May 28 2020
The current stoush between Australia and China and the ensuing trade sanctions imposed by Beijing can only get worse from now on. This is because Australia has failed to grasp the fact that its key role in mustering support for a global investigation into the origins of COVID-19 was the last straw that broke the panda’s back.
When Beijing reacted angrily by unleashing trade sanctions after WHO voted for an independent investigation, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison appeared nonplussed, describing the role Australia played in calling for the global investigation as “unremarkable.” Following the vote, an exultant Morrison went as far as to proclaim that Australia had been “vindicated” over the role it played. That, of course, was from an Australian perspective. But the Chinese saw it differently. Indeed, the optics of the call for an investigation did not bode well for Australia. And coupled with the history of Australian partisanship – a clear pattern of unquestioning alignment with US interests on global issues – it is easy to understand why the Chinese are retaliating.
The shock stemming from China imposing 80% tariffs on Australian barley imports as well as immediately suspending beef imports from four large abattoirs is all the more tragic following the terrible emasculation of the Australian economy wrought by the pandemic. So, why did the Chinese respond with such alacrity and anger in sanctioning Australia, when Canberra sees its push for the investigation as simply “unremarkable’? Or is it that the Morrison government lacks the geostrategic nous to anticipate such a reaction from the Chinese? All told, it is the Australian farmers and exporters who have become the meat in the sandwich, concussed by a triple-whammy: a merciless drought, a raging pandemic, and ruinous trade sanctions.
On the surface, Australia’s call - and the first too - for the global investigation into the pandemic’s origins is beyond question: it is indubitably legitimate and reasonable. After all, the whole world needs to know how COVID-19 originated in order to prevent such a devastation from ever blighting humanity again. Mr Morrison declared that his government, in calling for the investigation, was actuated by nothing more than the principles and values that defined the nation, and therefore would not buckle to China’s economic coercion.
But in the eyes of China, there is something more sinister to Australia leading the charge and galvanising the rest of the world to back the probe. The rhetoric from Beijing following WHO’s resolution could not be more blunt: that Canberra is working in concert with Washington to muster support for the investigation. China’ suspicions were further aroused when Australia’s solo call for an international inquiry into the pandemic followed Mr Morrison and US President Donald Trump talking to each other in April. Otherwise, why would China lash out at Australia, calling it a “puppet of the US” immediately following the unanimous WHO vote? The “puppet” jibe simply implies that Australia is taking instructions from the US in prosecuting the campaign.
As perceived by the Chinese, Australia’s pivotal role in the WHO vote was far from independent and neutral. It confirms incontrovertibly as far as Beijing is concerned that Australia is merely an echo chamber for Washington and a loyal sidekick to boot. To put it unkindly, a stalking horse for the US in its geopolitical manoeuvrings. It is this optics that seems to have eluded Australian leaders. Therefore, Beijing does not quite see Australia as an honest broker in global matters, but rather has subsumed its national interests to further that of the United States’. Hence, the derogatory “puppet” epithet.
Unsurprisingly, China’s fury with Australia this time round is the culmination of years of Australia’s perceived outright alignment with the US on the global stage. In 1999, Prime Minister John Howard, of his own volition, went so far as to describe Australia as deputy sheriff to the US in the region, an arrogation that only served to confirm Australian-US ties. A further demonstration of this deep ties came in 2003 when the US, Britain and Australia invaded Iraq on the assumption that Saddam Hussein had amassed weapons of mass destruction that threatened Western interests. In rallying support for the invasion, then US President George W Bush declared: “You’re either with us or against us (in invading Iraq).” Despite Mr Bush’s bullying tactics, Canada as well as France and Germany refused to participate in the US-led invasion, but no so Australia with Prime Minister John Howard citing “national interests” as the reason. Well, the world knows better today: the WMD pretext was nothing more than an egregious trumped-up charge. The consequences of that invasion have not only changed the political landscape of that part of the world, but have made the region inherently unstable.
