tijaco

a perspective forbidden in the mainstream media

Today, I read an article on Michael West Media, first published on Pearls and Irritations. The author, James Laurenceson, is an Australia-China relations expert and the article was incredibly well-written. It explored the dichotomy between the media narrative surrounding China’s ownership of Australia and the real facts surrounding the issue. As is relatively predictable, the difference between narrative and fact is stark.

The article was focused on George Christensen’s China Inquiry campaign, which features the Nationals MP addressing parliament warning of the undue influence that “Communist China” has in Australia. Aside from the inaccurate scare-mongering language, Christensen is plainly wrong about the level of Chinese investment in Australia. If we were concerned about foreign influence, we should be looking instead towards the United States.

“The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) finds that in 2019 China accounted for just 2% of the total foreign investment stock in Australia. The US was the standout No.1 with 26%. China lagged in ninth place, behind Belgium, Singapore, Netherlands, Luxembourg and others. Even if Hong Kong SAR is included in the Chinese total, the aggregate would still only be in fifth spot.”

The Christensen campaign is just the latest part of a sustained effort to convince the public, if they needed any more convincing, that China is our biggest threat. The narratives sustained in our oligarchic media landscape mean that there is virtually no getting away from seeing China as our enemy. At this point, it is no longer debated but rather assumed.

The diplomatic scuffle between China and Australia is covered by all mainstream media outlets as an aggressive power exerting undue influence over our politics. Being ground zero for coronavirus provided the first spark for conspiracy theories. We then had the highly manufactured narrative around Daniel Andrews’ ties with the Belt and Road Initiative, even though it had been set in motion by previous governments. The intentionally vague cybersecurity announcement in June was a thinly veiled excuse to vilify China further, and the announcement of massive defence funding boosts gives the media yet another excuse to push their story.

If we wipe away the media narrative and the inbuilt assumption that China is evil and wants to invade us, we can take a look at the evidence.

For all the political insinuations that China is an expansionist superpower who wants to spread their evil ideology throughout the globe, there is virtually no evidence for this. The examples that critics point to are numerous; Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang and the South China Sea. But all of these territories have one thing in common; they are within what China has historically considered to be China. There are valid criticisms of China’s governing style, but concerning whether China is expansionist, these examples are meaningless.

If we look at China’s actual foreign policy, we see more of an economic expansion than a territorial one. They put their equity in things like infrastructure projects throughout growing regions like Africa. This might be an unpopular opinion but building some ports and railway lines doesn’t seem all that bad to me. So long as they are allowing the countries in which these infrastructure projects are being built to be autonomous, they will be a far friendlier empire than the United States has been – at least they aren’t building military bases.

The criticisms of China’s domestic policies don’t often go further than the buzzword “Communist”. Contrary to their own descriptions, China is far from a communist country. They are more like a heavily regulated capitalist economy. So heavily regulated that the government has control over their corporations. Say what you will about whether it is ethical that power be concentrated in the government, you cannot say that this system hasn’t been effective. Bringing 850 million people out of poverty in around 40 years is no easy feat.

The valid criticism of China comes from this centralised control. There is a lack of political freedom in China and even the business decisions are made by a very centralised few people. These are valid criticisms, but I would question how much freedom and democracy the West has in comparison. Like China, the vast majority of business decisions are made by a very small group of people. In China, those people are located in the government. In the West, they are the corporate owners that control government policy. Which is more ethically sound is up for debate, but the effectiveness is evident in the compared growth over recent decades.

There is even a basis for questioning whether China or the West is more democratic. In China, there is no way to influence the political party that is in office, but policies do change according to public opinion. The war on pollution is a perfect example of this. In the West, and in the United States in particular, they change their parties regularly. What doesn’t seem to change is the policy – it is always business-centric. In Australia, we are lucky enough to have a workers’ party. But the corporate interests are so strong and the stranglehold of corporate oligarchs so strong that we struggle to elect that party 35% of the time.

This is not a case for siding with China, but instead a case for a balanced view. There is no reason to think that the United States is ethically superior than China, nor the converse. But if we are to have a balanced debate, we need to look at the facts rather than baking a CIA talking point into every headline.

The world is fast changing and Australia is uniquely placed for once in its history to be a sovereign nation. We have the resources to become a renewable energy superpower and we are located in a region which will only grow as China inevitably takes the superpower status from a crumbling United States. No one is suggesting that we become a colony of China, but we have the choice of going down with the sinking ship or building our own. We need to build our own.