China’s immovable mindset

Chinese ambassador Xiao Qian’s performance at the National Press Club on Wednesday suggested he was no wolf warrior. He is too sophisticated, articulate and urbane to resort to Global Times-style confrontational rhetoric, unlike many Chinese Communist Party apparatchiks, including his belligerent predecessor in Canberra Cheng Jingye. Mr Xiao’s unflappable coolness on a day when China continued menacing People’s Liberation Army drills around Taiwan was testament to his diplomatic skills. At times he was so cool it was chilling. The future of Taiwan’s 23 million people, he said, “will be decided by 1.4 billion Chinese people”. Once “reunited” with the mainland, the Taiwanese could expect re-education: “Coming back to the motherland, there might be a process for the people in Taiwan to have a correct understanding of China about the motherland.”

The ambassador preferred not to use the word invasion in relation to Taiwan because it was not an independent state but a “province of the People’s Republic of China”. It was “an issue of reunification, complete reunification”. Akin to Tasmania as part of Australia, though he conceded this was not a good example. But the issue involved “territorial integrity”. Mr Xiao did not rule out the use of force. China had waited patiently for several decades for a peaceful reunification, he said, but could never rule out the use of “all necessary means”. Which meant? “You can use your imagination.”

Mr Xiao’s responses to some questions would have sat well in George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Contrary to detailed and consistent polling data, Mr Xiao claimed most people in Taiwan favoured reunion with China and believed Taiwan a province of China. The “one country, two systems” deal offered to Hong Kong had “generally” been successful. “Loopholes” in the process had caused problems, the ambassador said. But “by taking necessary measures at the national constitution level, we solved the problem and we have full confidence that the future of Hong Kong will be even brighter”. That will be news to imprisoned media boss Jimmy Lai and other Hong Kong democracy fighters.

The ambassador’s perspective on the Chinese fighter plane that aggressively challenged an RAAF maritime surveillance aircraft in international airspace over the South China Sea in late May beggared belief. The Chinese aircraft flew dangerously close to an Australian P-8A Poseidon, firing flares and aluminium chaff. The Albanese government protested to Chinese authorities about the dangerous manoeuvre. The “unfortunate” incident occurred, Mr Xiao said, “within the territorial space of an island that belongs to China”. While effectively controlled by China, ownership of the Paracel Islands is disputed between China, Vietnam and Taiwan. “So just like you – you’re in your house, within your compound, somebody is driving around, carrying a gun and trying to peep into your windows,” he said. “You would feel threatened and feel uncomfortable. So you have to come out and tell those people to keep their distance, at least.” Far from acting like peeping Toms, Australia and other nations have conducted maritime surveillance in the area for decades. It is our major trading route. The RAAF aircraft involved in the incident, Defence Minister Richard Marles said at the time, was “operating completely within our rights in international law”.

Nor was Mr Xiao’s response to a question about the two-year detention of Chinese-Australian journalist and news anchor Cheng Lei for allegedly breaking China’s national security laws reassuring. The details of her alleged offences remain opaque and she has not seen her children since her imprisonment. The basic rights of a couple of Australian citizens in custody in China, Mr Xiao said, “are well protected, don’t worry about that”.

While Mr Xiao emphasised his desire to see the bilateral relationship improve and lauded mutually beneficial achievements across 50 years in trade, tourism and education, his underlying position was clear. The relationship would improve if Australia toed China’s line over Taiwan, respected the Chinese legal system’s treatment of Australians detained there and toed China’s line on other matters such as allowing Huawei to trade in Australia. Unadorned by hyperbole or rhetorical flourishes, the ambassador’s speech and deadpan answers to journalists’ questions filled a useful purpose. He provided a clear insight into China’s immovable mindset. The speech should help inform Australia’s strategic policies and planning.