HMAS Toowoomba incident reignites tensions in Australia–China relations
The relationship with China is crucial, with implications for Australia’s standing and global perceptions of its alliances and intentions.
Last week, an incident involving the HMAS Toowoomba in the East China Sea has once again pushed Australia’s relationship with China into the spotlight. While the exact details of the incident remain unclear, enough information has surfaced to fuel anti-China sentiments and provide the Liberal Party with an opportunity to ramp up national security concerns and play the race card, yet again. This episode has become another chapter in the ongoing saga of Australia–China relations, playing out against the backdrop of the diplomatic repair work led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Senator Penny Wong.
Over the past 18 months, Senator Wong has been worked to mend ties with China, aimed at reversing the fallout from accusations made by former Prime Minister Scott Morrison and former Home Affairs Minister, Peter Dutton, where they accused China of causing the COVID virus which, in turn, prompted hefty trade sanctions imposed against Australian exporters. Senator Wong’s efforts have been primarily focused on repairing this rift, striving to restore normalcy to economic relations between the two nations.
However, the familiar divide along party lines persists—the Labor Party historically has fostered a co-operative relationship with China, while the Liberal Party remains suspicious, engages in xenophobia and seizes every opportunity to challenge the Labor government on matters of national security. It’s a predictable and hostile pattern that suggests that the political tactics employed by the Liberal Party is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
The rhetoric from leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton, is aimed at taking Australia back to a bygone era of the 1950s, when language used to discuss China at the time was based on racist tropes and contained an endless threat of communism during the Cold War era, and Dutton seems to have a desire to return to an era when ideological lines were more clearly drawn.
This regressive stance becomes even more perplexing against the backdrop of recent diplomatic achievements: there have been great efforts to normalise relations with China, after the many issues caused by the Coalition during their latter time in office between the years of 2017–22, but it’s evident that Dutton wants to portray himself as the “can-do guy”, who can stand up to a superpower, irrespective of the domestic problems it may cause.
There is a disconnect in how the Liberal Party approaches its international relationships—seemingly overlooking the diplomatic issues Australia has with the United States and promoting a sycophantic stance, while adopting a confrontational stance toward China, despite the significant economic consequences and disruption to trade relationships.
There are still many questions about the HMAS Toowoomba’s presence do close to the China border and while it is presumed to have been there legally and validly under UN authority, doubts linger, underscoring the delicate nature of Australia’s military posture in the region. The careful navigation of these geopolitical waters is crucial, with implications not only for Australia’s standing but for global perceptions of its alliances and intentions.
Selective reporting and media sensationalism
When incidents involving Australian vessels and the Chinese navy usually occur, the narrative often becomes muddled in the fog of limited information and the details are intentionally vague, leaving the public to infer the severity of the situation solely based on the involvement of China. It’s a recurring theme that perpetuates the notion of China as a looming threat, a narrative that conveniently serves the political interests of conservative forces in Australia.
In the case of the recent HMAS Toowoomba incident, the initial reports portrayed the Australian warship as innocently cruising off the coast of Japan. However, the reality was more complex—the vessel was actually right on the edge of Chinese territory in the East China Sea, participating in a UN mission to monitor the trade embargo against North Korea. However, the proximity to Chinese territory raises questions about the intent behind the ship’s presence, prompting speculation and demands for clarification.
And of course, the Chinese ship was described in the media as a “warship”, while the HMAS Toowoomba was reported more innocuously as an Anzac-class frigate, whereas, in reality, both are classified as warships and are remarkably similar in design. This discrepancy in reporting illustrates the power of framing in shaping public perceptions, creating a narrative that doesn’t align with the facts.
This selective reporting is not unique to the HMAS Toowoomba incident. In early 2022, when a Chinese vessel allegedly shone a military laser at an Australian vessel in the Arafura Sea, once again, details were sketchy and vague, yet the incident was ramped up with deliberate ambiguity, and heightened in national security concerns for the public in Australia. The media narrative tends to paint China as the aggressive antagonist, bullying Australia, the supposed naïve and innocent party, always “doing the right thing”.
However, beneath the sensationalism lies a more nuanced reality. Naval interactions, like the shining of a military laser, can be interpreted as strategic messaging rather than outright aggression. These actions serve as a form of communication, signaling awareness and a readiness to respond if situations were to escalate. Quite often, it’s a diplomatic game conducted at sea, a game of geopolitical posturing that extends beyond the headlines.
The challenge lies in deciphering these actions within a broader context, acknowledging the complexities of international relations. Both China and Australia have diplomatic channels to navigate such complexities, but the media and the Liberal Party often prefer a narrative of a hostile China rather than a nuanced relationship with occasional disagreements. The result is an inflated perception of events, distorting their actual importance and contributing to an oversimplified and sensationalised understanding of Australia’s international relations.
Liberal Party’s opportunism and exploitation of the issue of China
The political debate surrounding this East China Sea incident has become increasingly convoluted, with Dutton seizing the narrative, with the mainstream media framing events through the lens of the Liberal Party, positioning the party as a “government in exile”, where every political event is interpreted from a Coalition perspective.
Deputy Liberal Party leader Sussan Ley’s criticism of the Prime Minister’s recent trip to China, accusing him of prioritising photo opportunities over discussing the naval incident with President Xi Jinping, stirred the political pot and, somehow because the lead narrative of the media, when in fact, the truth was otherwise.
