China says relations with Australia will worsen
Michael Smith
Michael SmithChina correspondent
Sep 17, 2021 – 1.03pm
China’s state-controlled media says bilateral relations with Australia will worsen and criticised Scott Morrison’s “open invitation” for talks with President Xi Jinping after signing a new defence pact with the United States and Britain.
China Daily, a Communist Party mouthpiece, said US President Joe Biden was behaving like a “street gang boss” in the region following the formation of the AUKUS alliance, noting that Australia’s military strength was the weakest of the three allies.
Chinese media said Joe Biden was behaving more aggressively towards China than his predecessor, Donald Trump. AP
The newspaper editorial played up the significance of the Australian Prime Minister’s comments that he was open to talks with Mr Xi at any time. Mr Morrison, who has been unable to get Mr Xi on the phone for two years, made the comments in response to a journalists’ question.
“This olive branch, extended right after the forming of AUKUS and Morrison’s announcement of the acquisition of US nuclear-powered submarines and cruise missiles, cannot hide Canberra’s enthusiasm in jumping on the US bandwagon to contain China’s rise and development, which will only push its bilateral ties with China from bad to worse,” the China Daily said.
It said Mr Biden was behaving more aggressively towards China than his predecessor, Donald Trump.
“The Biden administration, for all its claims to be different from its predecessor, seems to have copied one unpleasant mannerism at least and that is how to behave in the region like a street gang boss, amplifying differences and stoking confrontation in a bid to start turf wars,” it said.
Mr Morrison rejected the Chinese criticism, pointing out Beijing was investing heavily on its own nuclear-powered submarine fleet.
“China themselves undertake investments in their own national defence in their national interests, and that’s not surprising. And I don’t know why it would be surprising that Australia and other partners would do the same,” he told 3AW.
Port of Darwin ownership
China’s rhetoric following Thursday’s announcement was not surprising. While its foreign ministry accused Australia, the US and Britain of undermining peace in the region, it has not yet signalled any retaliatory action. China, which tends to take tit-for-tat measures, is more likely to respond directly economically if Australia scraps a Chinese company’s ownership of the Port of Darwin, which is under review.
Tensions between China and the US and Australia over Taiwan are also likely to escalate after the Morrison government signalled its strongest support for Taipei since 1972.
“Both sides stated their intent to strengthen ties with Taiwan, which is a leading democracy and a critical partner for both countries. The principals emphasised their support for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations, as a member where statehood is not a prerequisite and as an observer or guest where statehood is a prerequisite for membership,” the Australia-US Ministerial Consultations or AUSMIN joint statement read.
China considers Taiwan, a self-governing island state, as part of its territory. Australia is likely to be drawn into any US conflict with China over Taiwan.
The AUKUS deal did not get widespread coverage in China’s state-controlled media, although the hawkish Global Times tabloid, which carries less weight than China Daily, ran a series of articles attacking Australia.
“Australia is making big strides in the direction of being an enemy of China. Congratulations Australia, you are becoming an “anti-China superpower,” Hu Xijin, the editor of Global Times, tweeted.
China’s criticism makes no mention of the fact that it has significantly increased its naval and military presence. As China took aim at the decision to give Australia access to nuclear-powered submarine technology, it was also picking disputes with other nations, including Germany, in the South China Sea.
Australian Defence Minister Peter Dutton and US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin at the Pentagon in Washington.
RELATED
US military ramp-up in Australia to ensure ‘match fitness’
Advertisement
Chinese President Xi Jinping wants China to join the TPP trade deal in a move likely to complicate security tensions in the region.
RELATED
Australia places demands on China’s bid to join Pacific trade bloc
China had denied a German warship, on a mission to the China Sea, entry into a harbour, a German foreign ministry spokesperson said on Wednesday.
China has been on a charm offensive in Asia this week, trying to shore up alliances with countries such as Singapore to counter Mr Biden’s efforts to gain support for a coordinated pushback against Beijing.
Japan, a key strategic US ally in the region, said the partnership would deepen trilateral cooperation and security and defence in the region. “The strengthening of security and defence cooperation between the three countries is also important for the peace and security of the Indo-Pacific region,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Katsunobu Kato told reporters.
- with Andrew Tillett
Michael Smith is the China correspondent for The Australian Financial Review. He is currently based in Sydney. Connect with Michael on Twitter. Email Michael at michael.smith@afr.com
===
Lesley McLachlan
AUKUS: ... International responses: People's Republic of China:
China's foreign affairs department spokesman Zhao Lijian said, "The US, UK and Australia are engaging in cooperation in nuclear-powered submarines that gravely undermines regional peace and stability, aggravates the arms race and hurts the international non-proliferation efforts",[57] while the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C. accused the three countries of having "Cold War mentality and ideological prejudice".[5]
The hawkish state-owned tabloid Global Times, which is known for being more aggressive than official government statements, denounced Australia and said it had "turned itself into an adversary of China".[43] warned that Australia could be targeted by China as a warning to other countries if it acted "with bravado" in alliance with the US, or by being "militarily assertive".[43] It further told Australia to avoid "provocation" else China would "certainly punish it with no mercy",[36] and concluded that "Thus, Australian troops are also most likely to be the first batch of western soldiers to waste their lives in the South China Sea".[43]; AUKUS (an acronym of the three signatory nations, pronounced /ˈɔːkəs/, AW-kəs) is a trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, announced on 15 September 2021.[1]
Under the pact, the United States and United Kingdom agree to help Australia to develop and deploy nuclear-powered submarines, adding to the Western military presence in the Pacific region.[2] Although the joint announcement by Australian prime minister Scott Morrison, British prime minister Boris Johnson and US president Joe Biden did not mention any other country by name, anonymous White House sources have alleged it is designed to counter the influence of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in the Indo-Pacific region.[3] However, Johnson later told parliament that the move was not intended to be adversarial toward China.[4]
On 17 September 2021, France which is an ally of the three countries recalled its ambassadors from Australia and the US, with French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian calling the deal a "stab in the back"[5]. Indeed, from the French point of view, military partnerships in the region are part of its territorial security because of its many territories and citizens in the Indo-Pacific region and the prospect of future geopolitical tensions that could affect them.[6][7][8][9][10] AUKUS (From which France is excluded) weakens the French position because it led to the cancellation by Australia of a French–Australian submarine deal worth €56 billion (A$90 billion).[11][12]
The agreement covers key areas such as artificial intelligence, cyber warfare, underwater capabilities, and long-range strike capabilities. It also includes a nuclear component, possibly limited to the United States and the United Kingdom, on nuclear defence infrastructure.[1] The agreement will focus on military capability, separating it from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance that also includes New Zealand and Canada.[13] ... /// Zhao Lijian: Zhao Lijian (Chinese: 赵立坚; pinyin: Zhào Lìjiān; born 10 November 1972) is a Chinese politician and the deputy director of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Information Department. He is the 31st spokesperson since the position was established in 1983.[2] He joined the foreign service in 1996, and has served primarily in Asia. Zhao became notable during his time serving in Pakistan for his outspoken use of Twitter,[3][4] a social network website that is blocked within China. He has been identified as a prominent leader of the new generation of "China's 'Wolf Warrior' Diplomats." ... ; Zhao has been deputy director of Foreign Ministry Information Department of the People's Republic of China since August 2019. ...
/// Aukus submarines banned from New Zealand as pact exposes divide with western allies
Experts say Aukus military deal underlines Australia’s increasingly close alignment with the US on China – and New Zealand’s relative distance ... ; “This is driven overwhelmingly by concerns about China,” Capie said. “Notwithstanding the fact that China is not mentioned in the statements, it’s all about China.”
And as Australia has adopted increasingly hawkish rhetoric on Beijing, New Zealand’s milder positioning has sometimes raised eyebrows across the Tasman and in the UK. ... (guardian) ...
/// Why is southeast Asia so concerned about AUKUS and Australia’s plans for nuclear submarines?
September 20, 2021 .. ; While in public, most southeast Asian governments have expressed uneasiness with AUKUS, there is a school of thought that says the more hawkish voices in the region will probably accept the agreement in the long term, as it will help keep China’s aggression in check.
For those in the “hawk” camp, the number one long-term threat to regional security is China. Many think the strategic balance of power has been tilting too much in Beijing’s favour in the past decade, especially after China started rushing to build military bases in the South China Sea and using its navy to protect Chinese fishing vessels in disputed waters.
So, they believe any moves to remind China it does not have a carte blanche to do what it wants in Southeast Asia is a good thing.
Japan and South Korea are clearly in this camp and their muted reaction to AUKUS suggests they are in favour of a “re-balancing” in the region. Taiwan and Vietnam are probably on this side, as well.
The only downside is that Australia may use its nuclear-powered submarines to bully ASEAN countries. If Canberra uses its nuclear submarines as a bargaining chip, it will simply turn public opinion in the region against Australia. (the conversation)
/// Geoffrey Miller: New Zealand could be the big winner of Aukus fallout: ... If Australia is punished and the EU seeks to reward the countries that have not blotted their copybooks, Indonesia and New Zealand could turn out to be major beneficiaries.
Jacinda Ardern's very good working relationship with Emmanuel Macron - cemented by the pair's co-chairing of the Christchurch Call - will not hurt either.
But trade is just the start.
Aukus has effectively formalised a new hierarchy when it comes to countries' views of China. Essentially, a new 'premier league' of hawks has been created.
For now, this consists of the Aukus members - Australia, the UK and the US - but in time, both India and Japan may align themselves with Aukus - even if more informally.
Both countries are already members of the reinvigorated 'Quad' grouping that also includes both the US and Australia.
The Quad will hold its first face-to-face leaders' meeting in Washington on Friday.
Below the hawks, a second division includes the EU, Canada and New Zealand, as well as potentially some Southeast Asian countries.
This grouping is not oblivious to the challenges presented by China, but generally prefers to take a less confrontational approach.
Its preferred modus operandi emphasises partnerships, engagement and dialogue (including behind the scenes) - combined with a more limited show of force when needed.
Formalising and developing these methods is essentially what the EU's new Indo-Pacific strategy is all about.
By design, Aukus is and will remain a very exclusive club.
The constant pressure put on New Zealand over the past year to sign up to the US position on China may start to diminish as a result.
Instead, New Zealand can start to work more closely with the more like-minded countries that are more closely aligned with its views.
In the EU, Germany will also play a major role. ... (rnz) ...
· Reply · 10 h
Lesley McLachlan
Anthony Rockel thank you for interest. Alfred W Croucher Gerry Groot Sejin Pak may have an interest in this topic. ...
/// Australia–China relations: Foreign relations exist between Australia and China.
The first Chinese consulate in Australia was established in 1909, and diplomatic relations were established in 1941. Australia continued to recognise the Republic of China (ROC) government after it lost the Chinese Civil War and retreated to Taiwan in 1949, but switched recognition to the People's Republic of China (PRC) on 21 December 1972. The relationship between China and Australia has grown considerably over the years. Both countries are actively engaged economically, culturally and politically which spans numerous organisations such as APEC, East Asia Summit and the G20. China is Australia's largest trading partner, and has invested in Australian mining companies.
Relations between the two countries began to deteriorate in 2018 due to growing concerns of Chinese political influence in various sectors of Australian society including the Government, universities and media as well as China's stance on the South China Sea dispute.[1][2] The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated issues and tensions between the countries, especially after Australia called for an international, independent inquiry into the origins of the disease.[3][4] The subsequent changes that China made to its trade policies have been interpreted as political retaliation and economic coercion against Australia.[5][6][7][8]
Contents
1 History
1.1 Qing dynasty China
1.2 Republic of China
1.3 People's Republic of China
1.4 Hong Kong
1.5 Taiwan
2 Cultural relations
3 Education relations
4 Economic relations
4.1 Before 1912
4.2 1912 to 1972
4.3 1972 to 2020
4.4 Since 2020
5 Political relations
5.1 Howard Government
5.2 Rudd Government
5.3 Gillard Government
5.4 Abbott Government
5.5 Turnbull Government
5.6 Morrison Government
5.6.1 Concerns for human rights in Hong Kong and Xinjiang
5.6.2 Call for independent inquiry on COVID-19
5.6.3 China's demands to Australia
5.6.4 Zhao Lijian incident
5.6.5 Chinese Navy
6 Diplomatic offices
7 See also
8 References
9 Further reading
10 External links ...
/// Next Australian federal election: The next Australian federal election will be held on or before 21 May 2022 to elect members of the 47th Parliament of Australia.
