2022-11-02
It seems that neo-imperialism, steeped in its original inherent racism, is clouding clear vision on what Australia’s position should be with China
By Tamsyn Heynes, Green Issue Co-editor
Have the commenters on China genuinely asked this question with objectivity and not through an Americanized lens and pro-US stance? The lens is pushed by mainstream media and the Lib/Lab parties alike. Australia’s recent commitment to AUKUS, reaffirmed, as Morrison stated a ‘forever partnership’ that historically and contemporarily represent the most ruthless of imperial and invasionary forces that the post-Renaissance world has suffered.[1] We cannot forget that the justification of colonialism, slavery and invasion into others’ sovereign land (overt and covert), has been that Western society is entitled because it is superior – its ways and its people.[2] Therefore, China cannot be discussed in a balanced manner without looking at the ever-present racism towards Asians, and indeed all people of colour, who suffered/suffer under the Imperialistic force of the West.[3]
Above the predictable voices already proclaiming, “It happened ages ago, mate”, rings the question, is Imperialism really gone? This vital question needs to be unpacked before approaching discourse on China. It can be posited that neo-imperialism, steeped in its original inherent racism, is still alive and kicking – and clouding clear vision on what Australia’s position should be with China. We should work with China, but instead we hang onto the apron strings of the warmongering United States.[4]
What is Australia to the US?
Professor of International and Political Studies at UNSW, Clinton Fernandes, states that it is a sub-imperial force to the leading neo-imperialist force that is the US
The breakdown:
“Today we live in a world of independent nation-states rather than empires and colonies… But an imperial system remains in place. An empire is ‘a relationship, formal or informal, in which one state controls the effective political sovereignty of others’[5]… “Control can be achieved without conquering colonies or directly ruling foreign lands. It can be established through economic, social and cultural dependence, political collaboration between both countries’ elites, the threat or use of military force, coups d’etat, intelligence operations, trade agreements and investment treaties. Today the United States sits at the apex of a hierarchically structured imperial system.”[6]… “Australia is a middle power trying to uphold a rules-based international order… ‘[it is a] sub-imperial power’, [in] ‘a relationship … in which one state [the US] controls the effective political sovereignty of the other’.[7]
Neo-imperialism and sub-imperialism thus explained, many self-respecting Aussies (left wing, right wing, centre and progressive) may ask why we would subordinate ourselves? Is this who we as a nation want to be? Why do we insist on sitting in this space?
Why indeed …
There are three factors to consider:
Tradition, habit and weakness;
Lack of knowledge and misinformation about the political manoeuvrings and the existence of neo-imperialism, and the obvious support of neo-imperialism in the current incumbent government; and,
The inherent Eurocentric and racist ideology underpinning the whole narrative.
A bit about China
Australia being on bad terms with China makes little sense for several reasons. China is a sovereign nation and can make decisions accordingly. There is no compelling reason for the US to retain primary strategic power in the East Asia and West Pacific region – a region that China is geographically located in, while the US obviously is not. China has one of the greatest shares in the global GDP and provides a large percentage of Australia’s immigrants. It remains Australia’s main trading partner, despite strained rapport, why would we not seek to ‘unstrain’ it (as it were) and take a diplomatic approach? The reality is, the US seeks to retain the primary strategic power in a region that it truly has no business possessing such a position. Australia needs to start making practical decisions for itself – not for the best interests of the US. China has immense military power, in numbers and weaponry (specifically nuclear), but they are not waging war with us.[8]
What China wants according to Dutton and his ilk
Dutton stated that “China’s aim … is to subjugate Australia and its region. [He claims that] “they do see us as tributary states,” … [and that] China aimed to impose its will by the threat or use of force.”[9] Firstly, Australia has been subjugated by the UK since invasion, and from the mid-twentieth century by the US as well. Secondly, what a load of unsubstantiated tosh. The age-old racist fear of the “yellow peril” is still alive and manifest in Australian society and this attitude is present in the upper echelons of elected and appointed powerholders. The belief is that China is dangerous, and we need US/UK protection. It does not help that past and present politicians speak and act antagonistically towards China. The great irony is that one of the ‘forever’ AUKUS partners, the UK, decided not to protect Australia despite being Allies, and left us open to Japanese attack in 1941. The “cost and risk” did not balance in the way for the UK that found Australia worth the risk, (Hugh White posits that it is only a matter of time until the US acts unreliably as well, and there are certainly more examples of Australia being left in a lurch).[10] The UK barely felt the blame for failure of allyship - but oh did the racism against the ‘yellow man’ increase. And the attitude remains the same for many.
