Rebuilding bridges: Albanese’s China visit marks a diplomatic turning point
Immense damage was caused by the Liberal Party to the Australia–China relationship, who were directed by their ideological interests, rather than the national interest.
The Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s recent visit to China signals the closure of one diplomatic chapter, and marks a significant turning point in the recent tumultuous relationship between Australia and its largest trading partner. The success of the trip is underscored by the stabilisation of relations, a contrast to the strains imposed by the rhetoric and actions of former Prime Minister Scott Morrison and ex-Defence Minister Peter Dutton.
The origins of the strained ties can be traced back to 2018 and the Turnbull government’s decision to ban Huawei from participating in the development of Australia’s 5G infrastructure – while that move had its justifications on security grounds, it fueled anti-China sentiments that lingered, only to be exacerbated by the accusatory stance adopted by Morrison and Dutton in 2020, who pointed fingers at China for the outbreak of COVID-19. These actions not only strained diplomatic ties but resulted in retaliatory tariffs and sanctions imposed by China on Australian exports.
However, as the dust settles from this diplomatic storm, it is evident that the Albanese government has made significant steps in repairing the damage inflicted upon Australia–China relations: many tariffs and sanctions have now been lifted, laying the groundwork for a more co-operative future.
The complexity of the Australia–China relationship is not lost in the broader context of global politics, and balancing economic interests with human rights concerns and geopolitical considerations is an intricate act that requires diplomatic skill. The repercussions of the strained relationship were not limited to the diplomatic front; the economic toll was substantial. The Morrison government’s provocative stance resulted in sanctions that cost the Australian export market approximately $20 billion annually and the lingering effects of these actions serve as a reminder that belligerent and ideologically-driven diplomacy does have tangible economic consequences.
The resolution of these trade issues was unlikely under the Coalition government: diplomatically, the Chinese government has a long memory and it wanted to inflict as much economic and political damage on the former Morrison government for its role in humiliating China on the international stage. The change of federal government in May 2022 did, however, pave the way for a recalibration of diplomatic efforts, marking a departure from the confrontational approach of the past.
Australia–China relations amid political divides and historical biases
The intricate relationship between Australia and China continues to unfold against the backdrop of complex geopolitical considerations, trade interests, and, notably, human rights concerns. While acknowledging the human rights issues in China – from Tibet and the treatment of Uighur people, to the situation in Hong Kong – the approach taken during Albanese’s visit suggests that these concerns may not take centre stage in any future dialogue, especially when considering Australia’s own human rights issues, exemplified by the failure of the Voice of Parliament referendum, which has undermined its credibility to lecture other countries about their human rights records on the international stage.
The political divide in Australia also influences the tone and tenor of engagement with China. The historical alignment between the Labor Party and China, dating back to Gough Whitlam’s landmark visit in 1972, contrasts with the more strained relationships during periods of Liberal Party governance. Labor, when in power, manages the China relationship well, while the Liberal Party struggles to shed historical biases and racist undertones, notably those rooted in Menzies-era “yellow peril” rhetoric.
The Liberal Party’s recent hostility towards China, marked by inflammatory rhetoric and accusations, raises questions about the sincerity of its engagement. The ongoing reference to “Airbus Albo” and the attempt to paint Albanese as ineffectual in solving the problems inherited from the previous government is immature rhetoric and indicative of a lack of substantive policy alternatives. The emphasis on Albanese’s travel history, juxtaposed against his predecessors – both Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison travelled more often in their first 18 months in office – serves to expose what is perceived as a double standard in the both the Liberal Party and the mainstream media.
Albanese and the foreign minister Senator Penny Wong, have shown that it is possible to be critical in international affairs, act in one’s national interest, and still maintain a diplomatic and constructive relationship. The example of former Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s actions in 1989, where he protected Chinese students living in Australia during the Tiananmen Square massacre, while maintaining positive relations with China, serves as a case in point. The underlying message is clear: effective foreign policy requires nuance, pragmatism, and an acknowledgment of the interconnectedness of national interests and global dynamics.
The media’s collective amnesia
While there have been a few media reports which have acknowledged the damage caused by the Coalition government, and the efforts to repair the Australia–China relationship initiated by the Albanese government, the broader media landscape has overlooked the role of Morrison and Dutton, deflecting responsibility from the previous government’s actions.
The media’s framing of Albanese’s trip was primarily from the perspective of the Coalition government, with the ABC stating that the Coalition has set a “high bar” of expectations regarding the China visit – but why is the opinion of the Coalition relevant? They are not the current government: and in any case, they created these problems in the Australia–China relationship. Why does the media seek their opinions, when they have no credibility on this issue?
In their quest to embarrass the Labor government, there was a collusion between Seven West Media and the ABC in framing questions to Albanese about “trust” in President Xi Jinping, in what can be best described as conflict-based “clickbait journalism”:
Mark Riley (Seven West Media): “Are you convinced that you can trust President Xi?”
Prime Minister Albanese: “I’m convinced that we’re building a relationship that’s constructive one way or we’re able to talk with each other directly. And in the discussions that I have had with him, the formal discussion, but the other discussions as well. They have been positive and respectful.
David Speers (ABC): “Just further to Mark’s question, trust. Do you trust him?
Albanese: “Well, I have, we have different political systems. But the engagement that I’ve had with China with President Xi had been positive. They had been constructive. He has never said anything to me that has not been done. And that’s a positive way that you have to start off dealing with people.”
Despite Albanese’s nuanced response – which is essential in the field of diplomacy, especially when given in the host nation – the media framed it as Albanese “falling short” of confirming trust in Xi Jinping. Of course, the media should ask questions of any international relationship Australia has in the world. But, the media doesn’t have the right to verbal a political leader when they don’t hear the words that fit into their own political agendas.
Why was it more important to frame up Albanese in negative light – and incorrectly – when they could have addressed the actions and statements of key figures such as Peter Dutton, who played a significant role in damaging the Australia–China relationship?
Why didn’t the media challenge Dutton – or Morrison – about their past statements about needing to “prepare for war” with China or their accusations regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic? If the media truly seeks conflict-based journalism, they should hold accountable those responsible for straining diplomatic relations. Making Dutton accountable for his actions would be a more substantive and responsible approach to journalism, rather than generating negative headlines for political leaders who are not aligned to the politics of these conservative journalists or their proprietors.
By avoiding the difficult questions or making political leaders accountable for their past actions – while having a preference for attacking Labor leaders and governments – journalists from the mainstream media are behaving more like propaganda outlets rather than serving as independent sources of information.
There’s no question that immense damage was caused by the Morrison and Abbott governments to the Australia–China relationship, who were directed by their ideological interests, rather than the national interest. But the media’s responses to the positive outcomes by the Albanese government in repairing this damage, and their negative portrayals of this, suggest they have no interest in arresting their downward spiral into irrelevance, or improving their levels of trust with the news-consuming audiences and the public.