Lethe
Captain
I haven't posted much about Australia-China developments in the AUKUS thread recently as it didn't seem that folks were interested. Yet here we are. Confusionism is correct that Peter Dutton's description of the PLAN surveillance ship's activities as "an act of aggression" is simply political posturing by the Liberal party on the eve of the election (21st May).
The Liberals have chosen to make Australia-China relations, or more crudely the "China threat", a topic of the election. The Liberals claim that China "wants a Labor government" and that only the Liberals can be trusted to be "strong" against China. This is straight from every nation's conservative/nationalist playbook. Unfortunately for the Liberals, their credentials on this subject have been called into question following the signing of the security/logistics agreement between China and Solomon Islands in the middle of the election campaign. The opposition Labor party has since been on the attack claiming that the Liberals have presided over "the worst foreign policy failure in the Pacific since 1945", while also raising what they allege to be the Liberals' strategic incompetence in allowing a Chinese company to secure a 99-year lease on the Port of Darwin. TL;DR: the Liberals started this political shitfight and have since been losing it. That is the context to understand Defence Minister Peter Dutton's recent desperate statement about China's "act of aggression". I have written about Dutton previously and would encourage those interested to read those posts.
I agree that the timing of this surveillance activity is unhelpful, though perhaps for a different reason. It has been widely pointed out that Dutton's statement is inconsistent with Australia's previous public positions on similar matters (i.e. Chinese surveillance assets operating within Australia's EEZ) and the Prime Minister also declined to echo Dutton's specific language. As tphuang points out, Dutton's words are actually a great gift to Beijing which objects to similar operations conducted by USN in its waters, most famously with the USNS Impeccable off Hainan Island in 2014.
The reason I say the event is unhelpful is because of the aforementioned political narratives. Where the Coalition has been beating its chest about being "strong" on China, and portraying the Labor opposition as "weak" on China, such public posturing and messaging makes it more difficult for governments in future to pursue more productive relations. Particularly in the case of a future Labor government, such a government would be wary of being seen to be "weak" on China (because all the Murdoch-aligned right-wing press would crucify them for it). There has been some indication in recent months that Beijing has been seeking to reopen dialogue channels with Canberra. These overtures have been by a Liberal government in election/survival mode. These "China threat" dynamics do not serve Beijing's interests and actions that reinforce them are therefore unhelpful. The surveillance activity would appear to fall into this category. The Solomon Islands would not as the gains for Beijing there likely greatly outweigh any costs.
The Liberals have chosen to make Australia-China relations, or more crudely the "China threat", a topic of the election. The Liberals claim that China "wants a Labor government" and that only the Liberals can be trusted to be "strong" against China. This is straight from every nation's conservative/nationalist playbook. Unfortunately for the Liberals, their credentials on this subject have been called into question following the signing of the security/logistics agreement between China and Solomon Islands in the middle of the election campaign. The opposition Labor party has since been on the attack claiming that the Liberals have presided over "the worst foreign policy failure in the Pacific since 1945", while also raising what they allege to be the Liberals' strategic incompetence in allowing a Chinese company to secure a 99-year lease on the Port of Darwin. TL;DR: the Liberals started this political shitfight and have since been losing it. That is the context to understand Defence Minister Peter Dutton's recent desperate statement about China's "act of aggression". I have written about Dutton previously and would encourage those interested to read those posts.
I agree that the timing of this surveillance activity is unhelpful, though perhaps for a different reason. It has been widely pointed out that Dutton's statement is inconsistent with Australia's previous public positions on similar matters (i.e. Chinese surveillance assets operating within Australia's EEZ) and the Prime Minister also declined to echo Dutton's specific language. As tphuang points out, Dutton's words are actually a great gift to Beijing which objects to similar operations conducted by USN in its waters, most famously with the USNS Impeccable off Hainan Island in 2014.
The reason I say the event is unhelpful is because of the aforementioned political narratives. Where the Coalition has been beating its chest about being "strong" on China, and portraying the Labor opposition as "weak" on China, such public posturing and messaging makes it more difficult for governments in future to pursue more productive relations. Particularly in the case of a future Labor government, such a government would be wary of being seen to be "weak" on China (because all the Murdoch-aligned right-wing press would crucify them for it). There has been some indication in recent months that Beijing has been seeking to reopen dialogue channels with Canberra. These overtures have been by a Liberal government in election/survival mode. These "China threat" dynamics do not serve Beijing's interests and actions that reinforce them are therefore unhelpful. The surveillance activity would appear to fall into this category. The Solomon Islands would not as the gains for Beijing there likely greatly outweigh any costs.
Last edited:
