Hillary Clinton says China's foreign power grab a new global battle

Experts are sounding the alarm in Australia and New Zealand about Chinese efforts to gain political power and influence policy decisions
By Ben Doherty and Eleanor Ainge Roy

Former US secretary of state and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks in Auckland, New Zealand on Monday night.

China’s attempt to gain political power and influence in foreign countries is “a new global battle”, Hillary Clinton has warned.
Speaking to an audience in New Zealand on Monday night, the former US secretary of state and presidential candidate said Chinese interference in domestic policy was apparent in Australia and New Zealand as well as the US.
“In Australia and here in New Zealand experts are sounding the alarm about Chinese efforts to gain political power and influence policy decisions,” Clinton said.
“[Academic] Anne-Marie Brady of the University of Canterbury has rightly called this a new global battle, and it’s just getting started. We need to take it seriously.”
New Zealand’s prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, told reporters Clinton’s statements about China were not new.
Clinton’s comments follow testimony from the Australian academic Clive Hamilton to the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China that Beijing was waging a “campaign of psychological warfare” against Australia, as America’s most significant ally in the region, undermining democracy and cowing free speech.
Hamilton said Australia was being subjected to Chinese Communist party-sponsored operations of “subversion, cyber intrusions and harassment on the high seas”.
“Beijing knows that it cannot bully the United States – in the current environment the consequences would be unpredictable and probably counterproductive – so it is instead pressuring its allies,” Hamilton said.

New Zealand’s foreign minister, Winston Peters, was due to outline the government’s budget plans for foreign affairs on Tuesday, with some tipping greater spending on the Pacific following his announcement of an increased focus on the region earlier this year.
On Tuesday Australia’s Lowy Institute released its Power Index, confirming China’s rising power and influence across the Asia-Pacific.
America remains the Asia-Pacific’s dominant power, but money, influence and might were shifting from west to east, the index found.
And Donald’s Trump’s political power is a liability for the world’s superpower. 

The US ranks 13th on Lowy’s list of political leadership, equal with Cambodia’s authoritarian and controversial prime minister Hun Sen. 

China heads that category: Xi Jinping has recently been been successful in removing term limits for his position, paving the way for him to be dictator for life.
The Asia-Pacific would emerge as the globe’s dominant region in coming years, the Lowy report said. 

Within a decade, two-thirds of the world’s population will live in Asia, just over 10% will live in the West.
“Much of the world’s future economic growth will come from Asia – but so will the world’s future challenges,” the report argued. 

“Asia is already the location of America’s only true peer competitor, China, as well as the world’s most dangerous country, North Korea.”
Lowy’s new analytical tool – the product of two years’ work – measures power across 25 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, stretching west as far as Pakistan, north to Russia, and across the Pacific to the United States. 

Power is assessed across 114 indicators: including military, economic, and natural resources; diplomatic and cultural influence; trading relationships; capacity to deter real or potential threats; and defence networks.
The index produced using the tool found that the US remained the pre-eminent regional power. 

But China was rising rapidly and closing in on American dominance. 

China ranked higher for diplomatic influence and economic relationships in the region, but the US was dominant in defence networks, military capability and cultural influence.
The US and China are currently locked in tense trade talks that -- despite the positive spin being promoted by both countries -- appear locked in several fundamental impasses, especially over tariffs, strategic industry subsidies, and technology exports.
The index ranked Japan and India as major powers in the region, but found they were moving in opposite directions: India’s young, growing workforce contrasted with Japan’s wealthy but ageing population.
Russia, Australia, South Korea and Singapore were the leading “middle powers”.

Silent Invasion: the question of race

The real racial double standard is the suggestion that the government should allow some Australians, on account of their ethnicity, to be less protected than others from Chinese interference and intimidation.
By Rory Medcalf

Clive Hamilton’s new book Silent Invasion: Chinese Influence in Australia is coming in for considerable criticism. 

But I doubt anyone will question the author’s courage to say things as he sees them. 

His publisher, Hardie Grant, of Spycatcher fame, likewise deserves acknowledgement for its commitment to open debate.
As a morally charged voice from the civil libertarian left, Hamilton punctures the lazy myth that concern about China is limited to conservatives or national security types on a “China threat roll”, who for some reason feel the need to conjure up new trouble.
Broadly speaking, Hamilton has done Australia a long-term service. 

