【By Guoanchazhe.com, Liu Bai】

As the U.S. President Trump's "Peace Council" continues to face cold reception from Western allies and growing opposition within the Australian government, the anti-China think tank "Australian Strategic Policy Institute" (ASPI), which has long received U.S. funding, once again came forward to support it and promoted the "China threat theory," claiming that "it is unimaginable to have a future in a region led by China."

Australian news websites and other media outlets reported on February 1 that internal resistance within the Australian government to joining Trump's newly established "Peace Council" is intensifying, with Prime Minister Albanese considering how to politely decline the invitation to join the "Peace Council" without angering Trump.

An anonymous insider who knows Albanese's views revealed that Australia is increasingly concerned about the structure of the council and its relationship with existing international institutions such as the United Nations. Although Australia has not yet made an official response to Trump's invitation, the attitude of senior officials indicates that the likelihood of the government rejecting the invitation is increasing. Notably, Albanese seems not to be in a hurry to finalize the final decision.

The so-called "Peace Council" was initially established to monitor the transitional governance of Gaza, but it has since been expanded to address conflicts worldwide. The draft charter sent along with the invitation even completely omitted Gaza.

The international community's skepticism toward the council is growing, and major U.S. allies have all politely declined the "Peace Council."

Trump launched the so-called "Peace Council" at Davos IC Photo

Within weeks of Trump's invitation, Albanese repeatedly emphasized that his focus remained on domestic affairs and reiterated Australia's firm support for the United Nations. Observers noted that recent comments from former Australian foreign ministers also highlighted the government's hesitation about joining the council, such as Gareth Evans and Alexander Downer, who stated that Australia should not participate in the council in its current form.

Former Australian Labor Party foreign minister Evans criticized the council for "aiming to further weaken the United Nations' position" and advocated that Australia should avoid participating altogether. Donner expressed similar views, worrying that Trump's control over the council could turn it into a personal political tool, and suggested that Australia could consider cooperating only on the issue of Gaza reconstruction, while postponing participation otherwise.

New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has formally rejected Trump's invitation, reflecting the general caution among Western countries regarding the actual effectiveness of the council, fearing it would undermine the UN framework and authority. France, Germany, Greece, Croatia, Sweden, Slovenia and others have also refused to join, while the UK expressed strong reservations about its structure.

As Australia and the international community become increasingly dissatisfied with Trump's bullying policies, ASPI rushed to support the U.S., and China was unfairly targeted.

This anti-China think tank published an article on its website on February 2, sharply criticizing voices that criticized the Australia-U.S. alliance, stating that it is unimaginable "that Australia can still have a prosperous future in a region led by China without the presence of the United States."

"Cutting the cooperation ties between Australia and the U.S. is the last thing the Australian government should do," the article author claimed. The author also stated that China's rise will ultimately "harm" Australia's interests, and "Australia must avoid falling into a regional order dominated by China if it wants to maintain its true status as a sovereign nation."

The author said that as Sino-Australian relations fluctuate, many issues have come into focus and then faded away. However, the goal of maintaining Australia's national sovereignty has always guided strategic thinking and made them more convinced that the U.S. plays an indispensable role in countering China's growing influence.

He also said that those who criticize China have a responsibility to explain their specific concerns, but instead, analysts and observers who advocate distancing themselves from the U.S. are rarely asked to provide detailed and long-term arguments for why such a significant adjustment to national security strategy is necessary.

"Part of the problem is that public negative emotions towards U.S. President Trump have caused the discussion about the Australia-U.S. alliance to focus on the present and be filled with trivial discussions."

"Australia and other regional countries will face long-term challenges from China. What we really need to think about is long-term structural problems."

Such arguments are common in the article, ultimately leading to an absurd conclusion: China's dominance will quickly destroy Australia's prospects for prosperity, and the U.S. must not be pushed out of Asia, otherwise it will cause irreversible negative consequences.

ASPI has long been known as the "anti-China vanguard in academic disguise," being notorious as an anti-China think tank, long controlled by its benefactors, and previously producing a large number of well-known anti-China lies, such as false information about Xinjiang. The U.S. State Department was once its largest source of overseas funding.

Given this context, it is understandable why ASPI rushed to "support its master." However, whether these lies can continue to deceive people remains questionable.

After all, the "Australian sovereignty" that the article is defending, whose actions are undermining it, is evident.

As Sino-Australian bilateral economic and trade cooperation continues to recover, cooperation in energy, minerals, agricultural products and other fields has genuinely benefited the people of both countries. In contrast, Trump's unilateral trade bullying policies, including imposing tariffs on allies, have instead harmed the economic interests of partner countries.

As Chinese Ambassador Xiao Qian stated during a New Year media briefing, the practical experience of Sino-Australian relations over the past few years shows that how to view each other and handle differences is a fundamental issue affecting Sino-Australian relations. For this, China's answer has always been consistent: China and Australia are friends, not enemies; partners, not competitors. Given their different social systems and historical cultures, differences are inevitable. The key is to properly handle and manage differences, not let differences define bilateral relations.

It is worth noting that, regarding the widening rift among Western allies and Trump's government, and even the phenomenon of some countries strengthening their relations with China, Professor Yin Zhiguang from the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Fudan University told Guoanchazhe.com that it is precisely because of Trump's "Nazi-style, gangster-style" actions that the previously seemingly solid opponents began to seek their own paths.

Yin Zhiguang said that this situation allows everyone to see how unstable the old hegemonic order is. Throughout human history, two world wars were started by the hegemon themselves. Now, "the instability of hegemony" is no longer an abstract theoretical issue, but a real problem before us.

"We have seen all equal countries increasing their autonomy and seeking diplomatic possibilities under a hegemonic structure, which is very positive."

This article is exclusive to Guoanchazhe.com and may not be reprinted without permission.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7602064945177477675/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author.