How important is the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries?
The Chinese Communist Party isbig on anniversaries. It harnesses them to show its political legitimacy,burnish its legacy and establish targets for the next 10,20 or 50 year marks ahead.
China has celebrated dozens of 50th anniversaries over the past year because it was admitted to the United Nations in October 1971,allowing countries to ratify diplomatic relations over the next year. Gough Whitlam’s visit to China as opposition leader in 1971 was significant because it came a week before secret negotiations between former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai,paving the way for President Richard Nixon to normalise diplomatic relations with Beijing. Whitlam went first,generating goodwill between Australia and China for much of the next 50 years.
Australia is less enthusiastic about anniversary symbolism but would be wise to use it as a mechanism to raise the release of imprisoned Australians Cheng Lei and Yang Hengjun. China has a history of authorising prisoner releases on historical milestones.
It may need to be prepared to negotiate symbolic easing of some of its own restrictions on Chinese business investment in non-sensitive areas for example (a key irritant for Beijing,with little cost for Australia) without giving up on national security legislation or human rights positions.
When colleague David Crowe and I interviewed the Chinese ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian a few months ago,it was clear China was eyeing the 50th anniversary as an important opportunity to reset the relationship.
Loading
So much attention over recent years has been on what divides China and Australia;the anniversary offers a chance to reflect on the benefits of the relationship. As Eryk says,the anniversary is a useful pretext for Wong to get in the room with her counterpart and press Australia’s case on trade sanctions and the detained Australians.
Does this mean discussion of human rights breaches in Xinjiang or Hong Kong will be muted?
Our Sunday Political correspondent Anthony Gallowaymade a good point on this on Sunday. Wong’s tone has noticeably shifted from “values” to “interests” in recent months. In public she is increasingly framing relationships in terms of shared interests or economic goals rather than differences.
I don’t think we are likely to see any particularly strong statements on either Xinjiang or Hong Kong,mainly because the pattern has been that Wong will condemn incidents when they arise but will lower the tone during official statements from joint meetings. Australia’s overall position on both Hong Kong and Xinjiangis well known.
Sadly,the Chinese Communist Party has been so effective at brutally suppressing dissent in both areas in recent years that there is a risk that their plight becomes bogged down in diplomatic fatigue,like we have seen in Tibet. It is going to be a challenge for Wong to keep them at the top of the international agenda while continuing to have dialogue with Beijing.
Penny Wong is very hard-nosed and realistic about what Australia can and can not achieve when it comes to influencing other countries,especially one as big and powerful as China.
Loading
So far human rights groups have been disappointed by the Albanese’ government’s relatively muted approach to human rights abuses in China.
The government has not labelled the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang as a genocide or applied Magnitsky-style sanctions on Chinese officials.
Wong will certainly raise human rights issues in her meeting with Wang but she is under no illusions about Australia’s power to single-handedly change China’s approach in Xinjiang or Hong Kong.
Given China is hosting this meeting,Wong will be careful not to embarrass Wang by railing publicly against human rights violations in China. She has a set of goals to achieve - encouraging China to reduce trade barriers;the release of Cheng Lei and Yang Hengjun - and that is where she believes she can make the biggest difference.
What does it mean for our relationship with Taiwan?
The real test of the Taiwan-Australia relationship is whether Australia formally supports Taiwan’s bid to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).
Australia’s diplomatic relationship with Taiwan has been muddling along in recent months. There has been lots of rhetoric but few concrete developments under either Labor or the Coalition.
Loading
Notably,Trade Minister Don Farrell has yet to visit Australia’s seventh largest trading partner and neither has the speaker of the House of Representatives or the president of the Senate.
All three could conceivably go without triggering an escalation from Beijing. Instead,backbenchers Barnaby Joyce,Libby Coker and Meryl Swansonvisited last week and made sure to keep a low profile.
If a higher profile delegation visits,that will be a sign that Canberra believes the relationship with China is on surer footing. But it will take more than a single visit to Beijing by Wong to get to that point.
Australian governments have adopted a consistent and cautious approach on Taiwan,stressing they support the status quo.
That is to say,Australia doesn’t want Beijing to invade the self-governing island and doesn’t want Taiwan to declare independence from China. During the APEC summit last month in Thailand,Anthony Albanese was asked about Taiwan’s bid to join the CPTPP.
He said only nation states were eligible to join the pact,suggesting Australia would not support Taiwan’s bid.
This was factually wrong - economic territories such as Taiwan are eligible to join - and the Prime Minister’s Office later said Albanese had misspoken. But it was a revealing slip-up,showing how cautious Albanese was to not offend Beijing’s sensitivities over Taiwan. Australia’s focus at the moment is rebuilding a relationship with China,not deepening ties with Taiwan.
Will Australia’s relationship with China ever return to the close business and political ties we saw in 2014?
In two words:absolutely not. It now seems bizarre,given everything we know about China,that the Abbott government came so close to signing an extradition treaty with Beijing less than a decade ago.
China has changed under Xi Jinping,becoming more authoritarian at home and assertive abroad. Similarly,Australians’ views of China have changed dramatically in recent years.
In 2017 some 64 per cent of Australians had a favourable view of China,according to Pew research. That figure had plummeted to just 21 per cent by 2021. Surveys also show that most Australians now view China primarily as a security threat rather than an economic partner,a big turnaround from just a few years ago. Given this huge shift in public opinion,Australian governments will be far more wary of China. Also,more hawkish security officials and military leaders are increasingly influential in the China debate rather than businesspeople who prioritise the trading relationship.
Albanese’s oft-stated formulation on China - “Cooperate where we can,disagree where we must,and engage in our national interest” - points to a pragmatic and cautious relationship but hopefully a productive one.
The truth is there is no one in federal parliament with a deep relationship with a member of the Chinese Communist Party’s 24-member politburo,let alone the standing committee. Part of that is because of China’s own isolationsim,but part of it is also the atmosphere of distrust that has pervaded both sides since that visit by Xi in 2014.
Either way,Australia has few if any direct lines to its largest trading partners leadership outside of formal bilateral talks. Kevin Rudd is the last Australian prime minister to have any substantial networks inside the Party,so there is a trust and intelligence gap that will take years to fill. Xi also now has little need address joint sittings of foreign parliaments. In 2014 he was still building his domestic and international credibility,now he has just won a third term in office,eliminated his rivals and could remain president for life.
Loading
At the same time,China is still Australia’s largest trading partner and I think both sides may be happy to see it return to a more transactional relationship and away from some of the ideological disputes that have dominated the past few years. After four years of tension,they both recognise that their are fundamental disputes there and will not agree on many things,but there are ways they can make dialogue more efficient and continue to buy from and sell things to each other.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news,views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletterhere.