter accounts, and it’s very clear that the rhetoric has become more and more harsh on China, so I absolutely think the deterioration of that relation will continue after the pandemic.
Peter — Kevin also foresaw a damaged China emerging from the pandemic. Vicky, how do you see that?
Vicky — Yes, I think that will absolutely be the case. I think right now what China has been trying to do is, it has largely gotten the pandemic situation under control and is trying to shake off the blame. It’s trying to claim that the virus didn’t originate from China. It’s trying to say China shouldn’t be held responsible for it, and it’s trying to shift the narrative to say that China is actually acting as a global leader during this pandemic.
It’s actually trying to take what would be a disaster, a pure disaster for China, as an opportunity to expand its influence and to exert its influence around the world, and that includes sending care packages to developing countries and also developed countries like Italy, but the results so far have been really mixed.
These soft-diplomacy, soft-power diplomacy efforts have not entirely been welcomed around the world.
There are accusations of faulty equipment. There are spats between, for example, Thailand and China over other issues that just, let’s say, didn’t paint China or the Chinese netizens and the Chinese media in a positive light. That sort of cancelled out whatever effort China has been putting to aid. And also with a damaged economy, it’s very, I would argue it’s almost impossible China would come out of this with the victory that it hopes.
Peter — Jason, the overarching picture that we saw Kevin sketch was one of a trend to global anarchy and no leadership. He called it G0. How do you see a country like Australia, Jason, navigating a world trending to anarchy, and Kevin was very confident that one of the anchors of Australian policy during this would be the alliance with the US. Do you think that’s right? Do you think that the alliance can withstand the Trump administration and what’s to come?
Jason — Good questions, Peter. I think one of the most salient things coming from Kevin’s presentation was this point about the failure of superpower leadership really. I mean, he was basically saying neither the US nor China really covered themselves in glory over this exercise. It’s kind of disappointing from the perspective of Australians. These are the superpowers. We look to the superpowers for global leadership, and it’s not quite Independence Day, it’s not quite an alien invasion coming down, but if it doesn’t take a global pandemic with hundreds of thousands of deaths to bring the world together to cooperate, one really wonders what will.
That’s the context, and what does Australia do in this context? I think that it’s often framed in terms of we need to choose. Do we choose the US or do we choose China? I don’t think that’s particularly helpful. I think if we look at this big strategic rivalry between the US and China as a major challenge, not just in terms of how we handle this pandemic, but as Kevin was alluding to, to international peace and security. These are the foundations that have kept us relatively, the world relatively free of mass armed conflict at least since the Second World War, and as this stuff unravels, it leaves us in really uncharted waters, thus G0 and anarchy. I know today’s the 75th anniversary of VE Day. It reminds us of what the objectives should be here.
To your question about the US alliance, I think this is not specifically a COVID-19 thing. I think that there were pressures around that beforehand from the erratic sort of behavior of President Trump, and I think as somebody once said, I don’t think it’s a matter of Australia stepping back or choosing to leave the alliance. I think it’s more whether the United States chooses to back away from the alliance.
Peter — Yaqiu, what’s the outlook, for human rights in China during and after this pandemic? You follow this closely. Most of us don’t. Has there been any change in Xi Jinping’s policy on domestic human rights, and what do you think the future holds?
And if I can just broaden the question out for you while you’re at it, Yaqiu, beyond human rights in China, the state of democracy. I mean, China is portraying its response to the pandemic as a demonstration of a superior model of governance, that democracy is a failing system of governance, that authoritarianism a la China is the way of the future. Do you think democracy itself will suffer in that sort of accelerating contest that Kevin Rudd has sketched for us?
Yaqiu — Human rights in China has been deteriorating for the past 10 years, I would say, around Beijing or that would be the time, and the deterioration has accelerated since Xi Jinping came to power. From this pandemic, something very clear, the censorship that is going on, the surveillance that is going on, and the harassment and detention of people who try to criticise the government that is going on, all those things have been going on before and I think they’re going to, those human rights issues are going to continue to deteriorate.
In terms of the Chinese government’s narrative of our system, our authoritarian way of doing things is superior at beating the virus, my answer to that is that, first, we don’t know actually what happened in China, what’s happening in China.
The government said that there are about 3,500 people died in Wuhan, but many people estimated by looking at how many people were cremated at funeral homes, the number could be 10 times higher. So we don’t know what actually happened because of the censorship. All the sufferings, all the bad stories we hear on the internet by the media are just a tip on the iceberg, so there are a lot of stuff we just don’t know. So I wouldn’t say the Chinese government has successfully contained the virus because there’s just so many things we don’t know, but I think what has been unfortunately successful is how the Chinese, through propaganda and censorship, a lot of people inside China actually believed because of the Communist Party’s leadership, we made very hard but necessary sacrifices. We have beaten the virus.
