Rogue Nation

China must be told to stop interfering in Australian affairs
By Graeme Smith

Chinese radio stations here deliver content identical to that of China's Ministry of Propaganda. 

Monday night's episode of Four Corners lined up an array of academics, bureaucrats and politicians expressing alarm about China's attempts to influence Australia through clandestine activities.
Australia's former ambassador to China, Geoff Raby, was a notable exception, observing that China's efforts were much like those of other nations, particularly Israel.
Some similarities between the external activities of Israel and China are striking.
Both are driven by contested identities, based on post-colonial politics dating back to the 1940s and beyond.
On this front, China is faring better than Israel: Taiwan's diplomatic isolation is almost complete, while more than 70 per cent of UN members now recognise the state of Palestine.
Both are well resourced, and because of language barriers, much of their work is outside the view of most Australians.
Both continue to have a take-no-prisoners approach to the espionage side of the influence game, with Israel known for its assassination operations, and China rolling up a network of CIA informants with ruthlessness worthy of an early John Le Carre novel.
Both attempt to enlist politicians to their cause, and on this front, Israel is more effective.
Few would question Michael Danby's longstanding commitment to Israel, while his Labor Party colleagues, from Sam Dastyari to Joel Fitzgibbon, have found pro-China activities do little to benefit their political careers.
Yet this is where the similarities end, and why no-one in ASIO is losing sleep over Israel's activities in Australia.
Israel is not our major trading partner. 

There are not one million people of Israeli descent living in Australia. 

Israel does not influence sea lanes to our immediate north. 

Israel is a democracy.
Beyond this, the purpose and nature of China's "influence operations" are quite different.

China working to 'persuade, manage, discipline and control'
As John Fitzgerald noted in an episode of the Little Red Podcast, "the Propaganda Bureau and others have given up on trying to persuade non-Chinese Australians … it couldn't care what they think. Rather it's messaging to them the consequences of what they think. Whereas within the Chinese community there's an effort to persuade, manage, discipline and control."
The first incident to alarm Australia's intelligence service — the sudden mobilisation and arrival of thousands of Chinese students to Canberra to protect the Olympic torch ("sacred flame" in Chinese media reports) from anti-China protesters — provided a perfect illustration of this difference.
For mainstream Australian TV viewers, the sight of Chinese students being arrested after shouting down and assaulting pro-Tibet protesters looked like a colossal soft power fail.
But the elaborately choreographed and expensively assembled protest wasn't staged for non-Chinese consumption. 

It sent an effective message that the party line extended well beyond China's borders.
The comparison also does little justice to the sophistication of Israel's public diplomacy, embodied by Australian-born Mark Regev, former chief spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister, now ambassador to Great Britain.
Will we ever see an Australian-born Chinese citizen arguing — in a reassuring drawl — for Australia to give China "a fair go" in Tibet or Xinjiang? 

It seems unlikely.
It also misses the point that Israeli citizens can choose from a range of political parties with different foreign policies.
Chinese citizens cannot remove their ruling party, or even mildly rebuke it abroad for failing to deal with air pollution.
Under Xi Jinping's assertive approach, Ministry of Foreign Affairs representatives even feel comfortable organising the disruption of international forums in Australia, and inciting other countries to join in.

Politicians can no longer claim ignorance
Against this background of renewed assertiveness brought by Xi's leadership, it is the zeal for controlling the message about China to Chinese Australians that is perhaps most difficult to fathom.
All 24-hour Chinese language radio stations in Australia now broadcast content identical to that delivered by China's Ministry of Propaganda. 

Yet Chinese consular officials visit the stations in person to vet talkback callers and instruct the stations on which guests are off limits.
The majority of print media outlets follow a similar line, and arms of the Chinese state actively pressure the holdouts.
All Chinese language media are instructed on what they should and should not run at "sensitive" times, such as the recent visit of  Li Keqiang.
As the child of Scottish migrants, it would be as if Nicola Sturgeon's Scottish Nationalist Party decided it had the right to act as the arbiter of what I heard, read and said about Scotland — and had the means to stop me criticising the weather or my countrymen's love of offal.
It is an absurd situation.
It is tragic that Chinese citizens live in what political theorist Stein Ringen has described as a "controlocracy", but we should not tolerate Chinese Australians being subject to the perfect dictatorship.
Our politicians can no longer claim that they don't know.
It is time to ask China to stop interfering in our internal affairs.

