[By Guancha Network Columnist Wen Shaoqing]

Recently, the Lowy Institute in Australia released another report on the "Belt and Road Initiative," regurgitating the old tune of the so-called "debt trap," claiming that "China is now the largest debtor for developing countries" and even labeling China as "damaging global poverty reduction efforts."

In terms of criticizing China, Australia is not only a member of the "Five Eyes Choir" - it is also the most vociferous child standing at the front, out of tune, and screaming the loudest. Even after being cut off from aid by the Trump administration, there are still loyalists who continue to cheer. This country known for its kangaroos and sheep has transformed from a pragmatic trading partner into the loudest "anti-China megaphone" in the Western world, leaving some within our domestic circles puzzled: why?

Is it because of feeling uneasy about selling iron ore while preaching democracy? Is it due to lingering sentiment for the British Empire? Or could the answer be simpler - just strategic obedience, relying on Washington's checks and the scraps of ideological leftovers to keep running?

Let us dive into this kangaroo's pouch and see how its paranoia, media hype, and "American dog food" have kept Australia barking nonstop.

The Anglo-Saxon Syndrome

Australians always like to remind you: we are part of the "West" - culturally, politically, and spiritually more so, and most crucially, strategically must be. But this "strategic identity" is less a carefully considered choice than a result of pure instinctive following. From Britain to America, Australia's greatest strength in international relations lies in sitting shotgun during others' geopolitical races.

Among the infamous Five Eyes alliance, Australia plays more of an executor role.

The existence of the Five Eyes Alliance forces Australia to maintain high strategic consistency with the United States. Jocelyn Cheah, professor at the University of Technology Sydney, candidly admitted: "In the Five Eyes, we are more executors than designers." This might explain why whenever the U.S. sends a signal to China, Australia is always the first to jump up and respond, sometimes even ahead of time – even if the cost is self-inflicted economic damage.

Australia inherits deep-seated suspicion of non-Western great powers, particularly those seen as challenging the post-war liberal order. China's rise not only triggers strategic anxiety in the West but also stirs up a deep, almost civilizational-level unease within Australia, especially within its security agencies.

This leads to "ineffective rage."

ASPI: Australia's Anti-China Cheerleader

When discussing Australia's "rage," one cannot overlook the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).

This think tank almost always exaggerates any China-related event. Need a report saying Chinese universities are involved in espionage? ASPI can handle it. Want to see a picture showing China's facial recognition cameras tracking emus in the wild? They probably drew it. From "forced labor in Xinjiang" to "Chinese influence in Australian universities," ASPI's so-called "research" often lacks methodological rigor and seems more like a policy marketing tool than serious academic research. Nevertheless, this does not stop them from being widely cited by global media.

ASPI claims to be "independent," but how do they stay neutral when their main sponsors include the U.S. State Department, NATO, and military contractors with names straight out of a Marvel villain lineup—Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman?

According to ASPI's own revelation to The Wall Street Journal, since 2019, approximately 10% to 12% of ASPI's operational funds have come from the U.S. government, funding around 70% of its China-related research projects. In the 2022-2023 fiscal year, the institute received nearly AUD 3 million (about USD 1.9 million) in grants from the U.S. State Department.

Thus, when the Trump administration suddenly froze foreign aid, ASPI had to temporarily halt related research projects. It’s ironic that a think tank would shut down due to "loss of funding," highlighting its dependency. In a sense, ASPI isn't researching China; it's performing the classic play of "whoever pays, I speak for whom."

Sponsors behind ASPI. Image source: "The Gray Zone" website.

However, sometimes ASPI's acting is so clumsy that even Australian media finds it hard to buy into. For instance, in the 2020 report titled "The Sale of Uyghurs," ASPI accused China of "forced labor" in Xinjiang. However, many analysts inside and outside China found that much of the report's accusations were based on malicious and misleading interpretations of information sources, even bordering on academic fraud.

Similarly, the 2019 sensational "Chinese spy defection" incident, heavily promoted by ASPI affiliates, was later exposed as a farce. The alleged "defector" not only lacked credibility but also had suspected criminal connections.

Moreover, ASPI frequently hyped up Confucius Institutes on Australian university campuses as "spy agencies," yet never provided conclusive evidence, instead facing collective rebuttal from Australian universities.

Even its comments on China's lack of transparency regarding the pandemic were criticized as mere "copy-paste" from U.S. government statements, without even a shred of original analysis or interpretation.

This dependence in both "opinion" and finances is not limited to ASPI. Many Australian media institutions and university-affiliated research centers also accept funding from Western institutions with clear anti-China agendas. This has led to a dense ecosystem in Australia where anti-China narratives run rampant, inevitably poisoning public discourse about China.

