Sino-Australian Relations: Why is China so Sensitive?
Hint: It’s because the West are big fat meanies
Welcome to Newsletter #8. Hope you enjoy today’s opinion that no one asked for, next podcast episode should be out sometime next week!
Here’s a top tip for everyone: if ever you’re trying to get up to speed on current affairs, don’t go to Twitter for your information. I’m sure most of you by now have heard of the debacle involving a doctored image of an Australian soldier holding a knife to an Afghan child’s throat, made by a Chinese artist and reposted by Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian on his Twitter account.
I’ve never seen so many people be simultaneously so narrow-minded and wrong about something (on both sides), despite claiming to be experts in China. The not-very-good analyses of China’s intentions, the deliberate obfuscation of the larger context of the image, and the general mud-slinging in both directions was truly a sight to behold (it’s still going on, if anyone was interested).
For those of you who aren’t familiar with what’s going on between Australia and China recently, here’s a quick rundown of events from the past few years or so:
2017: Australian Intelligence reports that Chinese businessmen are trying to influence Canberra politicians
Australia tightens foreign interference laws while Beijing stops diplomatic visits
2018: Australia bans Huawei from getting involved in 5G installation in the country
2019: Pro-China and pro-Hong Kong protests breakout in Australian cities and university campuses, occasionally leading to clashes between the two groups
April 2020: Australia calls for investigation into the origins of coronavirus
China starts to impose import tariffs on Australian goods like coal, sugar, barley and lobsters
September 2020: Australian journalist Cheng Lei detained in China; two other journalists leave after being interrogated by the Chinese police
November 2020: China imposes taxes of up to 212% on Australian wine (It’s worth bearing in mind that China accounts for “up to 40 per cent of Australia's exports and one in 13 Australian jobs”)
November: Australia and Japan sign ‘in principle’ defence pact
Still November: China issues a list of 14 grievances, blames Australia for worsening relations
November is a busy month: China’s foreign ministry spokesman Lijian Zhao tweets out fake image of Australian soldier assaulting an Afghan child after an investigation (by Australia) finds soldiers were involved in the murders of 39 Afghan civilians and prisoners between 2009 and 2013
China has not shied away from admitting that a lot of what they’re doing is in retaliation for Australia’s actions towards China, including the biggest faux pas of all, siding with the US on a lot of issues. Interestingly, they even try to call out Australia for attempting to stoke nationalism, which is more than rich.
Usually this sort of whataboutism is reserved for when you’ve run out of any good arguments, but in China’s case it’s a tactic that their senior politicians and diplomats will resort to frequently when other nations comment on their internal affairs. This is not to say that other countries never resort to this sort of tactic, or that other major powers all have outstanding politicians. But it is interesting to note that China sees tu quoque argumentation as perfectly valid and a strong counterattack against accusations of corrupt practices, whereas most people see it for what it is: petty.
Instead of trying to tackle the broader issue of current China-Australia relations and erroneously predicting the onset of WWIII, I thought we’d look a little bit into the related topic of why China seems to get so sensitive when people bring up anything to do with their human rights conduct. This is a useful subject to get a grip on, as it forms the basis of the majority of interaction between China and major international powers, and is often the source of breakdowns in communication or understanding.
A century of humiliation
In Chinese studies, the century of humiliation refers to the period from the first Opium War to the establishment of the PRC (1839-1949), where China was continually subjected to imperialist takeover of parts of their territory, as well as a series of military invasions and defeats, usually at the hands of the Japanese.
China’s main grievances with this period were basically that they were bullied into giving up territory, money, fair trade, political control, and their pride by Western imperial powers and their ‘proxy’ countries including Japan and India, as well as Russia.
Apart from just being embarrassing, this period of history served as much of the fuel for the rise of communism and nationalism in the post-war era, with leaders such as Mao Zedong vowing that China would never again fall prey to imperialist, chauvinist powers seeking to dominate its people. It’s an idea that’s often invoked to stoke patriotic sentiment whenever China receives a perceived slight, and is also used to deflect criticism of China’s human rights abuses and boost claims to territory lost during this period.
Instead of trying to move on from its past, the Chinese government deliberately invokes these past actions by foreign nations in modern political rhetoric, as Mao would put it “making the past serve the present.” Hence why whenever anyone breathes in the direction of Hong Kong, China gets extremely angry and basically threatens to start plucking out eyes.
These humiliations were furthered by portrayals of China as a weak and emasculated state from the late 19th century onwards.
