I was heartened and surprised to hear the deputy prime minister telling China to be more open. The story appeared on the Sydney Morning Herald website today. Surprised because I have no great faith in the ability of Labor politicians to act independent of ideology, though hearing the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, advance broadly the same foreign policy as the previous government was a relief. Labor is not known for its depth of talent and it’s unarguable that most of its operatives come from a very narrow gene pool in the union movement.
This link to the historical left is particularly problematic when it comes to dealing with China because China’s government, also, comes from the historical left. While Labor is vocally proud of the legacy of freedom represented by Westminster democracy, China is still sceptical because of its experience in the 19th century, a time of humiliation and disappointment. While the British monarchy was wrong to allow Parliament to attack China with steam-powered ships, on the other hand the Chinese emperor was certainly wrong to refuse to open up to the West.
So there were mistakes on both sides, but this embedded memoir of suffering and the use of force for illegitimate reasons colours Australia’s relations with the Middle Kingdom today. Marles is certainly right to focus on a root cause of distrust, which is China’s complete avoidance of a free media ecosystem in favour of approved government mouthpieces. Having said that China must be sceptical of the ability of free media outlets to steer public opinion – and thereby the direction of government – in the right way. I have no doubt that the Chinese president feels scorn for Western media given his country’s experience. Even in more recent times, in Australia, media outlets in New South Wales and other states attacked Chinese people in a way that, today, we would find reprehensible if we were exposed to it.
Of course we are not. Perhaps the Australian government could launch a Truth and Reconciliation Commission like a royal commission that could hold hearings hearing both sides in a public forum. You could have historians and politicians, representatives from local ethnic communities, journalists and writers – all participating in a vibrant gabfest of claim and counterclaim to rival Master Chef in colour and appeal. What would such a forum do for our relations with China? It might show her that being open has its advantages.