“This certainly is an event that does do damage”, said Albanese, “and we’ve made that very clear: this was dangerous, it was unsafe and unprofessional from the Chinese forces. We have put our very strong objections to China very clearly, very directly to all of the appropriate channels in all of the forums that are available to us.”
Albanese also emphasised the importance of adhering to standard diplomatic practices rather than resorting to public megaphone diplomacy, a subtle jab at the previous approach taken by former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, whose actions exacerbated tensions with China, rather than relieve them.
However, the media headlines painted a different picture, emphasising a perceived lack of initiative on Albanese’s part to address the issue with Xi Jinping, narratives that were primarily driven by political point-scoring comments from the Coalition, and somehow ending up in many media outlets, including The Guardian, the ABC, and particularly the Daily Telegraph, contributing to the sensationalisation of the incident.
Home Affairs Minister Claire O’Neil also underscored the seriousness of the matter, but went on to say: “we won't play politics; we won’t say things about China to get a headline in Australian newspapers—this is a serious national security issue.”
Yet, the statements from Dutton and Shadow Minister for Defence, Andrew Hastie, revealed a contrasting perspective. Dutton labeled the incident as “propaganda”, emphasising the need to call out aggressive behaviour while balancing the importance of the relationship with China, while Hastie accused the Prime Minister of a “remarkable oversight” for not raising the issue directly with President Xi Jinping during the APEC summit.
This rhetoric aligns with a historical pattern for the Liberal Party, known for its strained relationship with China, manifested in what are, essentially, racist attacks. The belligerent tone, while resonating with the party’s base and far right politics, raises concerns about its impact on Australia’s broader interests. The perpetual narrative of fear and tension surrounding China serves the electoral interests of the Liberal Party but risks undermining the trade and more nuanced diplomatic relationships that have been carefully cultivated over the years, especially since 1972.
The AUKUS pact, which seems to be a resurgence of alliances which could be construed as the “white man’s club” of Australia, United States and Britain, further complicates the diplomatic landscape. While the world has evolved since the days of Federation, the current trajectory appears to lean toward clinging to outdated political constructs, hindering Australia from forging new, bold partnerships in a changing global landscape.
In the midst of these political dramas, the role of Dutton stands out. His staunch approach, characterised by a willingness to confront China at the expense of diplomacy, raises questions about the long-term consequences for Australia’s international relations if he were ever to become Prime Minister. As the nation navigates these complex waters, it remains to be seen whether the political rhetoric aligns with the country’s broader interests or results in a diplomatic quagmire with far-reaching repercussions for both countries.
The AUKUS pact and creating a mature relationship with China
The context surrounding the recent naval incident in the East China Sea takes on added complexity when viewed through the lens of the AUKUS pact. While China acknowledges Australia as a valuable trading partner, the geopolitical landscape is marked by competition between China and the United States: that’s where the main game is for China, and Australia is just a bit-player in this field. The AUKUS alliance introduces a new dynamic that raises suspicions in China, particularly when Australian warships venture close to areas of interest on the edge of the Chinese border.
Of course, this doesn’t excuse the actions taken by the Chinese forces, especially the potentially harmful sonar signals that were directed at Australian divers who were, ostensibly, untangling fishing nets that become entangled in the underside of the HMAS Toowoomba. However, understanding the broader geopolitical context is crucial in evaluating such incidents. Unfortunately, this context has been notably absent in the reporting surrounding the naval encounter.
One aspect largely overlooked in Western media is a speech delivered by Xi Jinping at the recent APEC Summit. In his address, the Chinese president emphasised the importance of China and the United States getting along, advocating for mutual respect, coexistence, and co-operation.
President Xi Jinping: “We, the largest developing country, and the largest developed country, the United States, we must get along with each other. China is ready to be a partner and friend of the United States. The two main fundamental principles that we follow in handling China–US relations are mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win–win cooperation. China never bets against the United States, and never interferes in its internal affairs. China has no intention to challenge the United States or to unseat it. Instead, we will be glad to see a confident, open, ever growing and prosperous United States. Likewise, United States should not bet against China, or interfere in China's internal affairs—whatever stage of development it may reach, China will never pursue hegemony or expansion and will never impose its will on others. China does not seek spheres of influence, and will not fight a Cold War or a hot war with anyone.”
While skepticism about such statements is understandable—especially in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative and construction of military bases in the Spratly Islands, it marks a departure from the adversarial rhetoric of the Cold War. The words by Xi Jinping do not echo the confrontational stance exhibited by Soviet leaders such as Presidents Khrushchev and Brezhnev during that era, especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. It is crucial to approach China with a care, but also with a recognition that the global political landscape has changed dramatically.
There needs to be a more mature and “grown-up” relationship with China and a shift away from a narrative of perpetual fear and suspicion. The desire to maintain a posture of being the “scared little child of Asia” is outdated and detrimental to Australia’s interests in the long run. Dutton and his fellow conservative interests, however, appear reluctant to embrace this shift. Their preference for maintaining a certain narrative aligns with a perspective rooted in the past, fostering an environment where Australia is perpetually on edge. This approach is not in the best interests of a nation seeking to navigate the complexities of an ever-changing global landscape.
As Australia deals with the legacy of the past nine years of Coalition government, there is a call for a more forward-thinking and mature approach to international relations. Ignoring the need for a shift in perspective risks leaving the Liberal Party stranded in a time loop, disconnected from the evolving reality of the world. It remains to be seen whether conservative political leaders can adapt to the changing dynamics of global diplomacy or if they will continue to cling to narratives that no longer serve the nation’s best interests.