As part of Washington’s pivot to Asia under President Obama, 2,000 US troops are currently stationed in northern Australia on a rotational basis. This obviously is read by Beijing as part of a US strategy, with the aid of Australia, to circumscribe China. Not just the optics, but also the many tangible forms of cooperation which Beijing sees as the unmistakable intertwining of US and Australian interests and policies. This also sees the Australian navy joining the US in patrols and exercises in the South China Sea to protect maritime routes and ensure freedom of navigation although Beijing sees them as a challenge to its territorial claims. Furthermore, Australia, citing security reasons, was the first country in the world to impose a blanket ban on Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei taking part in its 5G network. The reason given was that Huawei is a de facto arm of the Chinese government. Here again, Beijing suspects Australia of doing the bidding of Washington. The US and several EU countries have since also enforced the ban. However, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson proved his mettle by allowing Huawei partial involvement in its 5G rollout despite intense US pressure just as Britain asserted its independence by refusing to be sucked into the Vietnam War. But Australia has never broken ranks with the US on any global issue in recent memory, thus living up to its reputation as its deputy sheriff. Yet another indication of Australia being in sync with the US came in the wake of President Trump’s 2019 speech at the United Nations railing against globalism. A week later Australian Prime Minister Morrison in a London speech warned that nations must avoid “negative globalism.” The coincidence was simply too uncanny. The optics, once again, shows that Australia and the US are simply simpatico.
Following the outbreak of COVID-19, a series of events also coalesced to foster the impression that Australia’s push for the global investigation into the pandemic was at Washington’s behest. As the US presidential election nears, President Trump is seeking a second term in November and was counting on the country’s buoyant economy to get him across the line. However, his cavalier response to tackling the pandemic in the early days and the consequent economic toll have eroded much of his political stock. In his trademark style of blaming and lashing out at everyone, President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have been ramping up their attacks ad infinitum on China for exporting the pandemic to the US and the world. Trying every trick in the book to discredit China, they went as far as to claim that they have sighted strong “evidence” that COVID-19 originated in a biosecurity laboratory in Wuhan although this was discounted by US intelligence agencies and scientists.
Amid President Trump’s machinations of invoking the Chinese bogey as a diversionary tactic and in deflecting blame on his inept handling of the pandemic, Australia is of course seen as doing the bidding of Washington in campaigning hard for the global investigation. This raises a crucial question: Was Australia an unwitting cat’s paw of Washington or it actually offered itself as one? Otherwise, why the haste and zeal on Australia’s part in rallying international support for an investigation when COVID-19 is still raging, miring every country in health and economic woes? Washington may have initially called for the investigation, but it was Australia who spearheaded the campaign in rallying international support for it. Thus, Australia’s role in the WHO investigation raises questions about the independence of its actions. Even assuming Australia had truly acted on its own steam, it is the optics that aroused China’s suspicions. Therefore, the trade sanctions should not be viewed simply as a reductive tit-for-tat as described by Australia.
Though new geopolitical dynamics are in play following the end of the Cold War, Australia’s strategic orientation remains largely US-centric. Strive as it does to play a meaningful role on the world stage as a middle power, Australia suffers from a credibility deficit that militates against its playing such a role. Worse, Australian leaders past and present continue to hitch their wagon to the United States’ whose goal is to secure its own interests before all others as President Trump has so aptly spelt out pithily: America first.
Of course, in matters of geostrategic considerations, farmers and exporters must come second, but the question to ask is whether they deserve such a fate. Markets, after all, take years to nurture, and to lose them overnight in one fell swoop is a pity. The Chinese market is massive, and it will take Australian exporters many years of diversification to replace it. As Australia’s top trading partner, the bilateral trade with China, amounting to $235 billion in the last financial year, represents 26 per cent of the country’s total trade with the world. In fact, it takes the combined value of the next four key trading partners – Japan, the US, South Korea and Singapore – to roughly match that of the Chinese market. The loss of such a massive market will translate into handsome windfalls for other suppliers, no thanks to Canberra’s rather maladroit campaigning for the pandemic probe.
The adage that when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled should serve as a powerful reminder that ultimately Australia must strike out on its own to forge a new matrix of relationships in the new world order to serve its own interests, and not be seen at Washington’s beck and call. And that means, among many other things, looking after the country’s farmers and businesses, rather than hanging them out to dry. And most of all, Australia needs to refurbish its image that it is not tied to America’s apron strings if it is to be taken seriously as a credible global player in its own right.
Comments