Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Throughout most of the 1930s, Winston Churchill’s was an isolated voice warning of the need to rearm and to stand up to the resurgent power of Nazi Germany. Most famous was his criticism of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Adolf Hitler. In a speech to the House of Commons, he bluntly and prophetically stated:

You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.

I usually follow the law of argumentation which rules that the first person to mention the Nazis automatically loses any argument. In this speech I will not focus on the horrors of Nazism or seek to compare any country to Nazi Germany or any policy to that of the Nazis. Rather, I will speak of Churchill’s view on how democratic nations of the world should conduct their foreign policies when faced with a rising giant and potential rival and how these views have relevance today. It is undoubtedly the case that, in the context of the current financial crisis and the induced weakness of Western countries, the modern-day rising giant is China, which has begun to flex its muscles as never before.

Almost every significant country is struggling to come to terms with China’s increasingly aggressive diplomacy, while quietly and with too little scrutiny China has been acquiring ever greater military capabilities. Countries to have felt the Chinese diplomatic blowtorch include: France, due to pro-Tibetan, pro-democracy protests during the Olympic torch relay; Vietnam, due to territorial disputes; Japan, due to the arrest of the Chinese fishermen in disputed waters; Norway, due to the deliberations of the Nobel Committee; and of course Australia, due to the failed Chinalco takeover of Rio Tinto and the subsequent unjust imprisonment of Australian citizen, Rio executive Stern Hu, shamefully given up by his company. China’s approach has essentially been to use economic and other consequences to suppress any criticism of its policies. Indeed, in many countries including Australia there have been voices openly advocating a policy whereby Australia should not say anything likely to aggravate China.

Somewhat similarly in the 1930s, there were those who thought the best path was to say nothing which could provoke a bellicose Germany. Mr Churchill was full of contempt for those of this view and in one speech he said:

I hear it said sometimes now—that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticized by ordinary, common English politicians.

For Churchill, a submissive policy of noncriticism would simply lead to more and greater impositions. He said:

I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the Press … Then, with a Press under control, in part direct but more potently indirect, with every organ of public opinion doped and chloroformed into acquiescence, we shall be conducted along further stages of our journey.

In Churchill’s time ‘national sovereignty’ was used by dictators as a shield for international criticism of their policies. To this Churchill said:

We in this country, as in other Liberal and democratic countries, have a perfect right to exalt the principle of self-determination, but it comes ill out of the mouths of those in totalitarian States who deny even the smallest element of toleration to every section and creed within their bounds.

Words all countries should remember when deciding how to respond to the actions of nondemocratic states.

Each year the Pentagon makes a report to congress called Military and security developments including involvement of the People’s Republic of China. Its 2010 edition makes concerning reading. Here is a taste. It says:

China is developing and fielding large numbers of advanced medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles, new attack submarines equipped with advanced weapons, increasingly capable long-range air defense systems, electronic warfare and computer network attack capabilities, advanced fighter aircraft, and counter-space systems.

                  …              …              …

In total China’s military budget will be estimated to be US$150 Billion, far surpassing any other country, except for the United States.

Other than within the five walls of the Pentagon, in my view, too little attention has been given to the growth of Chinese military power.

In a paper which won the Secretary of Defense’s National Security Essay Competition, Australian Brigadier General John Frewen wrote that China’s intention to launch its first aircraft carrier within five years could be potentially a source of instability in the Asia-Pacific. In his words:

The unintended consequences of Chinese carriers pose the greatest threat to regional harmony in the decades ahead.,

Another game-changing weapon is China’s Russian designed ‘carrier killer’, dubbed the ‘Sizzler’ by NATO. Newsweek recently ran a front-page article on the Sizzler. Apparently, it can ‘reach farther and fly faster than the West’s top antiship missiles in the America’s Harpoon and France’s Exocet’. The article continued:

China sees missiles such as the Sizzler—and a missile currently in development known as the Dong Feng (DF)-21D—as key to its growing naval power in Asia … [it] could turn part of China’s sub fleet from a manageable threat to a “very problematic” one …

according to John Patch, Professor at US Army War College.

In Churchill’s day it was not the development of new missiles but the development of long-range aircraft which was upending previous military calculations. As he said then:

The Navy was the “sure shield” of Britain. As long as it is ready in time and at its stations we could say to any foreign Government: ‘Well, what are you going to do about it?’ We cannot say that now. This cursed, hellish invention and development of war from the air has revolutionised our position.

I certainly hope Western defence agencies are provided with the means to develop a reliable countermeasure to these new missiles because, if such a countermeasure is not produced, then one day, like Churchill, we may be cursing this ‘hellish invention’, but we will be referring to it as the DF-21D. Similarly, parallel to Chinese military developments we see with the development of Beijing’s ‘string of pearls’ strategy the development of Chinese ports throughout the Indian Ocean, from Gwadar on the Arabian Sea in Pakistan to Hambantota in southern Sri Lanka to Chittagong in the Bay of Bengal. All of these are a part of an integrated, energetic, expanded naval strategy.

Democratic nations must speak out for what is right—for human rights and for democracy—and support one another when pressure is brought to bear on them. I believe that, rather than making conflict more likely, if democratic countries form a united front and hold true to our convictions, conflict will be less likely, as China and other non-democratic countries will not be emboldened by easy diplomatic victories. I believe the Obama administration’s diplomacy towards China over the past year provides an example of how to handle relations with China. Throughout 2009 the US accommodated China in the hope of gaining cooperation; little was achieved. This year, however, seeking to engage China as much as it can, the US has stood firm on a number of important issues. It has backed Google’s stance on censorship. It has backed Liu Xiaobo’s Nobel Peace Prize, making him a bigger celebrity. Most recently, the US has stood strongly with its democratic allies, stating that mutual defence treaties with Japan embraced the disputed islands.

In my view, Australia has not always managed its relationship with China as well as the United States has this year. I believe, however, that Foreign Minister Rudd’s zhengyou China policy is the one that Mr Churchill would respect. It is based on dialogue and constructive criticism rather than appeasement. Mr Rudd described the zhengyou as:

… a relationship of mutual respect, but we’re also able to talk about the things on which we have different views without threatening the underpinning relationship.

I note that another important part of Mr Rudd’s foreign policy when he was Prime Minister was to acquire 12 powerful Australian submarines for Australia’s defence. This is a policy which I supported when Mr Rudd announced the plan, and I continue to support it into the future in the national security interests of Australia. Zhengyou is about respect, and I certainly do not think China will be less respectful of us for being so well defended.

The New York Times recently reported that China had formally asked European nations and Australia to boycott the Oslo ceremony at which the Nobel Peace Prize would be awarded in absentia to the imprisoned Chinese democracy activist Liu Xiaobo. I think it is an important moment in the West’s relationship with China. Either weakness can be shown or a strong stand can be made. The response to such an outrageous demand should be for all countries to make a point of sending high-level representatives. If they do not, and they bow to the Chinese demands, then a statement made by Mr Churchill in the wake of the German invasion of Czechoslovakia will again have currency:

… the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies.

Thou are weighed in the balance and found wanting.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Indi, I remind the member for Melbourne Ports of the provisions of standing order 64, which indicates that he ought not to refer to the former Prime Minister—or for that matter, any other member—by his name and should use his title.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I should have used the honourable member for Griffith; I apologise.