- by William Briggs
- The Guardian
- Issue #2125
Chinese Dragon as part of the Chinese New Year celebrations at Sovereign Hill, Ballarat, Victoria. Photo: Chris Fithall – flickr.com (CC BY 2.0)
Two hundred and fifty Australian businesses were represented at the 7th China International Import Expo (CIIE) in Shanghai. Minister for Trade and Tourism, Don Farrell, made much of the opportunities that the fair offers. It makes perfect sense, both from the perspective of the minister and from the assembled representatives of Australian capital.
Farrell, in a media release, spoke of a his “pride” in “supporting a record number of Australian businesses at the expo this year as they seek out new opportunities to grow and diversify their markets.”
The minister reminded us that “China is our largest trading partner and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Total two-way trade reached a record $327 billion in 2023. The benefits of our trade relationship with China flow to everyday Australians in the form of more well-paying jobs, increased business opportunities, and a lower cost of living.”
Farrell’s Chinese counterpart, Minister of Commerce Wang Wentao, expressed his hope that Australia will continue to improve its business environment and provide fair and equitable treatment for Chinese enterprises.
Wang’s hopes represent what is best for both countries.
China exercises a remarkable consistency. It is pursuing a socialist transformation of its economy and society. It is seeking socialist modernisation but does not seek to interfere in the political or economic structures of other countries. Its policy is expressed in the simple slogan that it pursues ‘win-win’ solutions in international relations.
If Australia could exhibit such a consistency in its foreign relations and economic policies, then the region would be a safer place. The economy would be more secure and the threat of war would recede.
The trade fair allowed a moment of logic in a foreign policy and economic agenda that is far from logical. The nagging little issue of China’s socialist road was overlooked. Australian capitalism, and specifically Australian national capitalism briefly overrode the drive to war. Money was to be made and the relationship between Australia and China promotes the interests of Australian capitalism. Seventy per cent of the Australian businesses at CIIE were food and beverage companies. This figure is significant. The ‘big-hitters’ in the Australian economy and in capitalism in this country remain the extractive industries. Over 14 per cent of the economy comes from mining. Manufacturing is just 5 per cent and finance capital represents 7.4 per cent. The service sector is at 62.7 per cent. Trade for capitalism is vital.
While trade is important and trade with China keeps the economy afloat, foreign direct investment (FDI) determines how the state, construction, and infrastructure can function. FDI from China is just 4 per cent of total investment. The USA provides 25 per cent of total FDI. Investment dollars have strings. Australia’s foreign policy decisions sometimes can be seen to reflect this pressure.
Even as the good news story of the CIIE trade fair was being reported, the cold reality of Australian foreign policy, so clearly tied to that of American interests was bluntly exposed. The right-wing Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) released a vitriolic attack on China with a warning about the ramifications of ignoring the ‘threat’ from Beijing. ASPI’s importance in foreign relations and international relations policy formulation is undeniable. It is funded directly by the Australian government and arms manufacturers to advise on issues of military and strategic importance.
In a recent article titled “Don’t give a free pass to Beijing for its aggressive behaviour,” ASPI wrote that “the whole point of the post-World War II system of international rules and norms was that large countries, great powers, could not just do whatever they wanted.” A curious argument given US domination, coercion, policies of regime change and aggressive wars since 1945.
China, according to the ASPI analysts, is “waging its hybrid warfare on all fronts and setting precedents through our silence … it’s Beijing saying that Australia will toe the line or else.”
The USA, however, “as the longstanding international superpower, has built enormous global influence … by cultivating alliances and genuine partnerships based on shared values and a common desire to improve conditions in the world and to the benefit of the citizens of their partner nations.” The readers were urged to “think about it: the US has dozens of genuine friends around the world. China doesn’t have friends; it has subordinates, captive debtors, vassals.”
The purpose of the article was not just to bang its anti-China drum or to advocate for a bigger, more lethal military. It had an eye on CIIE in Shanghai. In this light the article comments that “the climate of peace and commerce that has resulted from multinational cooperation has benefited few countries as much as China with its stellar growth over recent decades.” In short, war preparations are better than trade. It is a simple, crude reiteration of the old ‘guns before butter’ slogan so well used by Nazi ideologist Joseph Goebbels.
The Australian people deserve better than to be confronted by a set of contradictory messages on China. Our interests are clearly best represented by good, open, positive relationships with all states, and that includes China. We are being told, simultaneously that we need China’s trade but must arm ourselves to support the USA in its plans to confront China. We need to make choices but the constant threat that 25 per cent of FDI that comes from the USA might be reduced, motivates the thinking of the Australian state and is one of the factors that keeps us nicely in line with US imperialism.
