For decades, Australia sold its soul to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in exchange for becoming rich in trade.
The recently signed AUKUS Treaty highlights key foreign policy points born from the recognition that Australia has awakened from its voluntary blindness to CCP and that Australians have long seen China through rosy glasses. ..
Both AUKUS and the Quad Alliance have indicated that the cost of allowing China to become Australia’s major trading partner is too high.
But Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s policy shift is not unique to China. This is a change that reveals the vision of two different Australian Prime Ministers and their position in the world.
Witnessed the transition from Paul Keating’s “everywhere” (globalist and internationalist) vision to Morrison’s “somewhere” (Australia-based) vision to use journalist David Goodhart’s terminology. I am.
Goodheart’s book “The Road to Somewhere” states that “everywhere” people live everywhere and consider themselves to be global citizens of a happy world. Therefore, they are not interested in their sovereignty and will be willing to give control to multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, weakening their borders.
In addition, their identities are not obtained from embedding in national or regional communities (Brisbane or Sydney). Instead, “everywhere” learns the shared globalist identity from education and passing exams. These identities are often intertwined with the purpose of internationalism to help the “victims” and are urged to be considered to have the “tolerance” of others. As a result, “everywhere” will gladly open their borders to mass migrants to show that they have no prejudice.
On the other hand, “somewhere” has an identity rooted in a region or country. They equate with their own traditions, institutions and values and value loyalty, authority and holiness.
“Somewhere” not only sees themselves as rooted in their society first and foremost, but is also interested in their beliefs, flags and families. As a result, “somewhere” is ready to negotiate deals with other like-minded countries, but does not relinquish their sovereignty.
Similarly, “somewhere” resists open borders and mass immigration. Because they are seen as potential threats to their own culture and sovereignty.
Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating was a classic “everywhere” globalist who worked hard to readjust Australian thinking.
In essence, Keating seemed embarrassed by his own country and culture. He hated Australia’s Anglo heritage and the past of the British Empire. For this reason, he supported Australians seeing themselves as a country belonging to Asia “everywhere” and suggested that they should turn their backs on this heritage.
As a result, globalization, large-scale migration, and multiculturalism have become a nuisance squeezed by the Australian media during Keating’s inauguration and in the decades that followed.
Keating’s turn in Australia has raised three concerns.
First, globalization has resulted in a large hollowing out of industry and the export of Australian jobs to China. By the time the CCP came to military claims, Australia realized that it relied on an external supply chain that could confuse it.
Second, following Keating, Australians were obsessed with pivoting towards Asia and building trade in Asia. This caused a strange “Asian crisis” in which Australians collapsed themselves in an attempt to please the rulers of the Chinese Communist Party in China. The Australian “somewhere” saw their fellow Australians embarrassed and relentless in their attempt to be favored by Asian leaders.
The business sector has constantly reminded politicians and media experts that economic growth means pleasing China. Similarly, teachers and scholars have taught Australians that their economic future lies in Asia.
Expressing concerns about Australia’s over-reliance on China’s trade, criticizing how Australian universities increase risk due to their dependence on Chinese students, and questioning Australia’s mass immigration policy Those who present will be scolded as “racial discriminators.”
Ultimately, this Asian pivot was devastating to Australia. Moving the factory to China may have made the goods cheaper, but at the same time it turned China into an industrial giant. Moreover, not thinking through such unintended consequences, the Australians mistakenly gave the CCP the resources to build an army that could now bite.
Third, since the Hawk Keating administration (1983-1996), Australia has spread the notion that Australians should be embarrassed and apologize for their colonial past, in addition to the notion of soothing China. We have developed a mass education system.
Ironically, the constant criticism of Keating against Australians, their pandaling of their British cousins, and urging the education system to drop this position have been replaced by Asian pandaling instead. rice field.
The CCP quickly understood how to use this and take advantage of the naive Australia “everywhere”.
By the time Morrison becomes prime minister, Australians will find themselves desperately dependent on trade with China. If it wasn’t bad enough, China was dominated by a communist regime that acted aggressively and began to show signs of expansionist forces.
When the CCP became strong enough, they revealed to Australia that they had to choose between Beijing and Washington DC. Latest explosionThe former Prime Minister would probably have chosen Beijing if he aimed head-on at AUKUS’s deal.
Morrison, however, chose the United States, and this time democracy and freedom.
Morrison’s refusal to kowtow to the CCP despite heavy pressure indicates that Keating pivoted away from the two Australian features he worked on.
First, Morrison kept Australians away from Keating’s Asian panda ring.
Second, he showed that he thinks “somewhere” by making transactions that benefit Australia’s national interests, such as AUKUS and Quad.
Looking at these deals, Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Boris Johnson (UK), Narendra Modi (India), and now retired Yoshihide Suga (Japan) all fought and won the “somewhere” election. I understand. It’s no wonder Keating is dissatisfied with this new look of Australia.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.