Public Opinion and Manufacturing Consent

If ASPI is the content producer of anti-China narratives, then mainstream Australian media serves as the "amplifier" of these messages. From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) to The Australian and The Sydney Morning Herald, they maintain a consistent tone across all China-related issues: exaggerated, emotional, and rarely fact-checked.

For example, take the "Chinese spy defection case" mentioned earlier. A man claiming to be a "Chinese agent," without substantial evidence, became the headline hero of Australian media overnight. What happened next? The story quickly unraveled, but no media outlet truly apologized, as if nothing had happened. In today's era of traffic supremacy, "smearing China" is far more profitable than "verifying truth."

This "auto-play" reporting model happens to be the best carrier for the propagation of Western ideology. It simplifies complex geopolitical games into a "good vs. evil" children's story, placing everything about China under a hostile lens. This approach not only stirs emotions but also boosts click rates, achieving multiple goals at once.

In such a media environment, "public opinion" is no longer spontaneous but a carefully cultivated crop. According to polls by the Lowy Institute, distrust of China among Australians has reached an all-time high. But the logic behind this is simple: every day you see, hear, and read about "China threat," what other judgment could you possibly form?

In this artificially constructed cognitive environment, "opposing China" has become not only politically correct but also a social norm. Business, academia, and politics all align themselves accordingly; any criticism of China is celebrated by the media, whereas any neutral or friendly remarks are labeled as "Communist sympathizers" or "weakness." This is not democratic discussion but an ecosystem of single-minded propaganda dictatorship.

Australia's role in the anti-China information war resembles that of a proxy state. Lacking direct power to challenge China, it instead leverages its position in the English-speaking world to try to exert disproportionate influence in ideological struggles. That's why Australia consistently leads the charge in anti-China agendas, such as leading the ban on Huawei and hyping up the origins of the pandemic. Through these actions, Australia pleases its American allies while boasting itself as a moral guardian of the "rules-based international order"—a concept increasingly weaponized against non-Western governance models.

The problem is, the high-profile anti-China stance comes at a cost borne by the entire Australian society. As China remains Australia's top trading partner, its importance to the economy is self-evident. Yet, the Australian government appears blinded by ideology, constantly provoking China, which has resulted in retaliatory measures.

Wine, barley, beef, coal—each export sector suffers severe setbacks. Education and tourism also face difficulties; the number of Chinese students decreases, and tourists turn to other countries. Consequently, Australian universities have been forced to lay off staff and cut budgets, putting the once-booming higher education industry in crisis. Domestically, such rhetoric exacerbates racial tensions and places undue pressure on Chinese-Australian citizens.

Yet, politicians remain indifferent, continuing to talk about "sovereignty," "independence," and "values." While this sounds righteous, it is absurd. Sovereignty is not a prop for performances, nor are values bargaining chips for empty containers.

Conclusion: Who's Barking, Who's Listening?

In essence, Australia's China policy reveals deep-seated insecurity. As a middle power, it yearns to play the role of a "value leader" on the global stage but lacks the capability to independently formulate and implement strategies, thus choosing to "take sides" – standing behind the U.S., cheering loudly.

This dependent, proxy-style diplomatic strategy has left Australia increasingly isolated in the Asia-Pacific region. ASEAN nations, despite having concerns about China, mostly choose to pragmatically advance cooperation, whereas Australia has taken an ideological path of confrontation. As a result, it has fewer friends in Asia but receives louder applause in Washington.

But the question is, how valuable is this applause? Can it recover lost markets? Can it mend damaged relationships? Clearly not.

Australia's real issue is not whether it should criticize China, but whether it is being used to criticize China. Its current China policy does not reflect the genuine will of the people or serve national interests; rather, it is controlled by a discourse machine manipulated by a few politicians, anti-China think tanks, and external sponsors.

If Australia continues to indulge in this anti-China narrative, it will lose not only economic dividends but also regional discourse power, international reputation, and even internal societal cohesion. What Australia truly needs is not to repeat slogans but to engage in independent thinking: pondering its true place in the world, understanding the essence of its alliance with the U.S., and assuming the responsibilities and bottom lines of a sovereign nation.

Unfortunately, before Australia begins such reflection, its China policy will continue to reflect distant "masters'" will rather than its own national interests.

This article is an exclusive contribution by the Guancha Network. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the platform's stance. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, and legal action may ensue. Follow us on WeChat at guanchacn for daily engaging articles.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7512254173523264012/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and welcome your feedback via the 'like/dislike' buttons below.