As tensions between China and Australia show little sign of dissipating, there is debate over whether China is solely to blame or whether Australian diplomacy has also fallen short - and what signals it sends for the wider world order
Depending on where you fall on the spectrum of geopolitical thought, the deteriorating relationship between China and Australia is either a sign of the Asian superpower's increasingly authoritarian bent or an excessively bombastic approach by our trans-Tasman neighbours.
The tensions between the two countries, and what New Zealand should take away from them, was the subject of debate at a Parliament event hosted by non-partisan international affairs forum Diplosphere on Tuesday.
In a rare public speech on the China issue, Australian High Commissioner Patricia Forsythe said her country’s relationship with the Asian superpower had become increasingly complex as it had changed its engagement with other countries.
“We’ve always had our differences, but previously we could manage those through frank discussions ... in recent years, China has more openly challenged agreed international rules and norms in a way that concerns other states, including Australia and New Zealand.”
Forsythe said China’s trade actions against Australian exports did not meet its commitment to open trade, while it appeared to want the Australian government to compromise on key national interests - such as recent, country-agnostic security legislation - in exchange for cooperation.
“China's decision last month to suspend cooperation under the Strategic Economic Dialogue, for example, is deeply disappointing to Australia. From our perspective, difficult times call for more dialogue, not less.”
The Australian government wanted a mature relationship with China, where the interests of both sides were respected, and remained open to constructive dialogue.
However, a quick fix to the current tensions was unlikely, she said, adding: “We expect a prolonged period of uncertainty and pressure, but we will not compromise on our national security and sovereignty.”
Australia would continue to work closely with New Zealand and other like-minded partners to ensure the Indo-Pacific was an open, inclusive and resilient region with “a stable and durable strategic balance, where sovereign states can pursue their interests free from coercion”.
'A negative vicious circle'
Michael D. Swaine, director of the East Asia Programme at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said several factors contributed to a “negative vicious circle” in the US-China relationship, which had endured despite the end of the Trump administration. Those included tensions associated with a power shift within the world order and a zero-sum approach to many issues prompted by the ideological differences between each country.
Swaine said there was a growing disconnect between what one country said it wanted and what the public and elites of the other believed it was actually doing, leading to mutual distrust.
The US and China were putting deterrence, not reassurance, at the forefront of policy initiatives, and seemed resistant to engage in confidence-building measures on contentious issues such as Taiwan and the South China Sea.
While Joe Biden’s election to the presidency had led to a less inflammatory approach towards China and a greater willingness to cooperate on critical issues like climate change, it seemed to still be “working from the outside in” - trying to get allies on board with the American view, rather than engaging with the Asian superpower.
Allan Gyngell, a former Australian prime ministerial adviser and president of Canberra’s Australian Institute of International Affairs, said the post-Cold War world had suited Washington, Beijing and Canberra well, with Australian governments enjoying an alliance with “the most powerful nation on earth” as well as a strong economic relationship with a rapidly growing China.
But American discontent with the international system had led the country’s public and politicians to look inwards, while a Chinese desire to shape the world order had seen it show a growing assertiveness and blunter response to critics - Australia serving as an early recipient of its displeasure on issues like 5G and foreign interference.
But Gyngell said it was too simplistic to view China’s actions as entirely unwarranted, noting that while Australia’s policy positions were reasonable, “the diplomacy in which they’ve been wrapped” was open to criticism.
The country’s foreign interference legislation was given a specific anti-China lens by then-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, while its defensible decision to ban Chinese participation in its 5G network was undercut by its role as a “self-declared missionary” for persuading other nations to do the same.
“Despite denials from both sides, we do seem to be drawing steadily closer to a decoupled bipolar world like that in the Cold War ... I certainly have the anxiety and sense of danger of those years.”
“As a veteran over the years in the Australian intelligence community, I’m in no doubt of the importance of the Five Eyes relationship to our intelligence services - but I think its extension into some other policy areas is both ineffective and dangerous,” Gyngell added.
That did not exclude China’s “crude use of economic levers” and ‘wolf warrior’ diplomacy, but it was clear that the bilateral relationship was at its lowest point since relations were established in 1972, but it was not clear how Australia could get out of that position - or whether it wanted to.
“Despite denials from both sides, we do seem to be drawing steadily closer to a decoupled bipolar world like that in the Cold War ... I certainly have the anxiety and sense of danger of those years.”
Diplosphere founder Maty Nikkhou-O’Brien said representatives from the United States and China had been invited to participate in the discussion but declined to take part.
However, US Embassy political and economic counsellor Nicholas Snyder offered some comments in a question and answer session which followed - seemingly prompted in part by former New Zealand diplomat Terence O'Brien's remarks on American exceptionalism: "US presidents from Eisenhower onwards have asserted that America is great because America is good, but there is a legacy which tarnishes that claim.
"I would say that we are actually working with our allies and partners very closely, not to contain China, not to securitise everything, and exposing all our warts, acknowledging all our problems of racial injustice and other things," Snyder said. "So we're working very hard in the multilateral space to sort of bring a broader consensus, and we're working with our allies and partners because it's in their self-interest too."
After Snyder asked the panel whether the debate was "indulging in false choices and false equivalences", O'Brien said criticisms of the US were "driven by a feeling of disappointment that a country that has claimed so much and given so much to the world, and for which we owe gratitude, is falling so short of the ideals that they espoused in the past".
China was not the only major power that had flouted international rules when it saw fit, he said, noting the US had for decades granted itself a waiver from international trade rules for its agriculture sector.
