As the ascension of Joe Biden as the 46th President of the United States takes centre stage, Australia-China relations seems to have taken a back seat – at least for now. After the recent two-way salvos, the guns have fallen silent – well, at least for now – while Australian exporters, hard-hit by the Chinese tariffs and other bans on Australian goods, seem quite resigned to their fate.
What is on the horizon then? Perhaps, a reading of the linguistic tea leaves could shed some light on this fraught relationship between Canberra and Beijing in the days ahead. R-words are perhaps a good place to start in divining the next twist and turn in the once cosy bilateral relationship.
The first portent, or r-word, is “regime” which is used with increasing frequency in the discourse of Australian politicians. Hitherto, the Chinese administration has always been described as a “government” which connoted legitimacy and of belonging to the comity of nations. The switch from “government” to “regime” may just be sufficiently nuanced to suggest that the die is cast for Australia-China ties at least from the Australian perspective. Curiously, who initiated this lexical swop? “Regime”, after all, is commonly accorded autocratic governments considered pariahs in the eyes of Western governments, especially when their legitimacy is questionable. Currently, the governments of Venezuela, Iran and Cuba are all regarded as regimes.
When “regime” is freighted with such connotations, the current characterising of the Chinese government as a regime is a significant omen indicating that the gulf developing between the two countries is now fast turning into a chasm in geopolitical terms. So far, the r-word has not crossed the lips of Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison. This appears to be a considered decision. To do so might signal a crossing of the Rubicon which Mr Morrison is not quite ready to chance it. After all, how do you delegitimise a government which Australia had jumped into bed with for so long with nary any qualms? Recall the glowing descriptions of Australian-Chinese ties by former Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott in November 2014 during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Australia and his address to both Houses of Parliament. Mr Abbott declared that the state visit was “a remarkable few days for the life of our country”. Later, he said: “Not only did we sign a historical trade agreement but President Xi made one of the most magnificent speeches ever heard in our parliament.” The speech, according to Mr Abbott, touched on Australia and China’s “common humanity, common dreams, common aspirations … and a better world we all wish to build.” In the light of such rousing language, the unavoidable question is, how did bilateral ties unravel so quickly?
Assuredly, the road ahead already looks decidedly rocky when Prime Minister Scott Morrison unleashed another r-word – repugnant – in response to a fabricated photograph depicting an Australian soldier allegedly slitting the throat of an Afghan boy. It was published in the Global Times, a mouthpiece of the Chinese communist government, in tandem with an article written by a mid-level “wolf warrior” Chinese Foreign Ministry official. But make no mistake. Any article, especially of this sensitive nature, must have the imprimatur of top Beijing leaders. “Repugnant”, with all its odious connotations, is as much a well-calibrated double-barrelled attack by Mr Morrison on the Chinese official as it is aimed squarely at the top echelon of the Beijing government. So far, Beijing has sagaciously not responded to the use of “repugnant”, for to do so would be to admit that the fabrication of the photograph had been sanctioned at the highest level. Small wonder Beijing responded with studied nonchalance, stating that Morrison’s rage was confected. Nevertheless, the choice of “repugnant” in describing the action of another government is yet another sign that bilateral ties have plumbed to a new low.
If history is any guide, the current fraught relationship between the two estranged countries calls for a degree of lexical circumspection by politicians from both sides. Recall another r-word, “recalcitrant”, this time used by former Prime Minister Paul Keating in 1993 to characterise his Malaysian counterpart in relation to Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s absence from the APEC meeting which Mr Keating himself had just attended. The use of the highly connotative word cost Australia billions of dollars in lost trade and opportunities. In fact, an incensed Dr Mahathir called for a comprehensive boycott of all things Australian – from trade to services to cultural exchanges. Malaysian students and tourists were also discouraged from coming to Australia. The ramifications for bilateral ties and the impact on Australia were not only enormous but Kuala Lumpur dragged out the boycott for more than 10 years ostensibly to avenge the slur on its leader.
So, which side is going to fire off the next r-word which could inflame ties to the point of no return? The tea leaves are not telling, but “rapprochement” is certainly not the word to look out for unless one of the parties executes a volte-face in the current imbroglio. However, any attempt to resile from their entrenched position appears near impossible – indeed, as unlikely as the sun rising in the west tomorrow.
Commentaires