Der Anschluss Australiens 吞并澳大利亚进入中国

Australian Politics Is Open to Chinese Cash
Australia’s intelligence had identified two Chinese businessmen, Huang Xiangmo and Chau Chak Wing, who have donated millions across the political spectrum in recent years, as agents for the Chinese government.

By DAMIEN CAVE and JACQUELINE WILLIAMS

Huang Xiangmo, a prominent businessman of Chinese descent, in Sydney last year. Huang is one of two donors Australia’s intelligence chief had identified as agents for the Chinese government.

SYDNEY, Australia — As the United States investigates Russia’s efforts to sway last year’s presidential election, Australia is engaged in a heated debate over how vulnerable its own political system is to foreign influence — and whether China is already meddling in it.
The issue was thrust to the forefront this week by a report that Australia’s intelligence chief had identified two prominent businessmen of Chinese descent, who have donated millions across the political spectrum in recent years, as agents for the Chinese government.
One of the donors is said to have withdrawn a large contribution last year because of a political party’s position on the disputed South China Sea, suggesting a back-room effort to shift public discussion of a policy issue in Beijing’s favor.
The question of Chinese interference is a sensitive one for Australia, an American "ally" that has embraced Beijing as its largest trade partner and welcomed Chinese investors and immigrants in large numbers. 

The political establishment here has generally been reluctant to tackle the issue.
But the nation is now asking how a multicultural society should police a Communist power that has a record of mobilizing, and bullying, ethnic Chinese overseas to support its goals.

China’s attempts to translate its economic might into political influence have caused unease in many countries. 

But the challenge is acute in Australia.
Many Australians view good ties with China as critical to their future prosperity, and Australia is an especially enticing and easy target for Beijing because of its strategic value in the Pacific — and because foreign donations are both legal and difficult to track in its loose, opaque campaign finance system.
By contrast, such donations are largely banned in the United States, Canada and throughout most of Europe.

The Chau Chak Wing Building, on the University of Technology Sydney campus, is named after a Chinese billionaire property developer who gave $15 million to the school. Australia’s intelligence chief has identified Chau as a agent for the Chinese government. 

Australia's new master: Chau Chak Wing and John Howard share a toast.

“It’s not so much that China is more active but that Australia is more receptive and more vulnerable,” said John Fitzgerald, a professor at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia, who studies civil society in China.
Concern about the influence of Chinese money erupted with new disclosures about the two businessmen, both billionaire property developers: Chau Chak Wing, an Australian citizen, and Huang Xiangmo, a resident who has applied for citizenship.
Duncan Lewis, the director of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, warned leading political parties two years ago against accepting contributions from the men because of their ties to the Chinese government, according to a joint report by Fairfax Media newspapers and “Four Corners,” a current affairs television program.
But the Liberal Party and its governing coalition partners, as well as the opposition Labor Party, continued to take the money. 

The news organizations found that the men and their associates had made at least $5 million in political donations in Australia in recent years, including more than $820,000 since Mr. Lewis’s warning.
The most striking disclosure, though, revolves around a donation that did not occur. 

As a general election approached last year, Huang pledged to give an additional $300,000 to the Labor Party. 

But weeks before the vote, the report said, he rescinded the offer and made clear why: He was upset about a party official saying Australia should send naval patrols to challenge Beijing’s claims to the South China Sea.
The Pentagon has urged Australia to join it on such patrols, but the government has resisted.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said he was preparing legislation to ban foreign political donations. 

“Just as modern China was based on an assertion of national sovereignty, so China should always respect the sovereignty of other nations, including our own,” he said.
But the broader problem may be the role of big money in Australian politics. 

Campaign financing is largely unregulated, with no limits on fund-raising, donations or spending, and critics say that has resulted in a culture of corruption that Chinese donors have learned to exploit.
At the federal level, it takes seven to 19 months for the public to learn how much parties have raised and from whom, and donors are identified only if they have contributed more than 13,500 Australian dollars, or about $10,000. 