What China actually wants …
… is actually reasonable, but only if you are not a Eurocentric neo-imperialist. “China wants to gain primary strategic power in East Asia and the Western Pacific in the decades ahead”, the US retained power in the region since 1945 – Mao acceded with reluctance. Having lost the position of primary influence in the region due to Western invasion/intrusion in the nineteenth century, it now “as a great power … wants to exercise a degree of exclusive influence and control over the smaller countries around it, just as America does in the Western Hemisphere – or as Australia … aspires to do so in the South Pacific.”[11]
This is not an unreasonable desire. It is utterly hypocritical for the US to take issue, but it does, because it wants the power itself (simply put). China seeks a multipolar world order. It would in fact be a restoration of “the vision of multipolar global order that the United Nations was designed to embody after World War II”, as well as the desired “rejuvenation of the Chinese people”. Since the Cold War, the world order has been unipolar, with US power neither overtaken nor equalled.[12]
What China wants seems ok …
… but not if you are racist. From the “yellow peril” to perpetual “sojourners” – never to be made residents in White Australia – Australia’s history with China is ugly. Their labour commodified but never being welcome as citizens – it is Australia that fills the role of the taker historically, not China. Australia needs to completely let go of this ugly and still-present attitude. Would not effective diplomacy with a country that prioritizes trade and mutual strategic agreements (China) lead down a more sensible pathway than all this talk of war? Yet again the old colonial and inherently racist preferences are at the forefront: The US/UK – protectors, even though we essentially act in subjugation; while simply living geographically south of a powerful China is considered ‘under the shadow of China’ – not a positive connotation.[13] Australia fears not just military prowess but also the concept of forced culturalization – the fear of losing the ‘Australian way of life’ – that is, Western culture. The great irony is that the AUKUS forces are responsible for the majority of forced culturalization in various forms. There is no historical precedent of China doing so on Western soil. The West, with its long imperial history has no issue with it, as long as its ‘their’ culture and ‘their’ kind of people. (See Green Issue article by Chris Johansen Judging China[14] for a dismantling of common racist Chinese stereotypes). And to add to the irony, indeed the hypocrisy, the regressive and aggressive policies of Xi Jinping that has the AUKUS partners up in arms, are not dissimilar to actions typical of the West – but what is good for the goose appears not to be good for the gander.
Fear of the “Yellow Peril”
Power is fine if its white, Westernized, and fits subordinately into the neo-imperialist agenda of the US. China’s nineteenth-century humiliation by the West, stems originally from their great resistance to the Eurocentric Imperialist agenda and unfair treaties.[15] An example of the lengths that the UK and the US would go to economically benefit from invaded and intruded nations, is the opium trade. It was one of the most disgusting and unethical displays of imperial economic abuses and serves as an exemplar of the putrid ways that they dealt with China specifically. A land of long a deep history, brought to its knees by the pirates of the West. China, although Communist – is a trade powerhouse, Australia needs not hold onto outdated Cold War fears. China is now playing the game started by the West, and they are playing to win ‒ in their region. And quite frankly, why not? Why should the Americanized Eurocentric alliances of yesteryear, rule the world? Countless invasions, covert and overt, by these players and no one bats a political eyelash. Because it is justified through the ‘white is right’ lens ‒ because Western stability, power and culture is viewed as the proper standard of things – but it should not be. For too long non-Western powers have bowed to the West – neo-imperialism is alive and kicking, and Australia should stand against it, not with it
The recent lashing that Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John received after standing in support of the Solomon Island-China pact, supporting their rights as sovereign nations, and criticizing paternalistic and racist opposition[16] – proves how difficult practical discourse on this matter is. Australia is in the position, indeed has a great opportunity to support diplomacy. We need not entertain a war with our neighbour China. AUKUS has put the nation in an unnecessary and perilous position as the main bone of contention between Australia and China, is Australia’s willingness to follow the US into war – that is all …
There is still time for change, if we could but lean on one the Four Pillars of which the Greens were founded upon:
Australia’s foreign policy should be based on dialogue, diplomacy and cooperation, not aggression. Trying to prevent or counter violence with violence itself will not work. The Greens are committed to peaceful and non-violent solutions locally, nationally and internationally.
[1] White, Hugh. “Sleepwalk to War: Australia’s Unthinking Alliance with America.” Quarterly Essay. Issue 86 (2022): 8
[2] Horowitz, Richard S. “International Law and State Transformation in China, Siam, and the Ottoman Empire During the Nineteenth Century.” Journal of World History 15, no. 4 (2004): 445–86. https://doi.org/10.1353/jwh.2005.0126.
[3] Lydon, Jane. “An Australian Politics of Indistinction: Making Refugees Visible” New Formations. At History’s Edge. A Journal of Culture/Theory/Politics. Number 106, 2022: 100 -117. DOI: 10.3898/NewF:106.EDITORIAL.2022
[4] Fernandes, Clinton. “Sub-Imperial Power : Australia in the International Arena.” Carlton, VIC: Melbourne University Press (2022)
[5] D. Byler, “In the Camps: China’s High-tech Penal Colony,” Columbia University Global Reports, (2021) in Fernandes, Clinton. “Sub-Imperial Power: Australia in the International Arena.” Carlton, VIC: Melbourne University Press (2022): 10
[6] Fernandes, Clinton. “Sub-Imperial Power: Australia in the International Arena.” (2022): 3
[7] E. Groll, ‘The United States has outspent the Marshal Plan to rebuild Afghanistan’, Foreign Policy, (30 July 2014) in Fernandes, Clinton. “Sub-Imperial Power: Australia in the International Arena.” Carlton, VIC: Melbourne University Press (2022): 3
[8] White, Hugh. “Sleepwalk to War: Australia’s Unthinking Alliance with America.” Quarterly Essay (2022)
[9] Ibid 9
[10] Ibid
[11] Ibid 11
[12] Ibid 11-12
[13] Ibid 11
[14] https://greens.org.au/wa/magazine/judging-china
[15] Martinez-Robles, David. “Constructing Sovereignty in Nineteenth-Century
China: The Negotiation of Reciprocity in the Sino-Spanish Treaty of 1864.” The International History
Review, (2016), 38:4, 719-740, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.2015.110
[16] https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/a-greens-senator-has-claimed-that-china-is-not-a-threat-to-australia/news-story/4fc203658b079cc4961d20457bc3af61
Header photo: The Great Wall of China Credit: Jorge Lascár, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]