Australia resilient despite China’s reprisals

Late last month (in October), Australia’s World Trade Organisation (WTO) representative came out strongly against China for the latter’s imposing restrictions against Australian goods in what seemed like political retaliation for Australia’s volition on issues relating to the Asia-Pacific.

Australia’s representative to the WTO, George Mina, said China had “increasingly tested global trade rules” with its actions and that Australia was one of “numerous WTO members” who had faced disruptive measures from the Chinese government.

Mr Mina said that China’s modus operandi included “arbitrary border inspections”, “unwarranted delays” on import licences and “the imposition of unjustified anti-dumping and countervailing duties” which had “severely limited or ended” trade across more than a dozen Australian commodities.

Mr Mina explicitly said that China was retaliating in response to political disputes and that China’s actions were motivated by political considerations. He quoted Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian, who, earlier this year, said that Australia could not reap the benefits of trading with the East Asian superpower while “groundlessly accusing and smearing China.”

“By undermining agreed trade rules China also undermines the multilateral trading system on which all WTO members rely,” Mr Mina said.

Apart from Australia’s excoriation for China’s intransigence, the latter came in for much criticism from other major WTO members like Canada, Japan and the European Union. The United States also said China had not delivered on its promise to the WTO to liberalise its economy, in preference for the imperatives of its state-led economic model.

China is Australia’s largest export market for goods and services, and accounts for almost a third of Australia’s exports

In December 2015, Australia and China entered into the China–Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA), which promised to be a boon for Australian exports, but political relations between Australia and China have deteriorated since, and trade between the two has taken a consequent hit.

China regards any pressure over political and economic reform or over issues such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang or Tibet as incursions into Chinese sovereignty. China’s new-found global might has caused it to believe in its imperiousness, and it expects nothing short of deference from trading and political partners. Australia has reiterated its global policy in favour of its traditional ally, the US, in recent times, and has been increasingly upping the ante through its Chinese rhetoric much to the annoyance of China.

Australia-China relations have for most part been fraught with geo-strategic differences. In the eighties, under Bob Hawle’s prime ministership, Australia’s dealings with China began to move away from a preoccupation with global strategic issues and to concentrate on regional issues and bilateral economic links.

Under the Hawke Government, China developed into a major trading partner for Australia, and development assistance, technical cooperation and industrial investment was expanded. In political terms, the ‘special relationship’ which Prime Minister Hawke considered had developed between Australia and China came to an abrupt end, however, with the violent suppression of the pro-democracy movement in Beijing in June 1989.. However, trade and investment between the two countries were unaffected in the aftermath, and the Australian Government emphasised that Australia remained committed to a long-term cooperative relationship with China.

However, recently, China’s belligerence in the Indo-Pacific region, its unjustified claims on the East and South China seas, its crackdown on dissent in Hong Kong, its human rights abuses in Xinjiang ,and its increasing aggressiveness towards Taiwan has prompted Australia to be more vocal in disapproval. To top it, Australia’s early public calls for an international investigation into the Covid-19 origins triggered much Chinese outrage.

The fallout has been China’s crackdown on Australia’s exports to that country. Over the past year- and-a-half, Beijing has rolled out tariffs and other trade actions against Australian export sectors including barley, wine, seafood and coal. China blames Australia for the breakdown in relations, while Australia has accused China of political motivations behind the trade cuts.

Recently, Australia’s signing of the AUKUS deal with the US and UK had further exacerbated problems. AUKUS is a new three-way strategic defence alliance between Australia, the UK and US, initially to build a class of nuclear-propelled submarines, but also to work together in the Indo-Pacific region, where the rise of China is seen as an increasing threat, and develop wider technologies. The deal marks the first time the US has shared nuclear propulsion technology with an ally apart from the UK.

In response, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said the three countries forming AUKUS were in the grip of an “obsolete cold war zero sum mentality and narrow-minded geopolitical concepts” and should “respect regional people’s aspiration […] otherwise they will only end up hurting their own interests”.

China also questioned Australia’s commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, while the state-run Global Times said: “Australian troops are also most likely to be the first batch of western soldiers to waste their lives in the South China Sea.”

China’s increasing intimidation of Taiwan, over the past two months, and the hints in Australian media that Australia would ally with the US in any confrontation in the Taiwan Straits, prompted a Global Times editorial to suggest that China make a plan to impose retaliatory punishment against Australia in the cross-straits situation, including “long-range strikes on military facilities and relevant key facilities on Australian soil.”

It also stated that if Australia “are bold enough to co-ordinate with the US to militarily interfere in the Taiwan question…they should know what disasters they would cause to their country.”

China sees democratic Taiwan as a breakaway province, but Taiwan sees itself as a sovereign state, with its own constitution, military, and elected leaders.

Australia can be wary of China, but must not fear its intimidation and bullying. The moot point is whether Australia should sacrifice its independent character and be sheepish in avoiding China’s indefensible reprisal. That Australia is, in deed, right in its assertiveness, against a belligerent China, there should be no question about. And Australia’s imperative to arm itself through AUKUS against a wilful China, that has sea-grabbed the South China Sea and is busy threatening Taipei, is justified. Australia’s intrepidity in participating in AUKUS and its refusal to conveniently extricate itself for economic benefits, therefore, is laudable.

Australia has proved to be resilient despite China’s indefensible reprisals. Over the past year-and-a-half, while exports to China have fallen by $5.4 billion as a result of the targeted trade actions, Australia’s exports to the rest of the world have risen by $4.4 billion. This should serve as a notice to a country that seeks to tyrannise vulnerable countries by its sheer economic and political might. Around 130 countries of the world have China as their largest trading partner. No doubt, China’s agenda is to be the apex nation of the world in the future, but it must be the prerogative of like-minded nations to preclude those aspirations, if China’s strategy is to achieve its goals by bullying, terrorising and intimidation.