Australia must oppose authoritarian China on behalf of liberal democracy and humanity

Australians, if they value political freedoms and their related benefits, must support efforts to counter the rise of authoritarian China.

While China is expected to become the largest economy in the world and use its resources to increase its military presence throughout the world, Australians need to look beyond the economic possibilities provided by China.

Sure, the rise of authoritarian China has delivered some social benefit beyond providing export opportunities for Australia and cheaper manufactured products for the world. As noted in 2017, Chinese life expectancy has increased by thirty years over the last fifty years, China has committed billions to United Nations efforts to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030 and has provided billions of important investment to assist African development, and China provides cheap generic drugs to the world and some vaccines for dangerous diseases at a fraction of the cost of those manufactured by the West.

Some nations may even look to China as a strategic ally to achieve domestic policy ends. For example, the Pakistan government recently courted China as part of efforts to pressure India to reverse its decision to revoke the special status of Kashmir with its Muslim majority while also considering help from the International Court of Justice and the United Nations (Ashok Sharma, 'Pakistan to ask China for support', Sydney Morning Herald, 10 Aug 2019, p. 36).

While Western influence is hardly perfect, and few liberal democracies have a perfect domestic policy record (including so-called social democratic Sweden), the rise of authoritarian China at the expense of western influence will have a negative impact upon humanity in the longer term in terms of a nation's ability to balance national and international aspirations.

Hence, the US and allies are justified to resume the important struggle between nations over the influence of certain political ideas, not just battle for vital resources or technological superiority.

If any society wishes to limit the powers of policy elites for good reason given the human trait for dominance and corruption without adequate checks and balances, an approach which encourages extensive debate across the political spectrum to help address social inequality and environmental degradation, then the virtues of individual rights and the rule of law need to be promoted extensively, even if angering authoritarian China may lead to economic repercussions for dependent nations.

Hence, Andrew Hastie (Liberal MP and chair of Parliament's intelligence and security committee) is absolutely correct when he states:

Right now our greatest vulnerability lies not in our infrastructure, but in our thinking. That intellectual failure makes us institutionally weak. If we don't understand the challenge ahead for our civil society, parliaments, universities, private enterprises, in our charities - our little platoons - then choices will be made for us. Our sovereignty, our freedoms, will be diminished (Andrew Hastie, 'We must see China with clear eyes', Sydney Morning Herald, 8 August 2019, p. 18).

The simple truth is that the Communist Party of China (CPC) was never going to liberalise its economy and society. While delivering positive outcomes for its people, enabled by the promotion of freer trade which encouraged mass domestic manufacturing production, the CPC preserves its dominance by making it much harder for non-government organisations, adopting greater censorship of its society, and continuing to adverse human rights record.

In other words, the CPC is determined to ensure China continues to develop without the same checks and balances that apply in liberal democracies where respect for individual rights and disdain for corruption is rightfully legitimised by the rule of law as a separate branch of government that also limits the power of any executive.

This is simply a situation that the West should no longer tolerate in either economic, ideological or humane terms.

As I suggested in 2010,at a time of personal concern about Australia's growing reliance upon China, it was inevitable that the USA would raise its level of resistance to authoritarian China.

As some on the political left now realise, liberal democracies are the very societies most capable of dealing with social and environmental policy questions, even though much criticism has focused on Canada, the US and Australia for failing to adopt a greater national strategy for combatting climate change. As noted in 2016, even those three countries are moving towards greater environmental responsibility with British Columbia imposing a carbon tax, California initiating a cap-and-trade carbon plan, and Melbourne setting a goal of zero net emissions by 2020.

Equally, the centre-right's focus on the virtues of free trade on the basis that all participating countries benefit is nonsense if all nations do not play by similar rules. Authoritarian China is simply now too powerful to tolerate, notwithstanding the important benefits related to freer trade.

But the adverse effects of authoritarian China within Australia already need addressing, even if this means countering Australia's tendency to rely on easy money as seen in the university sector. As a result of protests at the University of Queensland supporting pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong and condemning Beijing's repression of the Uighur ethnic minority group, Chinese authorities approached the family of an international student in China and warned his parents of the potential consequences of political dissent. As noted by the Australian director of Human Rights Watch, Elaine Pearson, Chinese authorities are indeed monitoring students and academics at universities around the world (Fergus Hunter, 'SURVEILLANCE China monitoring protests …, The Age, 8 August 2019, p. 8).

Reports of what authoritarian China is prepared to do or allow without satisfactory checks and balances are always evident in its own society. For example, it was recently reportedthat Chinese companies were using Electroencephalography (EEG) sensors in hats and helmets to monitor staff working in factories and the military to brain waves and sudden changes in their emotional state. Not surprisingly, State Grid Zhejiang Electric Power projected that such information could save two billion yuan ($US315 million).

In the end, all societies must use common sense to balance their political well-being against any reliance upon authoritarian China, including in the Pacific region where the Morrison government's financial assistance efforts may still prove incapable of matching a growing level of Chinese assistance.

Take Samoa where concern is currently evident at Chinese loans accounting for around 40% of Samoa's total external debt and the potential Chinese development of Asau, or a Beijing-funded port at a second potential site called Vaiusu.

While one-sixth of its 200,000 Samoan residents are now of mixed Samoan and Chinese descent and Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi remains a strong supporter of Beijing as a vital source of much-needed infrastructure, a new political party plans to ban Chinese migration and expresses concern about the loss of sovereignty from Chinese money with some village chiefs already barring Chinese-run shops over fears they will push out local businesses ('Sink or Swim: Chinese Port Plans Put Pacific Back in Play', New York Times, 6 August 2019).

And in the Philippines, President Duterte, whose gradual embrace of China has helped attract billions of dollars in investment pledges from Beijing, now faces demands by opposition politicians for a stronger stand against China since the sinking in June of a Philippine boat by a larger Chinese trawler, in waters claimed by both countries ('As Duterte Drifts Toward China, a U.S. Carrier Makes a Point in Manila', New York Times, 8 August 2019).

For Australia, however, its contribution to the promotion of liberal democracy faces key policy questions. This includes addressing Chinese collaboration with Australian universities on technologies with obvious military application; China using "notionally private corporations for intelligence gathering and economic espionage", and the "manipulation of our democratic processes and institutions for political gain" (Alan Dupont, 'CONFLICT ON OUR DOORSTEP', Weekend Australian, 10 August 2019, p. 19).

Australia will also be under greater pressure in military terms to support the US's desire to remain a Pacific power, which may include the Northern Territory hosting advanced, land based anti-ship and anti-air missile systems reinforced by potent, highly mobile out-of-area forces which includes hosting US bombers and drones; accelerating joint base development in Papua New Guinea; developing the mining and processing of critical minerals vital to defence should China embargo rare earth exports in response to US tariff increases; and a possible doubling of Australia's defence budget (Dupont, 'CONFLICT ON OUR DOORSTEP', p. 19).

It remains to be seen what Australia's response will be towards authoritarian China in coming years.

What is evident for Australia, however, is that we have no choice but to oppose authoritarian China to a much greater extent if we value political freedoms which are indeed most capable of addressing humanity's woes. History shows that there is no other plausible or sensible way.