The China-Australia relations face a tough choice
来源：
作者：本台编辑 点击：
发布时间：2021-01-28 13:32:14
In 1861 at the heart of the 19th century goldrush Chinese citizens (overwhelmingly male) constituted 3.3% of the total population, itself disproportionately small. Australia has always pursued a “white Australia” policy in its migration practices. This was deeply ironic, given that the indigenous population, which by some estimates had occupied the country for more than 100,000 years, were certainly not “white”. Indeed, they had to wait nearly 200 years after colonisation to be given the right to have an official say, via voting, in their own country. They were not even regarded as human beings, much less entitled to vote. For that privilege they had to wait nearly 200 years after colonisation to be given the right to have an official say, via voting, in their own country.
More than a quarter of a century after Australia officially became a country, saw the first relaxation against the rights of Chinese citizens to even visit the country, let alone become citizens. As part of the denial of the rights of other than the white inhabitants of Australia, the country practised what was known as the “white Australia policy”.
Such was the arrogance of the white population, they did not recognise the deep irony of the white Australia policy. Ironically also, the European settlers (predominantly criminals) who arrived in the 18th century to settle the country were not the first visitors apart from the indigenous population to visit these shores.
According to the British writer Rowan Menzies the great Chinese fleet that travelled to Africa, Europe and the Middle East, also visited Australia and New Zealand. They left scant evidence of the visit and certainly in Australia’s case clearly did not find it to their liking and moved on.
It was not until 1941 that Australia marked its first diplomatic relationship with China. China was at that time under Japanese occupation in large parts of the country with both the nationalists under Chiang Kai Shek and the communists under Mao Tse Tung not only fighting the Japanese but also each other for control of the country.
It was not until 1948, three years after the Japanese invaders had been defeated, that Australia upgraded its diplomatic recognition to ambassadorial level. A year later the Communist won the Civil War and Chiang Kai Shek and his Nationalists fled to what was then called Formosa (now Taiwan). One year later in 1949 the British government proposed that Australia should recognise the People’s Republic of China (which they themselves did a year later in 1950), but the Australian government declined and maintained the recognition of the defeated Nationalists as the legitimate government of China.
In declining to accept the British proposal and instead following the Americans, Australia marked its separation from its old colonial master. Instead, then as now, it is the American government whose views predominate in Australian foreign relations in general and its view towards China in particular.
A significant factor in the decision making at the time was the 1949 election, when Ben Chifley’s Labor Government lost the election that year and was replaced by a Liberal-Country party coalition that was to rule for the next 23 years.
The submission to the Americans was not total however, because from 1950 to 1959 Australia refused to accept ambassadors from the Republic of China, as Taipei was officially known. The Liberal government of the day refused to accept the advice of its own Department of Foreign Affairs who from 1954 onwards recommended that the Australian government recognise the PRC as the government of China. The government’s refusal of this advice was symptomatic of the powerful political influence of the Americans.
Australia’s support for the renegade government based in Taipei was further confirmed in 1966 when then Prime Minister Harold Holt sent an ambassador to Taipei for the first time.
That situation lasted until 1972 when one of the first acts of the incoming Labor Government headed by Gough Whitlam recognised the PRC as the legitimate government of China. This was bitterly opposed by the Liberals. Ironically, the Liberal Party was pursuing what it believed to be the policies of the United States. Unknown to the Liberals, the Americans under President Richard Nixon had sent their own envoy to Beijing in 1972 to lay the foundations for the United States to recognise the PRC as the legitimate government of China.
Not for the first time, the Australian liberal leader was made to look a fool, by loyally following the Americans in support of the policy that they were in the process of abandoning.
From late 1972 until 2018 it is fair to describe the China-Australia relationship as going from strength to strength. This took a variety of forms. One of the earliest manifestations of an improving relationship was the arrival of Chinese students to study in Australia, mainly in the universities. The first university students from China arrived in 1986. By 2011 this had risen to 126,000, rising further to 164,000 in 2019, out of a total number of Chinese students at various levels of the education system (mainly tertiary) of 262,000.
It is an industry worth tens of billions of dollars to the Australian economy. In 2020 those numbers dwindled rapidly. There were two principal reasons for this. The first was the impact of the coronavirus which profoundly restricted the levels of non-resident arrivals from all parts of the world.
The second factor is still too early to calculate. 2019-20 saw a marked deterioration in China-Australia relations and by late 2020 the Chinese government was openly advising students to look elsewhere than Australia for continuing their education. We will not know the impact of this advice until the distorting effect of the coronavirus restrictions passes. That is highly unlikely to be in 2021. The financial loss to Australian education is also likely to be significant.
The political difficulties confronting Australia’s relationship with China was not made any easier by the Australian Prime Minister calling for an independent investigation into the outbreak of the coronavirus that he suggested started in China. It is difficult to overstate the measure of fury felt by the Chinese at this thinly disguised attribution of the coronavirus epidermic to China.
The more that is learned about the virus, the more difficult it is to attribute its origins to a single place in a single country. It is certainly true that there was an outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan. Where it came from is less clear. Wuhan was from 18-27 October 2019 the venue of the World Military Games, where 140 nations took part in a wide variety of athletic events.