The sick man of Asia
In the early 20th century, following several military defeats and internal collapse, Chinese men were often criticised for their lack of courage, physical strength and martial valour both in national and international media, thus leading to the adoption of the idea of China as the “sick man of Asia.” At the time, China was widely viewed as a backwards population of mainly illiterate peasants ruled over by corrupt warlords and incompetent politicians. There were also inferences to widespread opium addiction in the country.
This was a view of the country the CCP in particular were keen to overturn after 1949. If you’ve ever taken a look at communist propaganda, you’ll notice that the image projected is primarily one of strength and, more often than not, masculinity. In fact, socialism itself was partly used as a vehicle of developing and strengthening an emasculated China, but as this is the topic of my PhD thesis I won’t get too into that today as we’ll be here forever.
However, what’s of note is that China is still sensitive about this image, reacting violently whenever a reference to this part of their history is mentioned. You may remember an incident from earlier this year when The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled “China is the Real Sick Man of Asia,” by academic Walter Russell Mead discussing the impact of the Covid-19 epidemic on China’s economy and prestige.
In response, China’s then foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang accused the WSJ of racism, and proceeded to expel 3 WSJ journalists from China almost immediately after the piece was published.
It seems that time, after all, does not cure all.
Stability uber alles
Why does China hold onto these grievances which most nations likely would have at least come to terms with by now, if not completely gotten over?
For the CCP (also euphemism for the Chinese government), the most important issue is that of ensuring internal stability by guaranteeing if not economic growth than at least economic stability, general prosperity, and the ability of people to ‘get on’. This stability is directly linked to the Party’s own legitimacy, as if the CCP cannot guarantee the Chinese people a good life, then they face rebellion or worse. If they can guarantee a happy, prosperous life for the majority, then it means people will be loyal to the CCP, the government, and the Chinese nation.
How does China’s internal stability relate to its international dealings? Simply put, as a handy formula:
Stability = patriotism
Patriotism = believing the CCP is always right
Believing the CCP is always right = believing what other countries say about the CCP is wrong
I did it guys. I solved global politics.
The CCP relies on the absolute trust of the Chinese people that they can secure the best future possible for them. But if the Chinese people start to distrust the government, this shakes the foundation of their relationship. As the Chinese people become more exposed to global perspectives on the CCP’s regime, the CCP finds itself having to respond more and more often to claims of human rights abuses, political interference, or bad trade practices.
Instead of giving validity to the claims by explaining or denying them, China tends to take a very different approach. It brushes off the accusations by pointing out that other nations have no right to get involved in their internal affairs, and then usually proceeds to comment on other countries’ internal affairs.
This doesn’t always work in the way that is intended. While the Chinese government may be intending to point out that Australia has crimes of their own to answer for before they dare criticise anyone else, to most people it just seems like a crude deflection from their own troubles. They’re essentially telling Australia not to throw stones in glass houses… by throwing stones in glass houses.
But it’s important to remember that these responses are not intended for international audiences (us) but for China’s internal audience (the Chinese people). It doesn’t matter if every other country in the world sees through China’s weak argumentation, as long as the Chinese people can accept it at face value. China’s projection of a strong nation that can stand up to those who try and bully it is a show they put on for the Chinese people.
This is the reason China is willing to risk a new trade war with a relatively important economy every other week; why they won’t let go of Japanese war crimes during WWII; why they banned BTS for not mentioning China’s casualties in a speech they made about the Korean War. China is sensitive because of its history, specifically with these countries, but generally with the world. In the past, whenever it’s come up against another major power, it’s generally been in the form of what China perceives to be bullying. China is trying to regain its rightful place on the world stage, but instead it’s constantly thwarted by new rivals and old bullies, still licking wounds from over 100 years ago.
And now China is striking back against its former bullies. What the results of these strikes are remains to be seen.
References
BBC, Cheng Lei: China says journalist 'endangered national security'
BBC, China refuses to apologise to Australia for fake soldier image
BBC, How Australia-China relations have hit 'lowest ebb in decades'
BBC, Hong Kong: 'Five Eyes could be blinded,' China warns West
Bret Hinsch, Masculinities in Chinese History (2013)
Ryan Kilpatrick, National Humiliation in China
The Guardian, Police warning after pro-Hong Kong rally in Melbourne turns violent
The Guardian, China bristles at Australia's call for investigation into coronavirus origin
Thanks Edi, very useful to help to understand the history and complexities of China and the CCP in place of the baffling and scary monolith that stalks much of our media and political discourse.