This is an uncomfortable subject for many, but it must be broached.
Crikey has been running an investigative series against AUKUS which is fair enough.
But, it is also running regular material from China-biased commentator Wanning Sun who yesterday warned politicians that support for AUKUS will alienate the local Chinese diaspora:
Any news pointing to an improvement in Australia-China relations — such as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese accepting an invitation to visit China later this year — is likely to be welcomed by Labor MPs whose seats have large cohorts of Chinese voters.
For instance, last month, Jerome Laxale, Labor’s MP for Bennelong, spoke in Parliament after China removed the barley tariff:
This outcome … affirms the calm and consistent approach the Albanese government has taken to repairing our international relationships. My community of Bennelong is home to a thriving Chinese Australian community, the second-largest Chinese community in Australia. I’m acutely aware of the significance a strong and harmonious relationship between our two countries has to them.
A short video of Laxale’s speech, with Chinese subtitles, was uploaded on Laxale’s WeChat channel. The MP was clearly keen for his Chinese-Australian constituency to get the message. After all, it was partly thanks to their votes that he was elected.
…In the next election, most people will probably cast their vote based on everyday survival issues, such as the cost of living and affordable housing. But it would be a wild guess whether and how Labor’s retention of the Coalition’s AUKUS pact will affect how Chinese Australians vote. And if this uncertainty is making Labor MPs like Laxale nervous, it’s probably for good reason.
After the ALP conference, Sydney Today, Australia’s biggest online Chinese-language media outlet, ran an informal poll, asking people: “How will Labor’s commitment to AUKUS affect your vote?” Almost 1000 individuals have completed the poll so far: 32% said they were Labor voters who will vote for it again; 33% were Labor voters who will vote for another party; and a mere 2% were non-Labor voters who will vote Labor next time.
The Morrison government’s anti-China rhetoric and war-mongering led to a significant loss of Chinese-Australian voters. The Liberals’ number-crunching reveals that in 15 seats with large concentrations of Chinese-Australian voters, the swing against the Liberals was 6.6%, compared with 3.7% in other seats.
Richard Yuan was one of those who switched from the Liberals. An adept user of social media platforms, he was also influential in persuading many traditional Liberal voters to change their vote.
He told Crikey he would still not vote Liberal next time: “I don’t trust them anymore, particularly their China policy.” But Labor’s AUKUS position has also let him down, as he sees hardly any difference in terms of defence strategy.
…But Sydney Today’s figures have led one writer to predict that many traditionally Liberal voters who voted for Labor at the last election may switch back to Liberal at the next election. This prediction may not be too far-fetched. Many Chinese Australians have been known to favour the Liberals in the past, believing they are “better at managing the economy”. Rightly or wrongly, this view endures among many pockets of Chinese-Australian voters. So, given that they now see little difference between Labor and Liberal on China and their shared defence strategy, why continue to support Labor?
It’s not just those swinging voters who feel a bit lost. Some rusted-on Labor supporters are struggling to remove AUKUS from the party platform. Henry Luo, a rank-and-file member of the party’s Strathfield branch who worked hard to get Labor elected, is actively working with Labor against War (LAW) in his attempt to pass an anti-AUKUS motion in his branch.
Morrison “war-mongering”, eh? No mention of China’s outrageous attacks on Australia. Nothing about parliamentary bribery, education corruption and bullying, policy and business corruption, COVID shockers, trade wars, diplomatic bullying, 14 conditions to end democracy, occupation of South Pacific allies, threats of bombing Australia, etc, etc. All from the CCP and associated media.
Wanning Sun’s one-eyed view is hostile to the Australian national interest. AUKUS may or may not be a great military solution but it is most certainly welcome in terms of the closer integration with the US that it brings.
As has happened so far, it has delivered several handy favours, including missile and marine technology and deployment.
The principle is simple. The US is a liberal empire that supports the rules-based system in which Australia operates most freely both internally and externally. China is an illiberal state seeking to occupy the US imperium and distort the rules to suit itself.
If successful, the outcome will be considerably less freedom for all concerned. Most especially in the Asia Pacific.
There is no doubt, no doubt whatsoever, that Australian liberal democracy and national interest is better served by the extant geopolitical infrastructure.
The Chinese diaspora is not monolithic. And, frankly, it is pretty repulsive having to refer to it as an entity at all. I would rather think of Australians.
But if a part of the Chinese diaspora is going to separate itself as an interested entity, as Wanning Sun does, and Beijing is also seeking to do, plus work as a lobby group engaged in strategic policy, then all other Australians (including and especially Australians of Chinese heritage) are forced to ask a series of questions:
- Who, exactly, is the Beijing-sympathetic Chinese diaspora working for?
- What democratic sacrifices is the Beijing-sympathetic Chinese diaspora willing to make for peace?
- How deeply embedded is it in the respective political parties?
- What will it do in the event of a war over Taiwan?
I repeat. The Chinese diapora is not monolithic. Indeed, many and probably most Australians of Chinese heritage will find this discussion as repulsive as I do.
But we know that whatever the size and composition of the group of Australians sympathetic with China, it is electorally material.
Albo has already betrayed his pre-poll Chinese hawkishness of convenience. So has the LNP, obviously aware that it cost a material number of votes at the last election.
The resulting soft pivot back to China has already re-risked Australia’s trade profile even as other liberal democracies hedge away from China.
As immigration runs wild, how fast is the Chinese diaspora growing, how is its attitude being influenced, and how will this affect the democratic process and Australia’s strategic policy space to maneuver?
It is better to have this debate now, to do it rationally and sensitively than to wait until the forces at play become irreversible or, worse, disintegrate mid-conflict with China.
Australian divisions from China are structural. There is no avoiding them.