All 151 seats in the lower house, the House of Representatives, and 40 or 76 (depending on whether a double dissolution is called) of the 76 seats in the upper house, the Senate, will be up for election.
The incumbent Liberal/National coalition government, currently led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, will be seeking a fourth three-year term. The Labor opposition is currently led by Anthony Albanese. Several other parties will also contest the election; the Greens being the third-largest party by vote. ...
/// Two-level game theory: Two-level game theory is a political model of international conflict resolution between states derived from game theory and originally introduced in 1988 by Robert Putnam.[1]
Putnam had been involved in research around the G7 summits between 1976 and 1979. However at the fourth summit, held in Bonn in 1978, he observed a qualitative shift in how the negotiations worked.
The model views international negotiations between states as consisting of simultaneous negotiations at both the intranational level (i.e. domestic) and the international level (i.e. between governments).[2] Over domestic negotiations, the chief negotiator absorbs the concern of societal actors and builds coalitions with them; at the international level, the chief negotiator seeks an agreement that is amongst the possible "wins" in his state's "win-set". Win-sets are the possible outcomes that are likely to be accepted by the domestic interest groups who either must ratify the agreement or provide some other form of government backing.[citation needed] International agreements occur when there is an overlap between the win-sets of the states involved in the international negotiations.[3] ... /// Balance of threat: The balance of threat (BoT) theory was proposed by Stephen M. Walt first in his article Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power,[1] published in the journal International Security in 1985. It was later further elaborated in his book The Origins of Alliances (1987). The balance of threat theory modified the popular balance of power theory in the neorealist school of international relations.
According to the balance of threat theory, the alliance behavior of states is determined by the threat that they perceive from other states. Walt contends that states generally balance by allying against a perceived threat, but very weak states are more likely to bandwagon with the rising threat to protect their own security. He points to the example of the alliance patterns of European states before and during World War I and World War II, when nations with a significantly-greater combined power allied against the recognized threat of German expansionism.
Walt identifies four criteria states use to evaluate the threat posed by another state: its aggregate strength or power (size, population, latent power, and economic capabilities), its geographic proximity, its offensive capabilities, and its offensive or hostile intentions.
Walt argues that the more that other states view an emerging power as possessing those qualities, the more likely they are to view it as a threat and balance against it.
/// Century of humiliation: The century of humiliation, also known as the hundred years of national humiliation, is the term used in China to describe the period of intervention and subjugation of the Qing dynasty and the Republic of China by Western powers and Japan from 1839 to 1949.[1] ... ; End of humiliation:
Extraterritorial jurisdiction and other privileges were abandoned by the United Kingdom and abandoned by the United States in 1943. During World War II, Vichy France retained control over French concessions in China but was coerced into handing them over to the collaborationist Wang Jingwei regime. The postwar Sino-French Accord of February 1946 affirmed Chinese sovereignty over the concessions.
Both Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong declared the end of the Century of Humiliation in the aftermath of World War II, with Chiang promoting his wartime resistance to Japanese rule and China's place among the Big Four in the victorious Allies in 1945, and Mao declared it with the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949.
Chinese politicians and writers,[who?] however, have continued to portray later events as the true end of humiliation. Its end was declared in the repulsion of UN forces during the Korean War, the 1997 reunification with Hong Kong, the 1999 reunification with Macau, and even the hosting of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. Others[who?] claim that humiliation will not end until the People's Republic of China controls Taiwan.[7]
In 2021, coinciding with the United States–China talks in Alaska, the Chinese government began referring to the period as 120 years of humiliation, which may be a reference to the 1901 Boxer Protocol in which the Qing Dynasty was forced to pay large reparation to members of the Eight-Nation Alliance.[8] ...
No comments:
Post a Comment