For decades Australia has sold its soul to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in exchange for enrichment in trade.
The recently signed AUKUS agreement represents a key foreign policy of the Australian awakening from self-imposed blindness about the CCP and the recognition that Australians have long seen China through pink glasses.
Both the AUKUS and Quad alliances signal a realization that the cost of allowing China to become Australia’s top trading partner is much higher.
But Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s policy change is not just about China. It is a change that reflects the views of two different prime ministers about Australia and its position in the world.
To use the terminology of journalist David Goodhart, we see a shift from Paul Keating’s “somewhere” (global and internationalist) approach to Morrison’s “somewhere” (Australia-bound) approach.
Goodhart’s book, “The Road to Somewhere,” says that “anywhere” people see themselves as global citizens of the world who are happy to live anywhere. Therefore, they are not interested in the sovereignty of their own country and will gladly hand over control to a multilateral body like the United Nations and weaken their own borders.
In addition, their identity is not derived from the affiliation of the national community (Australia) or the local community (Brisbane or Sydney). Instead, learn to share and learn their shared global identity to pass the test “anywhere”. These identities are often associated with internationalist factors – to help “victims” – and there is a strong need to see “tolerance” in others. As a result, “anywhere” will happily open their borders to mass immigration to show that they are not bigoted.
On the other hand, “somewhere”, they have roots in local communities and countries. They identify with the traditions, institutions and values of their own nation and take care of loyalty, authority and saints.
“Somewhere” not only sees them as first and foremost in their own society, they also care about faith, flags and family. As a result, “somewhere” is ready to make deals with other like-minded countries but will not give up their sovereignty.
Similarly, “somewhere” will also prevent open borders and mass migration because it is seen as a potential threat to their own culture and sovereignty.
Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating was the classic “anywhere” worldwide who tried to reshape Australian thought.
At heart, Keating seemed embarrassed by his own country and culture. He disliked the Anglo heritage of Australia and the past of the British Empire. For this reason, he suggested that Australians should withdraw from this heritage trail so that they could see themselves as “any” Asian nation.
And so, during Keating’s prime ministership and in the decades that followed, globalization, mass immigration, and multiculturalism became the words pushed by the Australian media.
Keating’s Australian restructuring has raised three concerns.
First, globalization has led to massive industrialization and the export of Australian jobs to China. As the CCP became militarily strong, Australia found itself relying on external supply chains that could disrupt the CCP.
Second, after Keating, Australians were attracted to moving to Asia and building Asian trade. This gave birth to a curious “Asian cringe” where Australians tried to please China’s CCP rulers. Australians have seen their fellow Australians “somewhere” become shamefully detrimental to Asian leaders ’attempts to make them their choice.
The business sector is constantly reminding politicians and media pundits that economic growth means making China happy. Similarly, teachers and educators taught Australians that their economic future lies in Asia.
Anyone who criticizes Australia’s over-reliance on Chinese trade, or criticizes how Australian universities are at risk because of its reliance on Chinese students, or even questions Australia’s mass immigration policy, will be condemned as “racist.”
In the end this Asia Pivot was catastrophic for Australia, although relocating the factory to China could result in cheaper products, at the same time making China an industrial giant. Moreover, not being able to think through such unintended consequences, the Australians accidentally gave the CCP the resources to build their military, which now threatens to bite.
Third, since the Hawk-Keating government (1983 to 1996), Australia introduced a mass education system that promoted the idea of appeasing China, as well as embarrassing and forgiving Australians about their colonial past.
Ironically, Keating’s continued criticism of Australians and their inspiration for British cousins - and pressure on the education system to step down – was Asian pandering.
The CCP quickly realized how they could use it and take advantage of the rude Australian “anywhere”.
When Morrison becomes prime minister, Australians will find themselves hopelessly dependent on trade with China. If this is not bad enough, China was ruled by a communist regime that behaved aggressively and began to show signs of an expansionist power.
Once the CCP is strong enough, they make it clear to Australia that with the AUKUS deal aimed at choosing between Beijing or Washington DC trials by the latest eruption of Keating, the former prime minister has probably chosen Beijing.
Morrison, however, chose the United States, and instead, democracy and freedom.
Despite numerous pressures, Morrison’s refusal to CCP shows that he has moved away from the two features of Australia that worked to create the kitting.
First, Morrison took the Australians away from Keating’s Asian pandering.
Second, he has shown that he thinks “somewhere” by concluding agreements that benefit Australia’s national interests, including Aquas and Quad.
Looking at these agreements, one notes that Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Boris Johnson (UK), Narendra Modi (India), and now retired Yoshihide Suga (Japan) have all fought and won elections “somewhere”. Not surprisingly, Keating is dissatisfied with this new-look Australia.
The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the author and The Epoch Times.
This News Originally From – The Epoch Times