There has been a lot of western angst shown towards China this year, only a miniscule amount of which can be attributed to geopolitical threats coming from China. Leading the charge of the anti-China brigade is Australia.

I commented about a month ago on this matter, noting the tendency amongst many of us to anthropomorphise countries. Thus, we get the idea that a country – eg China or Australia – is a single sentient being that has a single view, and makes decisions on that basis. It’s as if all the people in a country are passengers on a ship, and that the ship’s captain takes actions in the name of those (ultimately passive) passengers.

This view that a country is a living organism – with a tight leadership team who speaks for it – reflects the assumptions of a nation’s ‘establishment’, which is a coalition of national elites: essentially political, public service, seconded academics, business, and media insiders. And those elites tend the see the leader as a personality who symbolises the national leadership coalition.

Unlike people, who are approximately the same size as each other, countries are treated like people who vary in size by several orders of magnitude. (Countries like the United States, China and India are about three orders of magnitude larger – one thousand times larger – than, say, Fiji. Fiji, in turn, is nearly two orders of magnitude – one hundred times – larger than Tuvalu.)

The Coronavirus

When Donald Trump started calling the Coronavirus ‘the China virus’, his words resonated with many more Americans than his own political supporters. They fully resonated with the United States’ political establishment; and Australia’s too. The ‘China-virus’ rhetoric reflected a hostile political agenda, and that’s what Chinese political leaders are rightly concerned about.

My best guess is that the SARS-COV2 virus did ‘escape’ from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Most likely a worker (or workers) there caught it, accidently, while doing their work. Possibly it was carelessness, but no systems are 100.000% foolproof. Chinese scientists were perhaps more aware than western scientists of the threat that viruses like SARS-COV1 posed to the public; it was their valid responsibility to do the difficult research. It is very unlikely that Chinese scientists in Wuhan were synthesising new ‘Frankenstein’ viruses. Yet the language used in the west suggests that SARS-COV2 [SARS2 for short] came from the lab, rather than coming from wild animals, insinuating that China had an agenda bordering on biological warfare. Most likely it came from both; it probably came from wild bats or other animals, via accidental exposure at the research institute.

Western leaders should spell out that this is a likely scenario, and that Chinese authorities did what any other country’s authorities would have done in a similar situation. Firstly, the managers in the research institute would have done their best to contain the problem, and would have only notified higher authorities once they understood that they had not contained the problem. We could call this a ‘cover-up’, but it’s human nature – probably wise human nature – to try and solve a technical problem before the bureaucrats get involved with such a problem that they might struggle to understand. Once the regional political bureaucracy becomes aware of a problem, they in turn may try to contain their problem rather than pass it up to the next level. This reluctance to ‘notify the boss’ is likely to be worse in a punitive culture. China has a punitive workplace culture, but is by no means the only country that pursues an ‘accountability and punishment’ regime; in New Zealand too many of us are still wanting to punish people for the Pike River disaster, rather to hold a ‘truth and reconciliation’ investigation.

Mistakes around the management of ‘the Coronavirus’ have been made in just about every country, with the political bureaucracy of the European Union probably being more responsible than any other party for the fact that SARS2 has been a vastly worse pandemic than was SARS1. It is important for the sake of the world that we learn about this coronavirus, and act in a globally cooperative way to practically eliminate it. Chinese authorities have done well towards this end, and only made political statements about alternative non-China origins after the Americans and the Australians chose to politicise the virus, for no obvious purpose other than to harass a country that they were already politically antagonistic towards.

Australia’s China Obsession

European Australians – a people thoroughly detached from their European tūrangawaewae – have always sensed a threat from their north. No matter that China – nor (until 1942), in historic times, any other Asian people – had never shown any aggression, or other hegemonic intent, towards Australia.

I like Australia, and I go there often – partly but not only for family reasons. I understand Australian political and economic history; hence I was invited to contribute a chapter to Only in Australia. In that chapter, among other points that I like to think of as insights, I likened Australia’s twentieth century relationship with New Zealand to Great Britain’s fraught relationship with Ireland.

(The initial analogy with Ireland came in England from the late eighteenth century, with the Tasman Sea coming to be seen as akin to a ‘New Irish Sea’ separating a new South Wales from a new Ireland. Indeed, just as New South Wales supplanted New Holland, the logic was that New Zealand would morph into New Ireland. The problem was that the name ‘New Ireland’ was already taken; it’s in modern-day Papua New Guinea. As consolation, Auckland province was named New Ulster, in 1841 by the British Foreign Office.)

Australia’s economic relationship with New Zealand came to be much like the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in the second half of the twentieth century.

But, constitutionally, the political relationship between Australia and New Zealand is (arguably) more like that between China and Taiwan. New Zealand is the missing province; Australia still hasn’t quite forgiven New Zealand for jilting the other six colonies at the altar of their group marriage, the union that in 1901 became the Commonwealth of Australia. (Australia even nicked our flag!) Australia’s establishment likes to present a single voice in the world of geopolitics – and the voice it has long-adopted is that of the United States’ pugnacious Deputy Sheriff. Like China re Taiwan, Australia’s leadership coalition does not like Australia’s missing province expressing an independent (and different) voice. New Zealand’s establishment remains somewhat muddled on the extent to which they should conform to Australia’s expectations of New Zealand.

Just as we once understood the bully-context of the expression ‘The Ugly American‘, we now have The Ugly Australian, most epitomised by Peter Dutton and his description of a group of mainly Māori New Zealand born Australians as “trash”. In that context, I was alarmed at the performance on New Zealand television of the burly Australian television personality Jason Morrison, positively demanding that New Zealand gets into line with the position of Australia (aka the Australian establishment).

This is particularly problematic at present, because the Australian leadership position represents a yearning for war with China. I don’t think many Australian establishment people really care about liberating the minority Uighurs from the yoke of Han Chinese oppression. Rather they want China to become a client democracy of The Sheriff (aka the United States); and they want China to be a pliant “customer” (ref. Jason Morrison).

It is this ‘customer’ reference that gives away the crude mercantilism that drives western establishment belief. It is the same mercantilist ideology that used military power in 1840 to protect British rights to smuggle opium to Chinese customers. And the same mercantilism that inspired American settlers in the 1770s to rise up against a British state that required settlers to be customers rather than competitors to British manufacturers (and to pay taxes on tea etc., for the privilege of being such customers).

It is this mercantilism – which China, especially the China of Deng Xiao Peng – more than happily subscribed to; the mercantilism which treats international trade as an arm-wrestling match rather than a partnership for mutual benefit. It is the mercantilism that makes too many people think of exports as ‘good’ and ‘imports’ as bad. It is the mercantilism that treats selling goods (including military goods) to other countries as a form of goldmining, and that the wealth of a country is determined by its success in ‘making money’ (ie in running a trade surplus, exporting more than it imports).

Mercantilism is a belief system that says that its OK to bully your customers, if that’s a way to ‘make money’ at their expense. It is a belief system that completely ignores the fact that the actual benefits of trade are the imports, and the cost of trade (what is given up) is the exports; and that Australia is unequivocally dependent on direct or indirect imports from China. (Indirect imports are when there are Chinese-sourced components in goods imported from other countries.)

Does the New Zealand establishment really feel that it must accede to Australian stand-over tactics? Australia’s elite know that Australia cannot bully China; but they believe they can bully New Zealand.

Yearning for War

For many people, especially establishment elites, a peaceful world is an unexciting world. For those elites – who think of themselves as countries rather than as people – the world is understood as a geopolitical struggle between rival countries. Elite lives are made exciting (ie more self-important, and more quixotic) by having enemies to ‘lord’ over, to antagonise, by commercial or other means.

I don’t believe anyone seriously thinks that rhetorical antagonism towards China can achieve any kind of beneficial change within China – eg on granting autonomous democratic rights towards Uighurs and Hong Kongers. And this belligerent approach will not change Chinese elite claims to Taiwan and the Spratly Islands. (China is more likely to respond to western approaches that set an example of how national communities can cooperate through tolerance, conciliation, and cultural understanding. The Coronavirus pandemic represented an excellent, though wasted, opportunity for leadership elites to collaborate for the common global good.)

National leaders should be careful what they wish for. We know that after 15 or so years in the early twentieth century, geopolitical nationalism produced, among other conflicts real and rhetorical, the Third Balkan War. That war became World War One.

————-

Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

contact: keith at rankin.nz

If there were any doubts about Jacinda Ardern’s ability to deliver the goods as a campaigner, then they were quashed by her masterful performance against Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Friday.

Ardern made what is being reported as a “stunning attack” on the Australian Government, while standing alongside the Australian PM in a highly-orchestrated press conference. She declared his Government were in the wrong for deporting people to New Zealand who have very little connection with our country. She said, “We have a simple request. Send back Kiwis, genuine Kiwis – do not deport your people and your problems.” And she concluded: “We will own our people. We ask that Australia stop exporting theirs.”

Ardern’s extraordinary attack, and the reaction, is well covered by the Herald here: NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern lashes Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison – the reaction.

For a good report on the press conference, see Henry Cooke’s account: Extraordinary scene as Jacinda Ardern directly confronts Scott Morrison over deportations. He says the confrontation was highly unusual: “Ardern went for the jugular”, Morrison responded strongly, and “They didn’t just make their points and leave it at that – they directly argued with each other”.

Cooke looks at the motivations of both sides: “There was no softening of positions on either side. Both prime ministers were clearly playing to domestic audiences. Morrison got to look tough on criminals while Ardern got to look like a leader unafraid to smash another politician in the face when needed. It was quite a show.”

I’ve written for the Guardian today about the political calculations behind the PM’s performance – see: Taking on Scott Morrison over deportees is a win-win strategy for Jacinda Ardern.

In one respect, the attack is clearly an attempt by the Government to deal with the Opposition’s strong push on law and order issues: “It’s election year and National started the year ramping up talk about criminal gangs in New Zealand. While that’s to be expected every election year, there is evidence that the Australian deportation policy has contributed not just to growth in criminal activity but, alarmingly, to the establishment of a whole new gang culture imported from Australia.”

I explain the PM couldn’t let the National own this issue: “Ardern needed to be seen to be doing something about it, and directly confronting Morrison on his home turf certainly got everyone’s attention. Making this stand on the international stage, in such a commanding fashion, also ensured that opposition leader Simon Bridges was overshadowed and left with few options to attack her on.”

This was a departure for Ardern, who has been relatively quiet in dealing with other world leaders recently over other big issues. For example, last year she met with Donald Trump but did not raise any contentious issues such as climate change – see my Guardian column at the time: Ardern was supposed to be the anti-Trump, but she failed to speak truth to power.

So, Ardern has answered her critics and shown she will stand up to bigger countries when necessary. As I argued in today’s Guardian column, “Her supporters want to see her ruffle feathers internationally on issues of principle and humanitarianism, especially at a time when critics say she has been too pragmatic. Compassion, particularly when it comes to migrants, is one of her defining political characteristics, and in Scott Morrison she has almost the perfect foil. Standing up for the rights of New Zealand citizens abroad is always a winner.”

For more background on the political threat the deportation issue poses for the Government, and why Ardern had to respond so strongly, see Luke Malpass’ PM Jacinda Ardern gets a win in ScoMo’s territory.

He explains that deportations are linked to concern about a rise in gang problems here, made even more galling by the fact that New Zealand doesn’t treat Australians in the same way. Malpass says the deportation move “has sparked a crime wave in New Zealand, boosted gang membership and introduced a whole new Australian gang, the Comancheros, to these shores. It is a fair gripe. Under New Zealand law, with few exceptions, if you’ve been on these shores for 10 years you are considered New Zealand’s problem.”

National has started to make political capital out of this, and have been campaigning hard on the need to reciprocate and deport Australians, and this is worrying Labour: “The fascinating thing domestically is how the gangs and deportations issue is clearly now starting to nip at Labour’s heels. It has not been the party of law and order for many decades”, but with Ardern’s response on Friday, “Law and order just became a bigger part of the election campaign.”

In terms of impressing supporters, the strategy worked. For example, Labour blogger Greg Presland wrote about how Ardern had effectively snookered Bridges and shown her toughness: “National with its latest tough on crime approach will be hating this. Not only has Jacinda again displayed a backbone of steel but she has again shown that she is one of the most remarkable International leaders. The justice of her argument is clear.  And she has trashed traditional notions of how New Zealand Australia relations are conducted when making her point” – see: Do not deport your people and your problems to New Zealand.

Even some of the more sceptical voices on the left watched Ardern’s performance with great appreciation. For example, blogger Martyn Bradbury says “Jacinda stepped up……she is just such a class act isn’t she? She has acted with real leadership… She’s just amazing” – see: Jacinda robs Simon Bridges of his Australian thunder.

Bradbury also sees the electoral strategy as very smart, saying “Last week I thought Bridges had made a break through moment by promising to deport Australian criminals back home to Australia”, but now “she makes Simon’s earlier announcement of reciprocity look blunt and desperate”.

Ardern’s strong attack on the Australian Government over deportations was justified, according to Guardian reporter Ben Doherty, who specialises in immigration issues. He says: “Australia is unambiguously in the wrong here, and it has been consistently for years” – see: Not much love actually: Jacinda Ardern was right to call out Australia’s ‘corrosive’ policies.

Doherty argues: “countries are responsible for the people they create…They are Australian, and they are Australia’s responsibility. Just as parents can’t spurn their children who behave badly, states can’t simply foist people they find difficult onto other countries. The Australian government mounts arguments around national security and safety, but they are spurious, and made for the hackneyed political gain of being seen as tough on crime, and harsh towards ‘others’.”

Although Ardern is being widely celebrated for speaking out so strongly on Australia’s treatment of deportees, there are rumblings about her silence, so far, on controversial statements from one of her own ministers. On Saturday, NZ First’s Shane Jones went on Newshub Nation to say this about immigration: “If you want another million, 2 million, 3 million people, we should debate it and there should be a mandate, rather than opening up the options, unfettered, and everyone comes here from New Delhi. I don’t like that idea at all. I think the number of students that have come from India have ruined many of those institutions” – see Dan Satherley’s Shane Jones says Indian students have ‘ruined’ NZ academic institutions.

David Cormack suggests there is a clear mismatch between Ardern’s treatment of Morrison and her continued leniency towards Jones: “So as our Prime Minister was standing next to a man who has the leadership skills of a potato and telling him to change Australia’s domestic policy on deporting criminals, a man who sits in her Cabinet was back at home belching out vile racism. And will she say anything about it? I hope so, but I’m not holding my breath” – see: Jacinda Ardern’s deafening silence over Shane Jones ‘racist’ comments (paywalled).

Finally, comedian Oscar Kightley is impressed with Ardern’s press conference on Friday, saying it “felt like a turning point in terms of our relationship with Australia. Finally, a leader from here was willing to stand up and say what New Zealanders have been thinking since this discriminatory treatment started – see his broader outline of how this latest spat fits into the long-running relationship between the two countries: Jacinda Ardern’s shirtfront on ScoMo a turning point in trans-Tasman relations.