I’ve been talking to people in the past several weeks, just this sense of pride in the country, this sense of, we have sacrificed, we have achieved something that is, we have come out of a very sad situation victoriously. This is very, I think it’s quite shared among the population. So Kevin Rudd was saying China might come out of this not victoriously because of other issues that they’re having, but I think domestically, the Chinese Communist Party has sowed the story quite well. But I agree with Vicky that I don’t think, internationally speaking, they won after this COVID-19 thing.
Peter — Vicky, is the Scott Morrison decision to pursue an international independent inquiry into the origins and responses to the virus a fight that Australia should be picking? What are the issues that you would say are the priorities for Australia to continue its confrontations or to step up new ones with China? And what are the ones that Australia really should try to leave alone?
Vicky — I do largely agree with him that it is vital, it is determined at how we are in alliance with the United States. All have strategic competitions with China, so that is very much a reality by now. In terms of which battles we’re going to pick is we have always been trying to carefully track this so-called middle path, right? We’re trying to get, pick some battles and leave some and get some economic gains and compromise on some fronts, but this is where
I would love to offer a very dangerous idea, and that is the middle path for Australia in its dealing with China, and at times it’s just so far under it’s just almost. Australia does need to place its ethics and values at the forefront of its decision-making on China and move now to lessen out economic dependency on this, to be honest, rogue state. I think that is a main battle we need to pick, and this just reminds me of Malcolm Turnbull said in his book, which I read and did not pirate, that the Australian business community will never support a government that takes a harder line than China because their economic fortune are too closely tied to Chinese interests.
So any Australian leader who takes the decisive step to choose integrity over possible, possible prosperity will need to be very courageous to do that, and the truth is everyone knows deep down that this is the right thing to do, and there are several steps to lessen our economic dependency on China, but there’s one thing I will mention is that we’re very fearful of China’s coercive diplomacy tactics. They have threatened to cut down Australia’s export of wine and beef and iron and all that, but we really have to be mindful.
My think tank, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, we’ve been doing this ongoing research on coercive diplomacy of China, and we have recorded more than 200 cases of these little tricks all over the world, and it’s yet to be published, but when people read it, they will be surprised how many of these threats have actually been materialised. A lot of these are just, to be honest, bluff, and it’s key, like Mr. Rudd said, that we democracies do form this critical math in terms of economic, in terms of tariff, in terms of import/export.
We have to form this alliance to sort of like counter these coercive diplomacy tactics, and that sort of battles as well as an independent inquiry into COVID are equally important and critical, not for just for now, but for the future, because when we’re looking back 20 years, 30 years from now, we’re looking at Australia and we’re asking ourselves, did we do the right thing at the right time? Did we side with a fascist state? Did we side with an imperialist power? We’ve had so many shameful episodes in the history of this country, and we don’t need more of them.
Peter — Jason, do you think that the scenario for Australia that Vicky sketched is viable, that Australia has the political will and has the ability to step away from its heavy trade dependence on China, or do you think our sovereignty is already hostage to China’s economic interests? And the second part, I know this is a lot to pack into a one-minute answer, Jason, but how do you see the Australian Chinese community coping with these sort of pressures? Is it getting squeezed, and do we need to do more to try and protect our own citizens?
Jason — I think we can balance our economic and our sovereignty interests, bearing in mind that the strength of our economy actually goes to our sovereignty. If our economy goes completely pear-shaped and is destroyed, it doesn’t really help our national security and it doesn’t really serve our sovereignty. So our economic interest is a key part of our national sovereignty, I would argue, and we have to be smart about that and we have to be realistic about that while standing up for our values. Going to, I guess, Chinese Australians here as well, it’s a critical part of standing up for our values.
Whatever people think about the Chinese Communist Party and our relationship with China, I would urge everybody not to take that out on Chinese Australians or people of Chinese heritage who live in Australia, because if we start doing that, we start undermining the values that Vicky was talking about and the values that make Australia strong.
Peter Hartcher is a leading Australian journalist and author. He is the political editor and international editor of The Sydney Morning Herald, a visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy and a political commentator for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Sky News television.
Yaqiu Wang is a China researcher at Human Rights Watch. Her articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, The Atlantic and China Brief, and elsewhere.
Jason Yat-Sen Li is currently Chairman of investment group Vantage Asia and Managing Director of corporate advisory firm YSA. YSA specialises in complex cross-border, China-related M&A and capital raising mandates.
Vicky Xiuzhong Xu is a researcher for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s Cyber Policy Centre. Previously, she was a journalist for The New York Times Sydney Bureau, covering general news with a focus on China-Australia relations.
Supported by