The first known Chinese cases appear to have originated in Wuhan at this time. The big question is: were the Chinese the perpetrators or the victims? Australian Prime Minister Morrison’s query clearly suggested the former. But the more evidence that comes to light the stronger the suggestion that it was in fact brought to Wuhan by some of the athletes who were competing there.
There is now evidence that the virus commenced months before the Wuhan games and had origins in both the United States and Europe.
The exact location is unimportant for present purposes. The more important point was the singularly inappropriate raising of China as a source by the Australian Prime Minister. That was singularly inept. There is little doubt that Morrison was loyally following the line taken by then United States president Donald Trump, but his intervention was neither helpful nor appropriate. It undoubtably played a role in the deteriorating China – Australia trade relationships.
Also, on 25 May 2020, the Chinese government gave an explicit warning to Australia to distance itself from the Americans. That advice was ignored by the Australian government. The Chinese reaction was to begin a series of either hugely increased tariffs on Australian exports, or to impose a total ban, as with coal, totally blocked from entry into China from December 2020.
This is having a devastating impact on Australia’s foreign trade. As of 2019 China took approximately 38% of all Australian exports, overwhelmingly from the food and raw minerals sectors.
The message is taking some time to penetrate. In October 2020, following a long period of deteriorating relations, Australia joined 38 other countries denouncing China for its alleged treatment of its ethnic minorities and for curtailing freedom in Hong Kong.
Immediately after the statement by the 38, a statement on behalf of 55 countries was signed at the United Nations denouncing “any use of the situation in Hong Kong as an excuse for interference in China’s internal affairs.”
Cuba also made a statement on behalf of 45 countries (again bigger than the original motions supporters) in support of China’s “anti-terrorism and decentralisation measures in Xinjiang”. A further statement was issued by Kuwait and three other Arab nations supporting China.
On 17 November 2020 the Chinese embassy in Canberra released a list of Chinese grievances against Australia. The Australian governments reaction was largely dismissive of the Chinese concerns, which was a major tactical error on the part of the Australians. The Chinese grievances may or may not be legitimate, but for them to be issued it all represents a major diplomatic move by the Chinese authorities. They deserve to be examined closely. The Australian governments reaction in largely ignoring the complaints represents another major tactical error.
Apart from the aforementioned trade and student figures, China also in 2019 represented the largest single source of foreign visitors to Australia. Again, this is a major source of foreign earnings for Australia and that tourism alone provides close on 1 million jobs. Again, 2020 is an unusual year and no reliance can be placed on the tourism figures as an indicator of what is to happen. It would be exceedingly unwise for the Australian government to ignore the clear message been given by the Chinese government that their overseas tourists should find somewhere else to visit.
The final area worthy of comment is foreign investment. Here, China ranks third as a source of foreign investment. The Australian government has instituted no fewer than 106 anti-dumping investigation against Chinese imports, compared with four such investigations by Chinese authorities of Australian exports.
Perhaps more significantly, Australia has recently amended legislation to give tighter control over foreign investment in Australian companies. This was perceived by the Chinese as an anti-China measure. It is too soon to draw any conclusions on how the legislation will be interpreted and applied. It is however, significant that there has been no mention of United States or European investment in Australian companies, although in both cases the volume of investment is greater than for China.
For the past 40 years Australia has been happy to see China take an ever-greater proportion of its exports, as well as making significant contributions to Australian economic well-being, as with growing numbers of students, tourists and foreign investment. That may be on the cusp of a radical change as the Australian government has been conspicuously silent on where and how the immense Chinese market can be replaced.
Part of the problem in this writer’s view can be traced back to Australia’s European history. The loss of the British market following Britain’s joining the European Union led to a major change in Australia’s export targets. The trade, for the first time in Australian history, matched its geography.
That change in the trading nature of Australia was not matched by a comparable change in the Australian worldview. Through its endless participation in American wars since World War II, from Korea, to Vietnam, to Afghanistan and elsewhere, the Australian version of itself remains that they are a European outpost on the fringe of Asia. It never thought of itself, much less became, an Asian nation, which its geography and foreign trade dictated that it was. This is an ambivalence that has never been resolved in the Australian mindset.
For the last 40 years at least, Australia has ridden on the Asian back, enjoying the fruits of trade, but never mentally becoming part of Asia. The potential loss of the Chinese market, or at the least a significant portion of that market, has cruelly exposed Australia for what is: a European American outpost cast adrift in a region that now accounts for 50% of world trade and whose relative importance will continue to grow.
Rather than embracing the challenges that poses, Australia has sought greater affiliation with the United States, a country that both absolutely and relatively is declining in its importance to Asia. Australia faces a stark choice. It can recognise the gift of geography and its ability to sell to Asia what Asia wants. Alternatively, it can continue to cling to an outmoded view of the world and Australia’s true interests will take second-place. The coronavirus has brought that choice into stark relief.
1861年，在19世纪淘金热中心地带，中国公民（绝大多数是男性）占澳大利亚总人口的3.3%，而中国公民本身就不成比例地少。澳大利亚在移民实践中一直奉行“白澳”政策，这是非常具有讽刺意味的。因为据估计，在这个国家居住了10多万年的土著人口肯定不是“白人” ， 他们甚至不被视为人类，更没有投票权。事实上，他们在殖民统治将近200年后才有权通过投票在自己的国家拥有官方发言权。为了获得这一特权，他们必须在殖民统治将近200年后才有权在自己的国家通过投票获得官方发言权。
大约在一个世纪后，1901年澳大利亚实行了所谓的"白澳政策"，这就是白人的傲慢，他们不承认澳大利亚白人政策具有深刻的讽刺意味。同样具有讽刺意味的是，18世纪抵达该国定居的欧洲殖民者（主要是罪犯）并不是除土著居民之外第一批访问这些海岸的游客。据英国作家RowanMenzies所述，远赴非洲、欧洲和中东的伟大中国舰队还访问了澳大利亚和新西兰。他们留下的访问证据很少，当然，在澳大利亚当时状况下，显然不被中国舰队所接受，因此他们选择继续航行。
直到1941年，澳大利亚才首次与中国（当时国民党执政的政府）建立外交关系。当时中国的大部分地区都在日本的统治之下，蒋介石领导的国民党和毛泽东领导的共产党不仅与日本人作战，而且为了控制这个国家而相互争斗。直到1948年，也就是日本战败三年后，澳大利亚才将其外交承认提升到大使级。一年后，共产党赢得了内战，蒋介石和他的民族党逃到了当时的福尔摩沙（现在的台湾）。
一年后的1949年，英国政府提议澳大利亚应该承认中华人民共和国（一年之后的1950年他们自己也承认了这一点），但澳大利亚政府拒绝承认被击败的国民党是中国的合法政府。澳大利亚拒绝接受英国的提议，转而跟随美国人，标志着它与旧殖民主人的分离。相反，当时和现在一样，美国政府的观点在澳大利亚外交关系中占主导地位，尤其是对中国的看法。当时决策的一个重要因素是1949年的选举，当时本·奇夫利领导的工党政府在当年的选举中失利，取而代之的是一个自由党-国家联盟，该联盟将统治未来23年。然而，对美国人的屈服并非完全，因为从1950年到1959年，澳大利亚拒绝接受中华民国的大使，正式的称呼是台北。当时的自由主义政府拒绝接受澳大利亚外交部的建议，后者从1954年开始建议澳大利亚政府承认中华人民共和国为中国政府。政府拒绝这个建议是美国强大的政治影响力的症状。
1966年，时任总理的哈罗德·霍尔特首次派大使驻台北，进一步证实了澳大利亚对驻台北叛变政府的支持。这种情况一直持续到1972年，当时以高夫•惠特拉姆（Gough Whitlam）领导的工党政府承认中华人民共和国为中国的合法政府,这遭到了自由党的强烈反对。具有讽刺意味的是，自由党奉行的是它所认为的美国政策。不为自由党所知的是，1972年，理查德·米尔豪斯·尼克松（Richard Milhous Nixon）总统领导下的美国人曾派遣自己的特使前往北京，为美国承认中华人民共和国为中国的合法政府奠定基础。这已经不是第一次这位澳大利亚自由党领袖因为忠诚地追随美国人，支持他们正在放弃的政策而被视为傻瓜了。
从1972年底到2018年，中澳关系可以说是不断发展壮大。这采取了多种形式，两国关系改善的最早表现之一是中国学生到澳大利亚学习，主要是在大学学习期间。第一批来自中国的大学生于1986年抵达。到2011年，中国学生到澳大利亚学习的人数上升到12.6万人，2019年进一步上升到16.4万人，中国各级教育系统（主要是高等教育）的学生总数为26.2万人。对澳大利亚经济来说，这是一个价值数百亿美元的产业。到2020年，这些数据迅速减少。这有两个主要原因，第一个是冠状病毒的影响，这种病毒严重限制了来自世界各地的非居民入境人数。第二个因素现在计算还为时过早，2019-2020年，中澳关系明显恶化，到2020年底，中国政府公开建议学生到澳大利亚以外的地方继续学业。在冠状病毒限制作用过去之前，我们不会知道这个建议会有怎样的影响，这可能会在2021年体现出来，对澳大利亚教育的经济损失也可能很大。
澳大利亚总理呼吁对冠状病毒的爆发展开独立调查，但这并没有使中澳关系面临的政治困难变得更容易，他建议从中国开始调查。很难用夸大的言辞强调中国人此时的愤怒感受，即用单薄虚伪的理由把新冠病毒疫情归因于中国。对该病毒了解的越多，就越难把它的起源归因于一个国家的一个地方。2019年10月18日至27日，世界军事运动会在武汉举办，109个国家参加了各种各样的体育赛事。
中国武汉爆发了疫情，但是病毒从哪里来的还不太清楚。目前，中国第一例确诊病例似乎起源于武汉。最大的问题是：中国人是发源者还是受害者？澳大利亚总理莫里森的提问清楚地表明了中国是前者。但是，越来越多的证据显示，它实际上是由在武汉参加比赛的一些运动员带到武汉的。现在有证据表明，该病毒在武汉奥运会前几个月就开始存在了，起源于美国和欧洲。病毒存在的准确位置目前来说并不是更重要的,更重要的一点是澳大利亚总理极其不恰当地将中国作为来源国，这真的太不可理喻了。毫无疑问，莫里森忠于了时任美国总统唐纳德·特朗普的路线，但他的介入既没有任何帮助，也不太合适。毫无疑问，中国在不断恶化的中澳贸易关系中扮演了重要角色。
此外，2020年5月25日，中国政府明确警告澳大利亚与美国人保持距离。澳大利亚政府对这一警告置之不理。中国的反应是，从2020年12月开始，澳大利亚出口关税将大为提高，或者像煤炭一样，全面禁止进入中国，这对澳大利亚的对外贸易产生了毁灭性的影响。截至2019年，中国占澳大利亚出口总额的38%，绝大多数来自食品和原材料行业，信息需要一些时间才能穿透。2020年10月，在两国关系经历了长期的恶化之后，澳大利亚与其他38个国家一起谴责中国涉嫌对待少数民族和限制香港自由。在38国发表声明之后，联合国立即代表55个国家签署了一项声明，谴责"任何利用香港局势作为干涉中国内政的借口"。古巴也代表45个国家（再次大于原议案的支持者）发表声明，支持中国在新疆的“反恐和分权措施”。科威特和其他三个阿拉伯国家也发表了一项声明，支持中国。
2020年11月18日，中国驻堪培拉大使馆公布了一份中国对澳大利亚不满的清单。澳大利亚政府的反应在很大程度上对中方的担忧不屑一顾，这是澳大利亚人的一个重大战术错误。中国的不满可能是合法的，也可能不合法，但要发出这些申诉，都代表着中国当局的重大外交举措。它们值得仔细研究，澳大利亚政府对投诉的反应，是另一个重大的战术错误。
除了上述贸易和学生数据外，中国在2019年也是澳大利亚最大的外国游客来源国。同样，旅游业是澳大利亚海外收入的主要来源，仅旅游业就提供了近100万个就业机会，2020年是不寻常的一年，不能依赖旅游业数据作为未来发展的指标。澳大利亚政府忽视中国政府发出的信息，即海外游客应该到别的地方旅游，这是极其不明智的。
最后值得评论的是外国投资。在这方面，中国是第三大外资来源国。澳大利亚政府对中国进口产品发起了不少于106起反倾销调查，而中国当局对澳大利亚出口产品发起的此类调查只有4起。也许更重要的是，澳大利亚最近修订了立法，对外国投资澳大利亚公司进行更严格的控制。这被中国人视为反华措施。现在就如何解释和适用这项立法作出任何结论还为时过早。然而，重要的是，报告中没有提到美国或欧洲对澳大利亚公司的投资，尽管在这两种情况下，投资额都大于中国。
在过去40年里，澳大利亚一直乐于看到中国在其出口中所占的比例越来越大，并为澳大利亚的经济福祉做出了重大贡献，学生、游客和外国投资也在不断增加，这可能是一个根本性的变化，因为澳大利亚政府对如何取代巨大的中国市场一直保持沉默。
作者认为，部分问题可以追溯到澳大利亚的欧洲历史。英国加入欧盟后失去了英国市场，导致澳大利亚出口目标发生重大变化。这种贸易在澳大利亚历史上第一次与地理位置相匹配。澳大利亚贸易性质的这种变化与澳大利亚世界观的变化并不相配。从第二次世界大战以来，从朝鲜战争到越南战争，再到阿富汗战争和其他地方，澳大利亚一直无休止地参与美国的战争，澳大利亚自己的版本仍然是亚洲边缘的欧洲前哨。它从来没有想到自己是一个亚洲国家，更不用说成为了地理位置和对外贸易所决定的亚洲国家。在澳大利亚人的思维模式中，这是一种从未被解决过的矛盾心理。至少在过去的40年里，澳大利亚一直骑在亚洲的背上，享受着贸易的成果，但从未在精神上成为亚洲的一部分。中国市场至少相当一部分市场的潜在损失，残酷地暴露了澳大利亚的现状：一个欧美前哨漂泊在一个目前占世界贸易50%的地区，其相对重要性将继续增长。
澳大利亚没有接受挑战，而是寻求与美国建立更大的联系，因为美国对亚洲的重要性无论是绝对的还是相对的都在下降。澳大利亚面临着严峻的选择，它能够认识到地理的天赋以及向亚洲出售亚洲所需产品的能力。或者，它可以继续坚持过时的世界观，澳大利亚的真正利益将排在第二位,冠状病毒使这种选择得到了彻底的缓解。
作者 James O’Neill*
More than a quarter of a century after Australia officially became a country, saw the first relaxation against the rights of Chinese citizens to even visit the country, let alone become citizens. As part of the denial of the rights of other than the white inhabitants of Australia, the country practised what was known as the “white Australia policy”.
Such was the arrogance of the white population, they did not recognise the deep irony of the white Australia policy. Ironically also, the European settlers (predominantly criminals) who arrived in the 18th century to settle the country were not the first visitors apart from the indigenous population to visit these shores.
According to the British writer Rowan Menzies the great Chinese fleet that travelled to Africa, Europe and the Middle East, also visited Australia and New Zealand. They left scant evidence of the visit and certainly in Australia’s case clearly did not find it to their liking and moved on.
It was not until 1941 that Australia marked its first diplomatic relationship with China. China was at that time under Japanese occupation in large parts of the country with both the nationalists under Chiang Kai Shek and the communists under Mao Tse Tung not only fighting the Japanese but also each other for control of the country.
It was not until 1948, three years after the Japanese invaders had been defeated, that Australia upgraded its diplomatic recognition to ambassadorial level. A year later the Communist won the Civil War and Chiang Kai Shek and his Nationalists fled to what was then called Formosa (now Taiwan). One year later in 1949 the British government proposed that Australia should recognise the People’s Republic of China (which they themselves did a year later in 1950), but the Australian government declined and maintained the recognition of the defeated Nationalists as the legitimate government of China.
In declining to accept the British proposal and instead following the Americans, Australia marked its separation from its old colonial master. Instead, then as now, it is the American government whose views predominate in Australian foreign relations in general and its view towards China in particular.
A significant factor in the decision making at the time was the 1949 election, when Ben Chifley’s Labor Government lost the election that year and was replaced by a Liberal-Country party coalition that was to rule for the next 23 years.
The submission to the Americans was not total however, because from 1950 to 1959 Australia refused to accept ambassadors from the Republic of China, as Taipei was officially known. The Liberal government of the day refused to accept the advice of its own Department of Foreign Affairs who from 1954 onwards recommended that the Australian government recognise the PRC as the government of China. The government’s refusal of this advice was symptomatic of the powerful political influence of the Americans.
Australia’s support for the renegade government based in Taipei was further confirmed in 1966 when then Prime Minister Harold Holt sent an ambassador to Taipei for the first time.
That situation lasted until 1972 when one of the first acts of the incoming Labor Government headed by Gough Whitlam recognised the PRC as the legitimate government of China. This was bitterly opposed by the Liberals. Ironically, the Liberal Party was pursuing what it believed to be the policies of the United States. Unknown to the Liberals, the Americans under President Richard Nixon had sent their own envoy to Beijing in 1972 to lay the foundations for the United States to recognise the PRC as the legitimate government of China.
Not for the first time, the Australian liberal leader was made to look a fool, by loyally following the Americans in support of the policy that they were in the process of abandoning.
From late 1972 until 2018 it is fair to describe the China-Australia relationship as going from strength to strength. This took a variety of forms. One of the earliest manifestations of an improving relationship was the arrival of Chinese students to study in Australia, mainly in the universities. The first university students from China arrived in 1986. By 2011 this had risen to 126,000, rising further to 164,000 in 2019, out of a total number of Chinese students at various levels of the education system (mainly tertiary) of 262,000.
It is an industry worth tens of billions of dollars to the Australian economy. In 2020 those numbers dwindled rapidly. There were two principal reasons for this. The first was the impact of the coronavirus which profoundly restricted the levels of non-resident arrivals from all parts of the world.
The second factor is still too early to calculate. 2019-20 saw a marked deterioration in China-Australia relations and by late 2020 the Chinese government was openly advising students to look elsewhere than Australia for continuing their education. We will not know the impact of this advice until the distorting effect of the coronavirus restrictions passes. That is highly unlikely to be in 2021. The financial loss to Australian education is also likely to be significant.
The political difficulties confronting Australia’s relationship with China was not made any easier by the Australian Prime Minister calling for an independent investigation into the outbreak of the coronavirus that he suggested started in China. It is difficult to overstate the measure of fury felt by the Chinese at this thinly disguised attribution of the coronavirus epidermic to China.
The more that is learned about the virus, the more difficult it is to attribute its origins to a single place in a single country. It is certainly true that there was an outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan. Where it came from is less clear. Wuhan was from 18-27 October 2019 the venue of the World Military Games, where 140 nations took part in a wide variety of athletic events.
The first known Chinese cases appear to have originated in Wuhan at this time. The big question is: were the Chinese the perpetrators or the victims? Australian Prime Minister Morrison’s query clearly suggested the former. But the more evidence that comes to light the stronger the suggestion that it was in fact brought to Wuhan by some of the athletes who were competing there.
There is now evidence that the virus commenced months before the Wuhan games and had origins in both the United States and Europe.
The exact location is unimportant for present purposes. The more important point was the singularly inappropriate raising of China as a source by the Australian Prime Minister. That was singularly inept. There is little doubt that Morrison was loyally following the line taken by then United States president Donald Trump, but his intervention was neither helpful nor appropriate. It undoubtably played a role in the deteriorating China – Australia trade relationships.
Also, on 25 May 2020, the Chinese government gave an explicit warning to Australia to distance itself from the Americans. That advice was ignored by the Australian government. The Chinese reaction was to begin a series of either hugely increased tariffs on Australian exports, or to impose a total ban, as with coal, totally blocked from entry into China from December 2020.
This is having a devastating impact on Australia’s foreign trade. As of 2019 China took approximately 38% of all Australian exports, overwhelmingly from the food and raw minerals sectors.
The message is taking some time to penetrate. In October 2020, following a long period of deteriorating relations, Australia joined 38 other countries denouncing China for its alleged treatment of its ethnic minorities and for curtailing freedom in Hong Kong.
Immediately after the statement by the 38, a statement on behalf of 55 countries was signed at the United Nations denouncing “any use of the situation in Hong Kong as an excuse for interference in China’s internal affairs.”
Cuba also made a statement on behalf of 45 countries (again bigger than the original motions supporters) in support of China’s “anti-terrorism and decentralisation measures in Xinjiang”. A further statement was issued by Kuwait and three other Arab nations supporting China.
On 17 November 2020 the Chinese embassy in Canberra released a list of Chinese grievances against Australia. The Australian governments reaction was largely dismissive of the Chinese concerns, which was a major tactical error on the part of the Australians. The Chinese grievances may or may not be legitimate, but for them to be issued it all represents a major diplomatic move by the Chinese authorities. They deserve to be examined closely. The Australian governments reaction in largely ignoring the complaints represents another major tactical error.
Apart from the aforementioned trade and student figures, China also in 2019 represented the largest single source of foreign visitors to Australia. Again, this is a major source of foreign earnings for Australia and that tourism alone provides close on 1 million jobs. Again, 2020 is an unusual year and no reliance can be placed on the tourism figures as an indicator of what is to happen. It would be exceedingly unwise for the Australian government to ignore the clear message been given by the Chinese government that their overseas tourists should find somewhere else to visit.
The final area worthy of comment is foreign investment. Here, China ranks third as a source of foreign investment. The Australian government has instituted no fewer than 106 anti-dumping investigation against Chinese imports, compared with four such investigations by Chinese authorities of Australian exports.
Perhaps more significantly, Australia has recently amended legislation to give tighter control over foreign investment in Australian companies. This was perceived by the Chinese as an anti-China measure. It is too soon to draw any conclusions on how the legislation will be interpreted and applied. It is however, significant that there has been no mention of United States or European investment in Australian companies, although in both cases the volume of investment is greater than for China.
For the past 40 years Australia has been happy to see China take an ever-greater proportion of its exports, as well as making significant contributions to Australian economic well-being, as with growing numbers of students, tourists and foreign investment. That may be on the cusp of a radical change as the Australian government has been conspicuously silent on where and how the immense Chinese market can be replaced.
Part of the problem in this writer’s view can be traced back to Australia’s European history. The loss of the British market following Britain’s joining the European Union led to a major change in Australia’s export targets. The trade, for the first time in Australian history, matched its geography.
That change in the trading nature of Australia was not matched by a comparable change in the Australian worldview. Through its endless participation in American wars since World War II, from Korea, to Vietnam, to Afghanistan and elsewhere, the Australian version of itself remains that they are a European outpost on the fringe of Asia. It never thought of itself, much less became, an Asian nation, which its geography and foreign trade dictated that it was. This is an ambivalence that has never been resolved in the Australian mindset.
For the last 40 years at least, Australia has ridden on the Asian back, enjoying the fruits of trade, but never mentally becoming part of Asia. The potential loss of the Chinese market, or at the least a significant portion of that market, has cruelly exposed Australia for what is: a European American outpost cast adrift in a region that now accounts for 50% of world trade and whose relative importance will continue to grow.
Rather than embracing the challenges that poses, Australia has sought greater affiliation with the United States, a country that both absolutely and relatively is declining in its importance to Asia. Australia faces a stark choice. It can recognise the gift of geography and its ability to sell to Asia what Asia wants. Alternatively, it can continue to cling to an outmoded view of the world and Australia’s true interests will take second-place. The coronavirus has brought that choice into stark relief.
1861年，在19世纪淘金热中心地带，中国公民（绝大多数是男性）占澳大利亚总人口的3.3%，而中国公民本身就不成比例地少。澳大利亚在移民实践中一直奉行“白澳”政策，这是非常具有讽刺意味的。因为据估计，在这个国家居住了10多万年的土著人口肯定不是“白人” ， 他们甚至不被视为人类，更没有投票权。事实上，他们在殖民统治将近200年后才有权通过投票在自己的国家拥有官方发言权。为了获得这一特权，他们必须在殖民统治将近200年后才有权在自己的国家通过投票获得官方发言权。
大约在一个世纪后，1901年澳大利亚实行了所谓的"白澳政策"，这就是白人的傲慢，他们不承认澳大利亚白人政策具有深刻的讽刺意味。同样具有讽刺意味的是，18世纪抵达该国定居的欧洲殖民者（主要是罪犯）并不是除土著居民之外第一批访问这些海岸的游客。据英国作家RowanMenzies所述，远赴非洲、欧洲和中东的伟大中国舰队还访问了澳大利亚和新西兰。他们留下的访问证据很少，当然，在澳大利亚当时状况下，显然不被中国舰队所接受，因此他们选择继续航行。
直到1941年，澳大利亚才首次与中国（当时国民党执政的政府）建立外交关系。当时中国的大部分地区都在日本的统治之下，蒋介石领导的国民党和毛泽东领导的共产党不仅与日本人作战，而且为了控制这个国家而相互争斗。直到1948年，也就是日本战败三年后，澳大利亚才将其外交承认提升到大使级。一年后，共产党赢得了内战，蒋介石和他的民族党逃到了当时的福尔摩沙（现在的台湾）。
一年后的1949年，英国政府提议澳大利亚应该承认中华人民共和国（一年之后的1950年他们自己也承认了这一点），但澳大利亚政府拒绝承认被击败的国民党是中国的合法政府。澳大利亚拒绝接受英国的提议，转而跟随美国人，标志着它与旧殖民主人的分离。相反，当时和现在一样，美国政府的观点在澳大利亚外交关系中占主导地位，尤其是对中国的看法。当时决策的一个重要因素是1949年的选举，当时本·奇夫利领导的工党政府在当年的选举中失利，取而代之的是一个自由党-国家联盟，该联盟将统治未来23年。然而，对美国人的屈服并非完全，因为从1950年到1959年，澳大利亚拒绝接受中华民国的大使，正式的称呼是台北。当时的自由主义政府拒绝接受澳大利亚外交部的建议，后者从1954年开始建议澳大利亚政府承认中华人民共和国为中国政府。政府拒绝这个建议是美国强大的政治影响力的症状。
1966年，时任总理的哈罗德·霍尔特首次派大使驻台北，进一步证实了澳大利亚对驻台北叛变政府的支持。这种情况一直持续到1972年，当时以高夫•惠特拉姆（Gough Whitlam）领导的工党政府承认中华人民共和国为中国的合法政府,这遭到了自由党的强烈反对。具有讽刺意味的是，自由党奉行的是它所认为的美国政策。不为自由党所知的是，1972年，理查德·米尔豪斯·尼克松（Richard Milhous Nixon）总统领导下的美国人曾派遣自己的特使前往北京，为美国承认中华人民共和国为中国的合法政府奠定基础。这已经不是第一次这位澳大利亚自由党领袖因为忠诚地追随美国人，支持他们正在放弃的政策而被视为傻瓜了。
从1972年底到2018年，中澳关系可以说是不断发展壮大。这采取了多种形式，两国关系改善的最早表现之一是中国学生到澳大利亚学习，主要是在大学学习期间。第一批来自中国的大学生于1986年抵达。到2011年，中国学生到澳大利亚学习的人数上升到12.6万人，2019年进一步上升到16.4万人，中国各级教育系统（主要是高等教育）的学生总数为26.2万人。对澳大利亚经济来说，这是一个价值数百亿美元的产业。到2020年，这些数据迅速减少。这有两个主要原因，第一个是冠状病毒的影响，这种病毒严重限制了来自世界各地的非居民入境人数。第二个因素现在计算还为时过早，2019-2020年，中澳关系明显恶化，到2020年底，中国政府公开建议学生到澳大利亚以外的地方继续学业。在冠状病毒限制作用过去之前，我们不会知道这个建议会有怎样的影响，这可能会在2021年体现出来，对澳大利亚教育的经济损失也可能很大。
