Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
The business Aussi has lost during that "freeze" is huge.
Lethe
Captain
China's campaign of economic coercion against Australia failed, as it was always going to, for the same reasons that America's many campaigns of economic coercion against Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. routinely fail.
That said, Beijing almost certainly got something from Canberra in exchange for easing restrictions. Something in the realm of international diplomatic and economic institutions seems likely. AIIB, TPP, ASEAN, etc.
Last edited:
China should have told Australia to back off the investment restrictions or Huawei restrictions but it's what it is.
Which part of China's campaign failed? Please explain what China's objectives are first before making your claim of "economic coercion".
Did it really fail? Afterall, what was even really the goal the Chinese gov had in mind when they decided to do it?
I don't think we can really say for sure, not to mention its probably quite 'complex' or was due to many reasons, with like 'a, b, c, d etc. Objectives'.
Also, we don't even know what the current Aus gov has signaled to China in private and the likes.
Lethe
Captain
I think the only hypothetical objective that could be argued to have been even partly successful is demonstrating to other small countries the costs of ending up on Beijing's shit list. And even that isn't terribly convincing as everyone can see that, despite Beijing's otherwise intense pressure on Australia, nothing happened in relation to our major export, iron ore, for the simple reason that China needs it and there is no ready substitute. And those other small nations can also see that Australia has now weathered the storm of Beijing's fury without making significant concessions.
Indeed, during the period of China's "silent treatment" of Australia, anti-China sentiments and developments have been turbocharged throughout the nation and more moderate and pro-engagement voices silenced. Just this past week we have witnessed the performative removal of Chinese manufactured cameras from government buildings. Canberra's decision to ban Huawei from Australia's telecommunications sector was undoubtedly the product of increasingly hostile attitudes toward China percolating through the Five Eyes apparatus, but there is no doubt that China's response further energised those hostile sentiments, gave them popular support, and effectively neutralised more moderate voices that might otherwise have pushed back against e.g. proposals to construct permanent basing facilities for USAF bombers to be deployed to Australia.
Signals don't mean much, for the simple reason that there's a good chance the current government will be out of power a little over two years from now. It would have to be something actionable in the near-term. I think we can safely rule out that they're going to unban Huawei, roll back deployment of USAF bombers to Australia, cancel the nuclear submarine project, or cut off relations with Taiwan.
Last edited:
Your logic is because Australia is still anti-China, therefore China's trade policies failed. How do you know without China's trade pressure Australia wouldn't be more Anti-China under scomo?
Lethe
Captain
Australia is a lot more anti-China today than it was before Canberra banned Huawei and Beijing retaliated by freezing relations and blocking various imports.
There is no mechanism for the dynamic you suggest. The Liberal party did not lose the election because some vineyard owners were unhappy with their diminished wine exports, though there is some suggestion that the Liberals' relentless anti-China rhetoric cost them some votes amongst Australians of Chinese descent.
Broadly, however, there has been very little push-back against "tough on China" politicians or policies, the only criticism comes from those who believe our anti-China measures haven't gone far enough. People who want Australia to cancel China's lease of the Port of Darwin, for example.
I suspect that Beijing has recognised for a good while now that its "silent treatment" of Australia has not worked. Hence China's new Ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, publicly signaled a readiness to turn over a new leaf when he arrived early in 2022. This overture was rejected by the previous Liberal government who refused even to meet him because it would've complicated their "tough on China" election campaign strategy. The point is not that they lost, but that they thought this kind of mindless anti-China posturing was a winning electoral strategy.
As it happened, the Liberals' "tough on China" pitch blew up in their face when the China-Solomon Islands deal came about in the middle of the election campaign, which allowed Labor to go on the offensive portraying the Liberals as presiding over "the greatest failure of Australian foreign policy since 1945". Note the nature of the disagreement here: both parties agree that China's moves in "our Pacific backyard" should be opposed, the dispute was over who is more competent to do so.
Last edited:
