A senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has urged the Albanese government to drop its objective of “stabilising” relations with Beijing.
“Whenever China succeeds in elevating subjectively defined atmospherics as a basis for engagement, it undermines national-interest considerations if the other side accepts that differences should be minimised in order to establish goodwill or to maintain access,” he opined.
“Stability is, of course, a laudable aim in the abstract,” he wrote.
“However, it is becoming increasing clear that the diplomatic rhetoric of stabilisation is wearing very thin (and in fact risks being distracting or self-delusory) when the underlying reality is so at odds—namely, Beijing’s ongoing destabilising behaviour and the fundamental differences in our strategic interests and political systems.”
Mr. Graham said the PM’s earlier comments—such as regarding Chinese leader Xi Jinping as an “honest and straightforward” interlocutor and parading the communist leader’s approach of not ever saying “anything to me that he has not done”—may have been made in the spirit of relationship building but is a precursor to a “shaky foundation for a substantive relationship.”
“The most obvious weakness with ‘stabilisation’ is that it runs directly counter to China’s deliberately destabilising behaviour in the East China Sea, Taiwan Strait and South China Sea and across its land borders with India and Bhutan,” he wrote.
“This has continued unabated since Labor came to power.”
‘Stabilisation’ Doesn’t Work, Even With the Economy
“Stabilisation” is falling short of expectations even in the economy, particularly where the government’s diplomatic efforts have brought about the most tangible outcomes, Mr. Graham argued, referring to trade minister Don Farrell’s expectation that Beijing would remove all remaining trade sanctions against Australia by Christmas.“In fact, China is likely to defy Farrell’s optimism by keeping a range of trade restrictions in place,” he wrote.
“China’s efforts to coerce Australia, including through economic means, haven’t ended—they are merely likely to take on new and more pernicious forms.”
Mr. Graham, who previously worked for the British foreign office, contended that the most important revelation from China’s attempts to punish Australia economically was Australia’s “underlying resilience as a competitive exporter in a global, rules-based trading system.”
“In the final analysis, Australia’s macroeconomic stability was shown not to depend on the political health of its relationship with China,” he wrote, in reference to foreign minister Penny Wongs ‘navigate our differences wisely’ approach to the Australia-China relationship.
“As 2024 beckons, with all of its uncertainties, perhaps it’s time to quietly retire ‘stabilisation’ as a narrative that has served its limited purpose.
“A competitive, largely adversarial framing is more likely to define the future than one based on expanding cooperation.”
