For decades Australia sold its soul to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in exchange for getting rich in business.
The recently signed AUKUS treaty represents a major foreign policy pivot that stems from an Australian awakening from self-imposed blindness about the CCP and a recognition that Australians have treated China as rose-colored for far too long. seen through glasses.
Both AUKUS and the Quad alliance signal a realization that the cost of allowing China to become Australia’s major trading partner was too high.
But Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s change in policy is not just about China. It is a change that reveals two different prime ministers’ view of Australia and its place in the world.
To use the terminology of journalist David Goodhart, we are seeing a shift from Paul Keating’s “anywhere” (globalist and internationalist) vision to Morrison’s “anywhere” (Australia-rooted) vision.
Goodhart’s book, “The Road to Somewhere,” states that people “anywhere” see themselves as global citizens of the world who are happy to be anywhere. Therefore, they are not interested in the sovereignty of their own countries and will happily hand over control to multilateral organizations such as the United Nations and dilute their borders.
Furthermore, their identity is not achieved by intertwining in national communities (Australia) or local communities (Brisbane or Sydney). Instead, learn their shared global identity from “anywhere” education and passing exams. These identities are often confused with internationalist causes to help “victims” – and a strong need to be seen to have “tolerance” towards others. As a result, “anywhere” will happily open their borders to mass immigration to demonstrate that they are not fanatical.
On the other hand, the identity of “somewhere” lies in their local communities and countries. They identify with the traditions, institutions and values of their own nations and care about loyalty, authority and purity.
“Somewhere” not only see themselves as first and foremost in their society, but they also care about faith, flag, and family. As a result, “somewhere” are ready to negotiate deals with other like-minded countries, but will not give up their sovereignty.
Similarly, “anywhere” will oppose open borders and mass immigration because these are seen as a potential threat to their cultures and sovereignty.
Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating was an outstanding “anywhere” globalist who worked hard to try and realize Australian thinking.
At heart, Keating seemed ashamed of his own country and culture. He disliked Australia’s Anglo heritage and British imperial past. For this reason, he proposed that Australians should turn their backs on this legacy in favor of seeing themselves as a nation belonging to “anywhere” Asia.
And so, during Keating’s presidency and in the decades that followed, globalization, mass migration, and multiculturalism became the terms pushed by the Australian media.
Australia’s reorientation of Keating raised three concerns.
First, globalization resulted in massive de-industrialization and the export of Australian jobs to China. By the time the CCP became militarily assertive, Australia found itself dependent on external supply chains that the CCP could disrupt.
Second, after Keating, Australians became obsessed with turning to Asia and building Asian trade. This led to a curious “Asian crisis” in which Australians fell upon themselves for trying to appease China’s CCP rulers. The Australian “somewhere” saw his fellow Australians become shamefully obedient in their attempt to be liked by Asian leaders.
The business sector constantly reminded politicians and media pundits that growing the economy meant making China happy. Similarly, teachers and academics teach Australians that their economic future lies in Asia.
raising concerns about Australia’s over-reliance on Chinese trade, or criticizing the increased risk of Australian universities reliance on Chinese students, or even questioning Australia’s mass migration policy, “racist “Will be scolded for being.
Ultimately this Asia pivot was disastrous for Australia because although relocating factories to China could result in cheaper goods, it turned China into an industrial giant. Furthermore, a failure to foresee such unintended consequences resulted in Australians mistakenly giving the CCP the resources to build up their forces which now threaten to bite.
Third, since the Hawke-Keating government (1983 to 1996), Australia introduced a mass education system that promoted the concept of appeasing China, as well as the notion that Australians were embarrassed about their colonial past. And be apologetic.
Ironically, Keating’s frequent criticism of Australians and bullying of their British cousins—and pushing the education system to leave this position—was replaced by an Asian pandering.
The CCP quickly realized how they could use it and take advantage of the naive Australian “anywhere”.
By the time Morrison became prime minister, Australians would find themselves completely dependent on trade with China. If that wasn’t bad enough, China was ruled by a communist regime that behaved aggressively and began to exhibit signs of an expansionist power.
Once the CCP was powerful enough, he made it clear to Australia that given Keating’s latest outbreak, it needed to choose between Beijing or Washington DC, aimed at the AUKUS deal, the former premier said. The minister may have chosen Beijing.
Although Morrison chose the United States, and in turn, democracy and freedom.
Morrison’s refusal to bow to the CCP despite extreme pressure shows that he has lost sight of two of the Australian characteristics that Keating had worked to build.
At first, Morrison distanced Australians from Keating’s Asian pandering.
Second, he has demonstrated that he thinks “somewhere” by making deals that benefit Australia’s national interest, including AUKUS and the Quad.
Looking at these deals, one notes that Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Boris Johnson (United Kingdom), Narendra Modi (India), and now-retired Yoshihide Suga (Japan) all contested and won elections “somewhere”. No wonder Keating is unhappy with Australia’s new look.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
This News Originally From – The Epoch Times