China Played the Keating Card in Australia

In mid-March, China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, made a visit to Australia. The visit came after a recent “stabilization” of the relationship between the two countries – a euphemism that is used to describe the less overt Chinese attempts to corral Canberra into a more deferential posture. This does not mean that the relationship is friendly, but instead one where, as Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong reiterated, Australia can “cooperate [with China] where it can, and disagree where it must.”

Wang’s decision to travel to Australia was an indication that although there is a power differential between the two countries, Australia still is a vital source of raw materials for China’s growth. While Beijing has used tactics of economic coercion against several Australian agricultural products, it has never sought to limit the huge amounts of iron ore and natural gas that flow into China from Australia. These are vital national interests to Beijing and a reason why Australia maintains a good amount of leverage in the relationship.

Yet, it wouldn’t be a high level visit to Australia without China finding some way to show its displeasure at Australia’s lack of deference. Here Beijing has found a new instrument to

try and pressure the Australian government in the form of former prime minister Paul Keating.

As he’s aged, Keating has become less comfortable being a retired politician and has found the relationship between Australia and China to be an excellent issue to insert himself back into the headlines. He has become increasingly vocal about what he sees as Australia and the United States antagonizing Beijing. This is not only an attempt to seek attention, but indicative of a worldview that Keating has clearly embraced.

Keating’s worldview is one that has considerable traction within progressive politics. It is a belief that the United States is the world’s most suspicious actor by virtue of it being the world’s most powerful country. This perspective views hegemony as intrinsically dubious regardless of the ideas and structures it advances. Through this lens there is no possible way to be both powerful and have merit.

China, as the ideological challenger to this hegemon, has greater credibility solely because it is a challenger. What Beijing actually represents in terms of ideas, actions, and outcomes is irrelevant. That the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) advances policies that Western progressives would view as abhorrent if promoted domestically in their own countries is not considered important. As an adversary to Washington, Beijing is automatically considered trustworthy and virtuous.

With this in mind, the CCP saw a great opportunity in Wang's visit to meet with Keating. It was the perfect image to project back into China of the foreign minister meeting with a “wise elder” of Australian politics, to create a contrast with the supposedly lesser stature of the current Australian foreign minister. Australia’s current foreign minister also happens to be a woman, and therefore implicitly of lesser importance to the CCP by default. The party has increasingly promoted gender hierarchies, and the current Politburo is all male.

Wong reiterated firmly that Keating no longer spoke for the Australian government, but Keating still carries significant weight within the Labor Party and is able to sow divisions within it and the broader Australian public. That’s something that Beijing would be aware of and only too keen to exploit. Of course, the irony is that no former political leader in China would ever have the ability to speak so freely, and undermine government policy, the way Keating does.

Wong also made it clear that in her meeting with Wang she raised Australia’s concerns about the suspended death sentence handed down to Australian writer Yang Hengjun, the treatment of Uyghurs and Tibetans (many of who protested Wang’s visit outside the Chinese Embassy), China’s aggressive behavior in the South China Sea, and in particular Hong Kong’s new security law, which will make it incredibly difficult for any Australian who has been critical of the Chinese Communist Party to even transit through the city.

The airing of such concerns is factored into any high level meeting Wang has with his Western counterparts and is, unfortunately, easily ignored. Australian officials know that raising these concerns is unlikely to get them anywhere, but it remains essential that they still do so. As soon as these are dropped as items of discussion with Beijing, China will have successfully bullied a set of new norms into acceptance.

This is the kind of “stabilization” that Beijing is actually seeking, a situation that Keating would most likely endorse, but one that the current Australian government is far less likely to.