As a result, individuals, and corporations, can anonymously make multiple donations below that threshold. 

At the same time, Australian politicians are not required to explain what they do with the money.

Duncan Lewis, the director of Australia’s domestic intelligence agency, warned leading political parties two years ago against accepting donations from two prominent businessmen because of their ties to the Chinese government.

“What we have is a thick shroud of secrecy regarding political donations at the federal level,” said Joo-Cheong Tham, an associate professor at Melbourne Law School. 

“I think that clearly gives rise to corruption and undue influence.”
Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson hinted at Washington’s concern after meetings in Sydney on Monday. 

“We cannot allow China to use its economic power to buy its way out of other problems,” he said.
A report by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation last year concluded that businesses and individuals “with Chinese connections” had donated more than 5.5 million Australian dollars to the main political parties from 2013 to 2015, “making them easily the largest source of foreign-linked donations.”
But defining what a “Chinese connection” is and when it should matter is contentious, because more than 4 percent of Australia’s population is of Chinese ancestry.

One of the donors flagged by Australian intelligence, Chau Chak Wing, immigrated decades ago. 

He has long maintained that his campaign contributions are benign and unrelated to the Chinese government. 

But his profile suggests close ties with the Chinese authorities, and his political contacts in Australia would enhance his stature in China.
His company, the Kingold Group, and its sprawling real estate empire are based in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou. 

He also has invested in a newspaper there, linking him to the state propaganda apparatus, and is a member of a provincial body that advises the Communist Party.
The other donor, Huang Xiangmo, moved to Australia six years ago and leads the Australian Council for the Promotion of the Peaceful Reunification of China, which promotes Beijing’s foreign policy positions, including its assertion that Taiwan is part of China and opposition to independence for Tibet. 

Though such views are common among Chinese, Huang’s fortune — the holdings of his Yuhu Group range from agriculture to malls — means his voice commands attention.

Andrew Robb, second from right, the trade minister at the time, signing a trade agreement with China in 2015. Mr. Robb was reported to have received a part-time consulting contract worth more than $650,000 a year from a Chinese billionaire. 

In an editorial published in a state-run newspaper in China last year, he said coverage about Chinese contributions distorting Australian politics was racially biased. 

He added that Chinese in Australia had long been expected to pay tribute to politicians with donations but stay quiet on policy.
“The Chinese realize that they need to make their voices heard in the political circle so as to seek more interests for the Chinese,” he told reporters recently.
In a statement on Tuesday, though, he denied linking his donations to foreign policy. 

“I expect nothing in return,” he said. 

“While some seek to reinforce negative stereotypes about Chinese involvement in Australia, I am committed to more positive pursuits.”
Chen Yonglin, a former Chinese consular official in Australia who defected in 2005, said the donations disclosed so far were “very small compared to the transactions completed under the table,” including free trips to China and other gifts to politicians that can be impossible to track.
The uproar has focused attention on a revolving door in which politicians sometimes go to work for Chinese companies after leaving office. 

The former trade minister, Andrew Robb, who negotiated a trade pact with China, have received a part-time consulting contract worth more than $650,000 a year from a Chinese billionaire.
China’s growing leverage over academia has also come under scrutiny as universities have become increasingly dependent on tuition paid by Chinese students and, in some cases, donations from Chinese benefactors. 

Beijing is using this leverage to stifle critical views.
Chau Chak Wing, for example, gave $15 million to the University of Technology Sydney for a building that bears his name, and Huang’s money helped establish the Australia-China Relations Institute at the university, overseen by a former foreign minister, Bob Carr.
Feng Chongyi, a professor at the university who has criticized the Communist Party’s suppression of dissent, said the institute had repeatedly brushed off his efforts to get involved.

Professor Feng said Australia must decide whether money or values defined its politics. 

“The question is whether you’re willing to make sacrifices to fight these illiberal tendencies,” he said, in his tiny office near the gleaming Chau Chak Wing Building on campus. 

“If you don’t maintain your core values, it’s all just business.”

Australia: For Sale

• Sam Dastyari contradicted South China Sea policy a day after Chinese donor's threat
• Billionaire Huang Xiangmo took exception to Labor’s stance on disputed territory and threatened to withdraw a $400,000 donation.

