In the Australia-China world, this week was all about Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi’s visit to Australia. The visit was only announced last week and Wang completed a friendly diplomatic program, meeting with prime minister Anthony Albanese, foreign minister Penny Wong, opposition leader Peter Dutton as well as representatives of the Australia-China Business Council and former prime minister Paul Keating. So far, there are no concrete and tangible outcomes of the visit, but in times of disagreements and challenged relations, it is the rhetoric that matters. So, what is the rhetoric emanating from this visit? And how does it matter?

​

Friendly tones and official phrases

Overall, the statements emanating from Wang’s visit to Australia were friendly in tone. Foreign minister Wang Yi stated that “China-Australia relations are on the right track” and emphasised China’s willingness to work on rebuilding relations with Australia. In an official government statement, Wang is also quoted as inviting members of the Australia-China Business Council to “promote friendly exchanges between the two peoples, and expand mutually beneficial cooperation between the two sides, so as to contribute to the development of China-Australia relations”. His Australian counterpart Penny Wong also underlined Australia’s willingness to engage with China to work on common interests and improving the relations between the two countries.

The official statements thus read well and are friendly and diplomatic. However, much of the statements, particularly on the Chinese side, are reflective of official diplomatic phrases that appear frequently in Chinese government publications. Slogans like “win-win cooperation” and the description of China’s important contribution to world peace and the global economy are part of the standard official repertoire and should not be overinterpreted. They say less about actual China-Australia relations and more about how China sees and portrays itself.

 

Veiled threats

Beyond the friendly tone of official statements and media reports in China, the differences in the two countries relationships were also apparent in the rhetoric. The Chinese newspaper Global Times stated that “the ball is in Australia's court to adopt a balanced perspective on its relationship with China” and pointed out that “human rights issue, Australia's interference in South China Sea issue and Canberra's willingness to follow Washington's Asia-Pacific strategy of containing China remain potential flashpoints”.

Considering the occasionally hyper-nationalistic tone of the Global Times, these statements are reasonably toned down and indicative of the Chinese government’s interest in not damaging the newly re-engaged channels of communication. At the same time, these statements are also veiled threats that improved relations cannot be taken for granted. China has an interest in improved relations but not at all cost. The decision on lifting the tariffs on Australian wine imports into China that is expected at the end of this month will be the first tangible test for the outcomes of this meeting.

Penny Wong’s statements were also indicative of ongoing differences between the two countries. In her opening remarks to the Australia-China strategic dialogue, she stated that communication should “never be withheld as punishment or offered as a reward”. This hints at the unhappiness of the Australian government about China’s carrot and stick approach to diplomacy. At the same time, she emphasised the importance of managing differences, even though “we both know it does not eliminate them”. These statements underline Australia’s understanding of an independent foreign policy although this is certainly not what Wang Yi meant when he said that the relations between Australia and China should not “be influenced or interfered with by any third party”.

 

And where does this leave Australia?

Apart from Wang’s visit, Australia had a busy foreign policy week. In the US, presidential candidate Donald Trump lashed out at Australian ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd. And while this particular instance is very likely to be one of Trump’s usual rants, it is also indicative of the increasingly volatile domestic policy situation in the US.

Regarding larger alliance structure, Australian and British foreign and defence ministers are set to launch common investments into the AUKUS deal at shipbuilding yards in South Australia. These are the location where Australia intends to build its nuclear-powered submarines that are part of AUKUS.

Happening in the same week as Wang Yi’s visit to Australia, the AUKUS launch certainly sends a message to China as well. It is a message that Beijing is presumably not happy to hear. It also indicates that Australia is moving more than ever into a hedging space between the US and China. This is a potentially dangerous and uncomfortable space. Given the uncertain outcomes of the American presidential elections in November and the increasing political paralysis of the US, businesses are well advised to keep re-evaluating their political risks and vulnerabilities in their investments and supply chains and start developing precautionary strategies early.

 

In total, the rhetoric directly emanating from Wang’s visit to Australia therefore indicates a careful re-engagement between China and Australia. At the same time, however, it also indicates very real differences in the politics of both countries. Both proponents and adversaries of stronger engagement with China can find argumentative ammunition in the official statements that have emanated from this visit. So far, the tangible outcomes of this meeting have been low and the next litmus test will be the final decision regarding Chinese tariffs on Australian wine.

Certainly, not everything is good in China-Australia relations now. But it’s not all bad either and that’s the good news. Considering the low level from which China-Australia relations are coming, the next steps in the relationship will largely be trust-building measures. And these need to come from both sides.