The China challenge, 50 years on

Gough Whitlam’s historic visit to Beijing 50 years ago was, says the last surviving member of his delegation, Stephen FitzGerald, a “journey into the unknown”. It turned out, Troy Bramston wrote in The Weekend Australian, to be a breakthrough trip of high political adventure and political risk “with profound consequences for Australia” and our relationship with China.

Much has changed since Whitlam arrived in what was then Peking on July 3, 1971, and two days later had a late-night meeting with premier Zhou Enlai in the Great Hall of the People. It was a week that changed the world; on the day Whitlam and his delegation left Peking, July 9, US national security adviser Henry Kissinger arrived for secret talks with Zhou that were to lead to president Richard Nixon’s announcement that he would go to China to normalise relations. That, in turn, led to China opening up to the world.

Australia also was quick to recognise China diplomatically on December 21, 1972, after the Whitlam government came to power, with Mr FitzGerald becoming our first ambassador to China. That was six years ahead of the US. The process benefited from the outlook of Zhou, China’s master diplomat. He favoured coexistence with the West after the Korean War. He was the antithesis of the irrational wolf warriors who now hold sway in Beijing. Whitlam may have been unaware of the epic events occurring concurrently behind the scenes in relation to Dr Kissinger and Nixon. But the timing and foresight that underpinned the Labor leader’s arrival in Beijing could not have been better. The Australian partly funded his delegation’s visit.

Fast-forward a half-century and the excitement and optimism that attended Whitlam’s breakthrough and the establishment of diplomatic relations have been replaced by rancour and belligerence emanating from Beijing. Mr FitzGerald, Bramston reported, is critical of Coalition and Labor governments for lacking a coherent strategic policy for engaging with China, and laments that relations are mired in what he termed paranoia and panic.

“We should be engaging with Beijing at the highest possible level,” Mr FitzGerald said. “It is really important to be talking at the very top.” That is true. But it applies equally to Beijing and the Chinese Communist Party under the aggressive rule of Xi Jinping. The optimism that surrounded Whitlam’s visit and the openings it achieved with Zhou mostly have served China and Australia well for a half-century. They have underpinned what was, until the world was devastated by the pandemic that emerged from Wuhan, a successful bilateral relationship that has benefited both countries. As Mr FitzGerald said, “China is different”, but that “does not absolve us of the responsibility of trying to engage with it”. That is what countries such as Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Vietnam do.

China may have damaged its standing and reputation with the main US alliances – the Group of Seven, NATO and the Quad comprising the US, Japan, India and Australia – which are now focused on the China challenge. But as Bramston writes on Tuesday, most countries in our region have found a way to engage with China to their benefit, including Japan, which has deep-seated grievances with China. As he writes, we could do with “a dose of Whitlam-Nixon realpolitik” now. At the same time, China’s expansionism across the region, its crushing of Hong Kong and its hostility over trade cannot be swept under the carpet. Mr FitzGerald said Australia-China relations were at their lowest point since the historic Whitlam visit. To thaw the freeze, he suggested that back-channel discussions, provided the right envoy could be found, such as a former prime minister or foreign minister, could pave the way for high-level meetings. The possibility is worth considering while holding our ground on key issues.