By Gabrielle Chan

Australia's Quisling: Labor senator Sam Dastyari told the Chinese media in September 2016 that Australia shouldn’t interfere with China’s activities in the South China Sea, contradicting his own party’s policy.

The Labor senator Sam Dastyari contradicted Labor party policy on the South China Sea a day after influential Chinese billionaire Huang Xiangmo threatened to withdraw a promised $400,000 donation to the party, Four Corners has alleged.
The program, by Faifax’s Nick McKenzie, reports that Huang took exception to comments made by then Labor defence shadow Stephen Conroy that Australia’s defence force should be able to conduct freedom of navigation operations in the disputed area.
After Huang threatened to cancel the donation, Dastyari told the Chinese media that Australia shouldn’t interfere with China’s activities in the South China Sea. 

When the comments were reported, Dastyari denied he had split with the party on the policy, saying he wasn’t responsible for the way it was reported.
Four Corners also reported that Dastyari’s office asked the immigration department of the progress of Huang’s stalled citizenship application four times in the lead-up to the last election with the senator personally making two of the calls.
Huang is chairman of the Yuhu Group and had previously donated $5,000 to cover “legal bills” before Dastyari was a senator as well as larger amounts to both sides of politics and a number of universities as well as charities.
In a statement to Four Corners, Huang said he took “strong objection” to any suggestion he had linked his donations to any foreign policy outcome.
The report comes less than a year after Dastyari resigned from the Labor shadow ministry after it was revealed that he asked for and accepted a payment of $1,670.82 from Australian Chinese businessman Minshen Zhu.
At the time Dastyari said he had “fallen short” in his duty as a member of parliament but he was reinstated to the shadow minister in February this year as Senate deputy opposition whip.
The government is currently considering a report in March this year by the Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee on Electoral Matters which recommended a ban on foreign donations but split on donations from activist groups.
The government has yet to formulate a response to the report but it is understood it is very close. Malcolm Turnbull has previously said he favours a ban on foreign donations and it is also Labor party policy.
Huang gave $770,000 to the Liberals before the 2013 election and donated $100,000 to the then trade minister Andrew Robb’s campaign fundraising vehicle, as Robb signed off on the China Australia Free Trade deal.
Robb developed a close relationship with the billionaire and was quoted in a speech on Four Corners as a “thoughtful cerebral fellow” and a “visionary”.
Another Chinese based company, Landbridge, controversially won the 99-year lease on the port of Darwin in 2015 when Robb was still trade minister.
Four Corners revealed that Robb had been appointed as a consultant to Landbridge on 1 July, the day before he retired from politics. 

Landbridge announced the appointment in September 2016.

According to Four Corners, from 1 July 2016 Robb was paid $73,000 a month, or $880,000 a year, plus expenses. 

He told Four Corners he acted in line with his obligations as former trade minister.
The statement of ministerial standards states ministers should not lobby or advocate with the government for 18 months after their political retirement.
Prof John Fitzgerald of the Ford Foundation, Beijing, told the program “Mr Huang is very generous to all parties”.
“He could hardly be called partisan; he contributes to the Liberal party as well as to the Labor party,” Fitzgerald says. 

“He’s also a very generous employer of former party operatives.”
Huang has also employed former New South Wales Labor treasurer Eric Roozendaal.
The program also investigated the donations of an Australian Chinese citizen Chau Chak Wing who was a member of a Communist party advisory group known as a people’s political consultative conference (CPPCC).
The group carries out the work of a party lobbying arm called the United Front Work Department.
Chau has donated more than $4m to the major parties over the past decade, according to Four Corners.
Four Corners revealed that the Asio chief, Duncan Lewis, has become so worried about the influence of foreign donations that he organised meetings with the senior party officers from the federal Liberal, National parties and Labor parties to warn them that the donors could compromise the major parties.
The executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Peter Jennings, described such donations as naked influence buying.
“I think that this type of, frankly, naked influence buying, is something which is damaging to Australia’s political system.
“I would far rather have a regime in place whereby we, the taxpayer, pay for the cost of our elections than relying on parties to get donations from foreign sources, wherever they may come from.
“But you know, notably those foreign sources are primarily linked to Chinese business.”