Former Australian prime minister Paul Keating (left) waves to the audience at the launch of the Labor Party's election campaign in Sydney on June 19, 2016. (WILLIAM WEST / AFP)
Former Australian prime minister Paul Keating and analysts criticized British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss over her remarks that China could engage in military aggression in the Pacific, describing Truss’ comments as “not simply irrational” but “demented”.
In a scathing opinion piece published on Jan 23, Keating also said that the United Kingdom “suffers delusions of grandeur and relevance deprivation”, and that it would not be taken seriously as a player in the Indo-Pacific region.
Writing for the public policy online journal ‘Pearls and Irritations’, Keating said “the reality is Britain does not add up to a row of beans when it comes to East Asia”.
The op-ed came a day after Truss, in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, said China could use a Russian invasion of Ukraine as an opportunity to launch aggression of its own in the Indo-Pacific.
“I don’t think we can rule that out,” she said.
The op-ed by former PM Paul Keating came a day after British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, said China could use a Russian invasion of Ukraine as an opportunity to launch aggression of its own in the Indo-Pacific
“Russia is working more closely with China than it ever has. Aggressors are working in concert, and I think it’s incumbent on countries like ours (Australia and the UK) to work together,” Truss said.
Reacting to her remarks, China's embassy in London warned that Britain's diplomacy will go nowhere if it follows the Cold War playbook.
ALSO READ: 'Australia itself responsible for low Chinese investment'
Truss and UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace travelled to Australia last week to take part in defence and security talks with their Australian counterparts. The talks included Australia’s decision to buy eight nuclear powered submarines either from the UK or the United States.
The three nations recently formed a new security alliance called AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom, United States), aiming to share defence and intelligence data with a focus on China.
Truss’ comments were seen by analysts as adding to the Cold War hysteria coming from Washington and Canberra and primarily aimed at China and its perceived influence in the Asia-Pacific region.
James Laurenceson, director of the Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney, said: “Talk that the world can be divided into democratic and non-democratic states, or those that have ‘liberty’ and those that don’t, doesn’t match reality.”
This photo taken on Sept 8, 2019 shows the Chinese and Australian national flags on a celebration event in Sydney, Australia. (PHOTO / XINHUA)
Liz Truss’ comments were seen by analysts as adding to the Cold War hysteria coming from Washington and Canberra and primarily aimed at China and its perceived influence in the Asia-Pacific region
He said he has become increasingly convinced that Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison sees simplistic, tough talk on China as “a useful strategy to deflect from domestic political problems”.
“Now Britain is out of Europe and trying to carve out a place for itself on the global stage, (so) its leaders, too, might see advantage from taking the same approach,” Laurenceson told China Daily.
Colin Mackerras, a leading Australian Sinologist and professor emeritus at Griffith University in Queensland, said, “I think Paul Keating has a point when he says that Britain is still seeking old-time glory.”
It should, however, be put in the context of two things, he told China Daily.
“One is Britain's withdrawal from the EU, which has turned out to be much more troublesome than expected, especially over the Irish issue and how unsympathetic the EU has been.
ALSO READ: US, Australia urged to stop interfering in China's affairs
“The other thing is AUKUS. It looks as if Truss is really welcome in Australia and feels that Australia really likes her. This must feel good in the context of the total mess that (British PM) Boris Johnson finds himself in now.”
But what does Australia gain?
“Nothing in reality!” said Mackerras. “In appearance, perhaps it gains the feeling that the Anglosphere is back and Australia can bask in being part of it and becoming part of an anti-China alliance.
“As for the signal it sends to Beijing, (it) is that Australia has turned its back on China, and even Asia, and wants to be part of the Anglosphere again, just like in the past."
In appearance, perhaps it (Australia) gains the feeling that the Anglosphere is back and Australia can bask in being part of it and becoming part of an anti-China alliance.
Colin Mackerras, leading Australian Sinologist and professor emeritus at Griffith University in Queensland
Mackerras added that he found “the whole idea of Truss joining in with Morrison and Dutton quite embarrassing and humiliating, especially when she starts making stupid remarks about Chinese aggression”.
Truss, in her interview to the Herald, said malign Chinese government actions were of concern to Britain because “China’s influence is global”.
Beijing is using economic coercion against the European nation of Lithuania as well as Australia, and seeking to extend its power worldwide, she said.
The UK and Australia are “facing global challenges with multiple aggressors … We are seeing the alignment of authoritarian regimes around the world,” she said.
But is that really the case?
On Jan 17, in a speech to the World Economic Forum, Chinese President Xi Jinping called for a more peaceful world and abandoning the Cold War mentality.
READ MORE: Australia urged to 'face up to crux of setbacks' in ties
“We need to discard Cold War mentality and seek peaceful coexistence and win-win outcomes,” he said.
“History has proved time and again that confrontation does not solve problems; it only invites catastrophic consequences,” Xi said.
Keating said Xi’s speech was “hardly the sort of sentiment that sits contemporaneously with someone about to spring an aggressive military action”.
