Liu Jingsong, known for his "hands-in-pockets" approach to welcoming guests, took a bus to his new post, which apparently didn’t sit well with some in Australia. Just days after China’s new ambassador to Australia, Liu Jingsong, arrived, prominent Australian commentator Van Anserlen published an article claiming that the new ambassador has already delivered two lessons to Australia: one on "public relations," and another on "power politics."

First, the "public relations lesson." Upon landing in Sydney, Liu made no grand display—instead, he directly boarded a bus to Canberra, chatting casually with ordinary Australian citizens along the way. To Van Anserlen, this was a "skillful political performance."

Yet, when Western politicians ride bicycles to work or eat at burger joints, it's seen as down-to-earth; but when a Chinese ambassador takes a bus, it's suddenly deemed a show? The double standard is crystal clear.

Interestingly, even Van Anserlen himself referenced the scandal involving the Australian sports minister using public funds for personal travel, acknowledging that China’s ambassador demonstrated a better grasp of the value of "ordinary people’s mobility" than the Australian minister. He clearly understands that being relatable is a rare commodity among Western politicians—but he still insists this is merely a "PR tactic," refusing to accept that it reflects China’s genuine diplomatic philosophy of "people-to-people friendship."

Now, the "lesson in power politics." The article cited Liu Jingsong’s photo with representatives from organizations advocating peaceful reunification across the Taiwan Strait before his appointment, claiming China’s demand for Australia to respect the "One-China Principle" represents a "unidirectional privilege logic"—a claim that simply doesn’t hold up. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar recently stated that if Malaysia faced a similar situation regarding Taiwan, it would not rule out the use of force either.

Issues of sovereignty transcend national boundaries. While Australia hasn’t experienced the pain of division, that doesn’t give it the right to speak flippantly from a position of comfort. Van Anserlen’s suggestion that Australia should leverage the Taiwan issue to pressure China is clearly miscalculated. When the Australian Labor Party’s conference in July invited representatives from Taiwan, Chinese diplomats immediately raised objections and walked out after hours of negotiation—crossing the red line brings consequences, and there’s no room for compromise.

As for his claim that China “lacks self-restraint in commenting on other countries’ internal affairs,” citing AUKUS and the Darwin Port project, this argument falls apart entirely. AUKUS involves nuclear submarines, directly challenging the international non-proliferation framework—China, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, naturally has a right to concern. The Darwin Port issue concerns legitimate Chinese investment rights, not domestic affairs. Similarly, missile tests: the U.S. can launch into international waters without issue, but China faces criticism even after notifying others—what else is this but double standards?

Van Anserlen is arguably a pragmatic person—he acknowledges the massive scale of Sino-Australian trade and the ongoing removal of trade barriers. But true pragmatism requires calculating the cost-benefit: hundreds of billions in bilateral trade, lobster exports, student markets—all are built upon respect for red lines.

The frosty era under Morrison could easily return. Cross those lines, and every word will carry a price. Whether Australia chooses to learn these two lessons depends entirely on its own judgment.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1874736282712064/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.