AFA Weekly logo

28 April 2021

With Greg Earl

Victoria’s China deals

Last week, the Morrison government cancelled Victoria’s two Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) agreements under its new Foreign Arrangements Scheme.

The government revealed it is auditing more than 1000 agreements that state governments, local governments and universities have made with other countries.

Creating a national register of these agreements could be useful, but not if the process chills personal contact between non-federal agencies and their international peers. A confident, outward-looking democracy, such as Australia, should not allow that to happen.

While the Victorian government overreached in its China diplomacy, its two BRI deals and its two education deals with Syria and Iraq – also cancelled under the Foreign Arrangements Scheme – were reportedly never used. This suggests they should be seen as ill-considered public relations initiatives, not major strategic threats.

In the past, the federal government has been more open to infrastructure cooperation with China. Coalition officials continued to discuss the BRI with China after Victoria signed its BRI memorandums in 2018, and a conservative Northern Territory government leased the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company in 2015.

The federal government’s timing suggests there is a political dimension to its recent actions. The Foreign Arrangement Scheme was implemented amid rising tensions in Australia–China relations and political clashes between the federal government and the Victorian Labor government over the management of COVID-19.

The government has celebrated the introduction of the national cabinet system to resolve difficult federal–state issues, and it has backed the business community’s push for a “Team Australia” approach to Asian engagement. These new tools should be used to ensure the Foreign Arrangements Scheme is implemented more productively in the long term.


ASEAN’s Myanmar fix

South-East Asian leaders met last weekend to discuss the Myanmar coup, and they subsequently announced a “five-point consensus”, focused on ending the recent violence, providing humanitarian assistance to the Myanmar people, creating a dialogue between all parties and appointing a special envoy to oversee the process.

The summit, held by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), achieved more than some sceptics expected – ASEAN is notoriously slow-moving.

Myanmar junta leader Min Aung Hlaing attended in person, but the summit host, Indonesia, pointedly did not recognise him as the head of government, and several leaders spoke bluntly about the need to implement the consensus. The absence of Thai prime minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, purportedly due to COVID-19, was the biggest setback to the group’s show of regional unity.

Myanmar’s shadow national unity government, which includes democracy supporters and ethnic minorities who oppose the junta, initially described ASEAN’s five-point consensus as “welcome news”. But other opponents of the junta criticised the leaders for failing to call for the release of the Myanmar’s political prisoners.

Nevertheless, the summit was an important step towards unwinding the coup and preventing Myanmar’s failure as a state.

By deciding not to impose all of the sanctions on the military regime that were backed by other Western governments, Canberra effectively bet that ASEAN leaders would make some progress.

Its decision to cooperate with ASEAN still looks sound, especially as Canberra’s strategy for dealing with rising superpower rivalry in Asia is based on close relations with South-East Asian countries.


Recognition dilemma

The Morrison government is facing a difficult decision on whether to formally recognise Myanmar’s national unity government.

It is unclear whether the unity government has really bridged the deep divisions between opposition forces in Myanmar, and if Australia recognises its legitimacy it would probably mean splitting with ASEAN on the issue. ASEAN did not permit the national unity government to attend its recent leaders’ summit.

Australia’s position is further complicated by its decision in January 2019 to recognise opposition politician Juan Guaidó as the president of Venezuela.

In doing so, it broke with a thirty-year-old Australian diplomatic policy of only recognising states, not governments. The policy, introduced by the Hawke government, was designed to give Australia more flexibility in dealing with countries when their governments are in doubt.

International law expert Don Rothwell said the Morrison government had offered “no justification” for its change of approach, “yet the implications for Australian foreign policy could be momentous”.

Guaidó is still not in power in Venezuela, due to a stand-off between the national assembly that supports him and the rest of the government, which is controlled by Nicolás Maduro.

However, Guaidó is arguably closer to power than the national unity government is, though the two election victories of its National League for Democracy members suggest the unity government has greater public support.

Australia’s former policy of recognising the state was designed to navigate this sort of complexity. The government now faces a more important decision than the little-remembered one it made on Guaidó two years ago.


-

Want more insightful discussion on our place in the world? Subscribe to the print journal to have Australia’s best voices on foreign affairs in your mailbox three times a year. Explore subscription options.

-
-
-

PRC activities in the South Pacific?

“Despite its Pacific ‘step-up’, Australia finds itself with arguably the lowest levels of influence and authority in the South Pacific since the mid-1980s … Australia should avoid directly countering the PRC’s initiatives with its own. Doing so simply lends credibility to the PRC’s role.” Michael Wesley,CHINA MATTERS

A war over Taiwan would be nothing like Afghanistan

“Biden is bluffing, and if the Chinese call his bluff he will face an appalling choice. Backing down would destroy America’s strategic leadership in Asia, but launching into a war which he cannot win – and which would very likely go nuclear – would be even worse.” Hugh White, The Australian Financial Review [$]

Defending democracies from disinformation and cyber-enabled foreign interference in the COVID-19 era

“Governments that only shift their attention to these issues in the lead up to and during an election miss the bigger strategic picture ... Some strategic actors have aspirations that are much more global than influencing an individual country’s election outcome.” Danielle Cave & Jacob Wallis, Observer Research Foundation

-
-

After Xi – future scenarios for leadership succession in post–Xi Jinping era

“While the fallout from previous Chinese dynastic power struggles was largely limited to within its borders, the global impact of a twenty-first century succession crisis would be immense.” Richard McGregor & Jude Blanchette, CSIS

Drawing a snake and adding feet – New Zealand avoids offending China, ends up offending closest partners

“The aim of the speech was to set out New Zealand’s position to China in a clear and consistent way, and it largely achieved that goal. The problem arose when the minister responded to questions.” Anne-Marie Brady,The Sydney Morning Herald

Free from Australian Foreign Affairs

China’s Grand Strategy and Australia’s Future in the New Global Order, book review by Priya Chacko

“In [Geoff Raby's] new book, an important contribution to the ‘China debate’, Raby argues that the threat of China has been overstated. China’s ambitions remain limited to ensuring its territorial integrity, securing its borders and vital sea lanes, and maintaining the domestic dominance of the CCP. It lacks the brand of exceptionalism that has driven other rising powers, and it will not attempt to marginalise its regional rivals, Japan and the United States, because they are too strong, and too useful.” Priya Chacko, HERE

-


Read past editions of AFA Weekly


Sign up to AFA Weekly to get each new edition in your inbox