Rogue Nation

China Refuses Entry to Australian Critic of Communist Party
By DAMIEN CAVE

John Hugh has been a critic of the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to influence Australian politics. 

SYDNEY, Australia — China has denied entry to a Chinese-born Australian who was traveling to Shanghai with his mother to return his father’s ashes to the land of his birth, he said on Wednesday.
John Hugh, 51, who has been an outspoken critic of the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to influence Australian politics, said he was sent back to Sydney soon after his flight landed in Shanghai on Tuesday night.
He said he was met by Chinese officials before disembarking and told that he would be put on the next flight back to Australia.
“I asked what the reason was and they just said, ‘You should know,’” he said.
Mr. Hugh, a former city councillor from Parramatta in western Sydney, surmised that he had been refused entry as punishment for his support for a new espionage bill intended to regulate foreign influence in Australia, and for his connection to a new book about the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to infiltrate Australian politics, business and academia.
In the book, “Silent Invasion,” by Clive Hamilton, Mr. Hugh is quoted criticizing the party’s efforts to limit dissent, not just in China but in Australia. 

“It’s retaliation for what we’ve done — for not cooperating with them, for being an independent voice,” he said on Wednesday.
Mr. Hugh is the founder of the Embrace Australian Values Alliance, which promotes democracy, freedom of speech and rule of law while aiming to counter Communist Party repression.
His brief detention and return to Australia suggest that Chinese officials are paying close attention to Australia’s intensifying debate about China’s influence, and that despite increased scrutiny, they believe they can accept or reject members of the Chinese diaspora as they please.
“It’s deplorable that John Hugh was prevented from entering China, particularly if this was punishment for his political activity in Australia,” said David Brophy, a senior lecturer in Chinese history at the University of Sydney.
“China uses all sorts of techniques, including visa bans and denial of entry, to exclude people from the body politic,” Professor Brophy said.
Mr. Hugh, who moved to Australia from China in 1990, said he had returned many times before without trouble.
He said the officials in Shanghai were generally polite. 

They allowed his mother to enter the country with his father’s ashes but were firm about his own return to Sydney, he said.
The rejection at the airport was difficult, he said. 

His father had died with Mr. Hugh and his mother on a flight to Los Angeles from Sydney in October, he said, and it had taken months to arrange for his remains to be returned to Australia and to make plans for a family return to China.
He said Chinese officials were using him to send a message to other ethnic Chinese residents of Australia: “You’ll pay the price for not being a Communist voice.”

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.