The book’s forthrightness is resounding internationally. 

Many countries have looked to Australia to understand how to uncover and curb covert, corrupt, and coercive forms of Chinese influence and interference. 

From the United States to Germany, France to Singapore, Japan to India, Canada and New Zealand, many eyes have focused on the Australian experience to understand how China exploits the upsides of economic, societal, and political bonds to advance its interests at others’ expense.
The Australian story has included startling media revelations about political donations and more, extraordinary warnings from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, political controversies, and tough proposed legislation. 

And now scrutiny is turning to Hamilton’s book.
Silent Invasion will be essential reading for those in many countries concerned for their national security and the integrity of their institutions. 

Worth attention is the way the book illuminates the motives and secretive methods of the United Front Work Department. 

This organ of the Chinese Communist Party is now a familiar name in Australian public debate, so all this sunlight is getting us somewhere.
There is plenty to debate about the balance of Hamilton’s unsettling assessments on issues such as politics, espionage, Chinese community dynamics, and academic links. 

On politics, despite efforts at influence, parliamentary democracy is demonstrating resistance to Chinese expectations; for example, the rejection of the extradition treaty.
Much is made in Hamilton’s work, and elsewhere, of the risks of scientific research collaboration leaking new dual-use technologies to China’s military and security apparatus. 

But does primary responsibility lie with universities or with thinly resourced government policy frameworks designed for a time when the boundary between peaceful and strategic technology was simpler?
The starkest critique of the book, however, is about race.
The accusation of racism has been deployed by representatives and mouthpieces of the People’s Republic of China to discredit legitimate concerns about Chinese political interference.
Still, any suggestion that xenophobia is entering the Australian policy discourse must be taken seriously. 

One prominent warning has come from the pro-China Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane. 

He warns against anything that stirs echoes of Australia’s old history of discrimination.
To this end, Soutphommasane selectively cites certain lines of the book, along with the sensational title, Silent Invasion. 

He says it is “doubly dangerous to invite anxiety about the Chinese party-state that may shift into animosity towards people with Chinese heritage”.
Soutphommasane is saying here that Australians have no right to feel or express “anxiety about the Chinese party-state”; in other words, that they must censor their honest concerns about a foreign state’s interference simply because that state is China.
It would be morally offensive to cast a blanket of suspicion across a particular ethnic community. 

Yet if you read Hamilton’s book in full and in context of the gathering national debate, it takes quite some filtering and imagination to conclude that this is what he has set out to do.
Throughout much of the (mostly) well-footnoted text, Hamilton goes to great lengths to reiterate the distinction between the Chinese party-state and the Chinese people.
But it is not enough to say that Hamilton has chosen the wrong words to make his case, and leave it at that. 

His critics also need to give a clear sense of whether and how concerns can be expressed acceptably – of how genuine debate can proceed without censorship.
There must be a way for Australia to reconcile its proper sensitivities about race with the need to provide transparency and early warnings around a risk to national security, democratic institutions, and multicultural integrity. 

That risk is not posed by Chinese Australians but by a foreign power -- China -- and those individuals, whatever their ethnicity or citizenship, who choose to place its interests above Australia’s.

The fifth column: Beijing Bob and Chinese agents in Australia

Criticism of influence by the Chinese Communist Party is not about ethnicity. 

This is borne out by the fact that voices in Australia’s diverse Chinese communities are taking the boldest stand in the pushback against such influence, and demonstrated this by being in the majority at the Sydney launch of Hamilton’s book.
The issue of Chinese interference needs to be addressed in a context of respect for the rights of Chinese-Australians. 

Racially charged partisanship needs to be avoided, otherwise a window will be opened for new modes of influence by Beijing, especially at election times. 

The whole issue must be owned and addressed by the bipartisan centre, or we will only hear voices at the extremes.
If there is racism in this debate, it is not in the suggestion that Australia should protect itself from Chinese interference.

The real racial double standard is the suggestion that by being silent on this issue the government should allow some Australians, on account of their ethnicity, to be less protected than others from Chinese interference and intimidation.