澳大利亚总理呼吁对冠状病毒的爆发展开独立调查，但这并没有使中澳关系面临的政治困难变得更容易，他建议从中国开始调查。很难用夸大的言辞强调中国人此时的愤怒感受，即用单薄虚伪的理由把新冠病毒疫情归因于中国。对该病毒了解的越多，就越难把它的起源归因于一个国家的一个地方。2019年10月18日至27日，世界军事运动会在武汉举办，109个国家参加了各种各样的体育赛事。
中国武汉爆发了疫情，但是病毒从哪里来的还不太清楚。目前，中国第一例确诊病例似乎起源于武汉。最大的问题是：中国人是发源者还是受害者？澳大利亚总理莫里森的提问清楚地表明了中国是前者。但是，越来越多的证据显示，它实际上是由在武汉参加比赛的一些运动员带到武汉的。现在有证据表明，该病毒在武汉奥运会前几个月就开始存在了，起源于美国和欧洲。病毒存在的准确位置目前来说并不是更重要的,更重要的一点是澳大利亚总理极其不恰当地将中国作为来源国，这真的太不可理喻了。毫无疑问，莫里森忠于了时任美国总统唐纳德·特朗普的路线，但他的介入既没有任何帮助，也不太合适。毫无疑问，中国在不断恶化的中澳贸易关系中扮演了重要角色。
此外，2020年5月25日，中国政府明确警告澳大利亚与美国人保持距离。澳大利亚政府对这一警告置之不理。中国的反应是，从2020年12月开始，澳大利亚出口关税将大为提高，或者像煤炭一样，全面禁止进入中国，这对澳大利亚的对外贸易产生了毁灭性的影响。截至2019年，中国占澳大利亚出口总额的38%，绝大多数来自食品和原材料行业，信息需要一些时间才能穿透。2020年10月，在两国关系经历了长期的恶化之后，澳大利亚与其他38个国家一起谴责中国涉嫌对待少数民族和限制香港自由。在38国发表声明之后，联合国立即代表55个国家签署了一项声明，谴责"任何利用香港局势作为干涉中国内政的借口"。古巴也代表45个国家（再次大于原议案的支持者）发表声明，支持中国在新疆的“反恐和分权措施”。科威特和其他三个阿拉伯国家也发表了一项声明，支持中国。
2020年11月18日，中国驻堪培拉大使馆公布了一份中国对澳大利亚不满的清单。澳大利亚政府的反应在很大程度上对中方的担忧不屑一顾，这是澳大利亚人的一个重大战术错误。中国的不满可能是合法的，也可能不合法，但要发出这些申诉，都代表着中国当局的重大外交举措。它们值得仔细研究，澳大利亚政府对投诉的反应，是另一个重大的战术错误。
除了上述贸易和学生数据外，中国在2019年也是澳大利亚最大的外国游客来源国。同样，旅游业是澳大利亚海外收入的主要来源，仅旅游业就提供了近100万个就业机会，2020年是不寻常的一年，不能依赖旅游业数据作为未来发展的指标。澳大利亚政府忽视中国政府发出的信息，即海外游客应该到别的地方旅游，这是极其不明智的。
最后值得评论的是外国投资。在这方面，中国是第三大外资来源国。澳大利亚政府对中国进口产品发起了不少于106起反倾销调查，而中国当局对澳大利亚出口产品发起的此类调查只有4起。也许更重要的是，澳大利亚最近修订了立法，对外国投资澳大利亚公司进行更严格的控制。这被中国人视为反华措施。现在就如何解释和适用这项立法作出任何结论还为时过早。然而，重要的是，报告中没有提到美国或欧洲对澳大利亚公司的投资，尽管在这两种情况下，投资额都大于中国。
在过去40年里，澳大利亚一直乐于看到中国在其出口中所占的比例越来越大，并为澳大利亚的经济福祉做出了重大贡献，学生、游客和外国投资也在不断增加，这可能是一个根本性的变化，因为澳大利亚政府对如何取代巨大的中国市场一直保持沉默。
作者认为，部分问题可以追溯到澳大利亚的欧洲历史。英国加入欧盟后失去了英国市场，导致澳大利亚出口目标发生重大变化。这种贸易在澳大利亚历史上第一次与地理位置相匹配。澳大利亚贸易性质的这种变化与澳大利亚世界观的变化并不相配。从第二次世界大战以来，从朝鲜战争到越南战争，再到阿富汗战争和其他地方，澳大利亚一直无休止地参与美国的战争，澳大利亚自己的版本仍然是亚洲边缘的欧洲前哨。它从来没有想到自己是一个亚洲国家，更不用说成为了地理位置和对外贸易所决定的亚洲国家。在澳大利亚人的思维模式中，这是一种从未被解决过的矛盾心理。至少在过去的40年里，澳大利亚一直骑在亚洲的背上，享受着贸易的成果，但从未在精神上成为亚洲的一部分。中国市场至少相当一部分市场的潜在损失，残酷地暴露了澳大利亚的现状：一个欧美前哨漂泊在一个目前占世界贸易50%的地区，其相对重要性将继续增长。
澳大利亚没有接受挑战，而是寻求与美国建立更大的联系，因为美国对亚洲的重要性无论是绝对的还是相对的都在下降。澳大利亚面临着严峻的选择，它能够认识到地理的天赋以及向亚洲出售亚洲所需产品的能力。或者，它可以继续坚持过时的世界观，澳大利亚的真正利益将排在第二位,冠状病毒使这种选择得到了彻底的缓解。
作者 James O’Neill*
版权及免责声明
1、本网转载媒体稿件旨在传播更多有益信息，并不代表同意该观点，本网不承担稿件侵权行为的连带责任；
2、在本网博客/论坛发表言论者，文责自负。
推荐文章
热点内容
-
英文版《价值文明》在法国NDB集
2024年9月17日，中国丝路集团董事长闫立金博士受邀参加法国NDB集团希腊雅典时代盛典Vallia Lepoque Event。盛典隆重推出了由闫立金博士著作
-
首届世界香具文化大会暨高峰论坛在
5月26-28日，“瓷韵留香”——首届世界香具文化大会暨高峰论坛在浙江龙泉青瓷博物馆隆重开幕。
- ・《少林点穴的隐秘力量》纪录片在郑州圆满杀青
- ・北京市侨联召开海外北京会座谈交流会
- ・侨智未来·创新人才发展活动举办
- ・2024首都侨智发展大会开幕式暨主活动在北京经开区举
- ・医生创新之家、京津冀生命健康产业国际合作联盟在北京亦
- ・2024首都侨智发展大会新闻发布会在北京经开区举行
- ・侨智未来·信息产业发展专场活动在北京亦庄举办
- ・ “追梦中华·侨创未来”2024海外华文媒体北京采访
- ・美国迈阿密大学访问学者项目
- ・2012第二届中国国际积极心理学大会
- ・首届世界香具文化大会暨高峰论坛在浙江龙泉圆满召开
最新文章
- ・英文版《价值文明》在法国NDB集团希腊雅典时代盛典上
- ・中德创新组合 推进高水平经贸合作
- ・中国（山东）-德国经贸合作交流系列活动在慕尼黑圆满落
- ・中德合作增进互信 创新合作深度交流
- ・玉桥街道小巷管家开展”学习重要回信精神”主题宣讲活动
- ・《春芽助梦情怀暖，七彩引航前路明》
- ・亚太国际非物质文化遗产委员会成为联合国全球契约组织会
- ・2024龙庆峡高山星空音乐汇盛大开幕 融合自然与音乐
- ・中非携手 共创未来 海外华侨华人共话中非合作
- ・弘扬、保护、挖掘、发展花朝文化的倡议书在京发布
- ・首届世界香具文化大会暨高峰论坛在浙江龙泉圆满召开
- ・2012第二届中国国际积极心理学大会
- ・美国迈阿密大学访问学者项目
京公网安备 11010602130070号