{"id":27274,"date":"2016-06-22T11:00:47","date_gmt":"2016-06-22T01:00:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=27274"},"modified":"2016-06-22T16:36:45","modified_gmt":"2016-06-22T06:36:45","slug":"china-supporting-fourth-column-subversive-fifth-column","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/china-supporting-fourth-column-subversive-fifth-column\/","title":{"rendered":"China: supporting fourth column or subversive fifth column?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
The journalist questions in the Oz election debate on foreign policy started with the South China Sea and ended on China\u2019s suppression of internal dissent.<\/span><\/p>\n As with the<\/span> defence debate<\/span><\/a> last week, China throbs.<\/span><\/p>\n In the National Press Club debate between Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, and Labor\u2019s shadow Foreign Minister, Tanya Plibersek, China got more questions than the Middle East or foreign aid or the dangers of Britain exiting Europe.<\/span><\/p>\n The bipartisan tone of the defence debate echoed in foreign affairs. Plibersek pointed to the common ground between the major parties on what Labor calls the three pillars: the US alliance, international institutions and engagement with Asia, now rendered as the Indo\u2013Pacific.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019d stretch the metaphor to say China has become a tacit fourth column; it\u2019s big and impressive and holds up much of Asia\u2019s sky. And then there\u2019s the fear that the fourth column also has some of the hostile or subversive characteristics of a fifth column.<\/span><\/p>\n Julie Bishop\u2019s opening statement naturally enough emphasised the positives: \u2018There\u2019s huge opportunity for us in Asia where change is exponential. About 20 years ago, less than a fifth of the world\u2019s middle class was in Asia. In ten years time, it\u2019ll be two-thirds.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n Thanks, China, Long may the fourth column hold up the sky.<\/span><\/p>\n To get a quick read on the Oz foreign policy debate\u2014such as it is in this election\u2014look at these pieces for the Australian Institute of International Affairs by the<\/span> Coalition<\/span><\/a>,<\/span> Labor<\/span><\/a> and the<\/span> Greens<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n Along with the usual political biffo, Labor and the Coalition look at a similar world in familiar ways.<\/span><\/p>\n The Greens take you to a different place\u2014and all power to their elbow. Which is one of many reasons why the big two elbow the Greens as much as possible.<\/span><\/p>\n The foreign policy debate was between the two sides reaching for government. On that basis, the Liberal and Labor parties can deny the Greens a seat on the stage\u2014 denying the Greens anything is another bit of bipartisanship.<\/span><\/p>\n Bishop\u2019s piece for the AIIA was most explicit in picking over the danger of China going from fourth column to fifth column.<\/span><\/p>\n Asia\u2019s strategic and economic blessings from the 1950s, Bishop wrote, rested on a liberal order \u2018underwritten by the uncontested maritime power and reach of the United States.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n The big job now, she said, is to preserve that order. The \u2018enormously important issue\u2019 is to \u2018ensure that an increasingly powerful China emerges as a responsible and constructive contributor to regional affairs, and eventually assume its rightful place as a regional leader within that order.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n We want that China column to support, not undermine.<\/span><\/p>\n The language about China as responsible and constructive and taking its rightful place is familiar; it\u2019s now a few decades old. Yet these days the same words come through gritted teeth with just a hint of shrill desperation.<\/span><\/p>\n And so to the China salvos lobbed by the hacks at the Press Club.<\/span><\/p>\n As with the defence debate, the first question was about the South China Sea.<\/span><\/p>\n Last week, Labor\u2019s Defence shadow, Stephen Conroy, was gung-ho about the need for Australia to sail in and fly over 12 mile zones to challenge China\u2019s \u2018absurd building of artificial islands on top of submerged reefs.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n By contrast, Labor\u2019s Tanya Plibersek is more gentle with little gung. She said Labor\u2019s national security committee backed the Conroy approach but the important thing is \u2018not to talk these things up in a way to contribute to tension.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n Julie Bishop said Australia wouldn\u2019t be provocative in its approach to China\u2019s 12 mile zones. My translation: Australia\u2019s Navy isn\u2019t going to follow the the US inside those zones just yet.<\/span><\/p>\n As Bishop put it: \u2018We will continue to traverse the water and the skies around the South China Sea as we have always done. Because for us to change operations now, I believe, would escalate tensions and that would not be in the interest of the claimant countries or our relationships with countries in the region.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n That drew this followup from the chair, Chris Uhlmann: \u2018You would tell us if you got within 10 miles wouldn\u2019t you?\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n Bishop: \u2018The boundary is 12 nautical miles, so if we are 12.1 nautical miles we are still within our standard operational procedure.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n The strongest words on China from the Foreign Minister were on Beijing\u2019s statement that it won\u2019t abide by the decision of the International Court of Justice on the South China Sea:<\/span><\/p>\n \u2018There will be enormous international pressure on China to abide by the findings of the international, rules-based order under which we all exist, that has provided so much stability and security for the globe. And there will be incredible pressure on China. It will do irreparable harm to its reputation if it thumbs its nose at the findings of the arbitration court.\u2019<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Lots of pressure in prospect for China.<\/span><\/p>\n The problem with a big and important column is that it\u2019s very hard to shift.<\/span><\/p>\n Australia prides itself on the strength of its relationship with China and Canberra\u2019s ability to speak directly to Beijing. The test is to be heard or heeded. <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The journalist questions in the Oz election debate on foreign policy started with the South China Sea and ended on China\u2019s suppression of internal dissent. As with the defence debate last week, China throbs. In …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":79,"featured_media":27278,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[83,285,665],"class_list":["post-27274","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-elections","tag-foreign-policy","tag-julie-bishop"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n