So tell me again about those 'improved relations' with China

A week after Anthony Albanese left China on November 7, having supposedly improved our relations by meeting President Xi Jinping, a Chinese warship attacked Royal Australian Navy sailors with its sonar.

I wonder how many Australian journalists and commentators had fallen for the nonsense that harmonious discussions in Beijing had brought great benefits.

It's clear that Albanese, wanting to maintain the pleasant atmospherics, failed to complain to Xi about the attack when they met a second time in San Francisco three days after it happened. Albanese's had plenty of chance to say that he raised the issue, and no good reason for secrecy, so we can assume that he didn't.

Then Richard Marles's Department of Defence refrained from disclosing the sonar attack until after Albanese had done his San Francisco press conference. So the second meeting with Xi also was pleasantly reported by the media.

Why was the government so keen to protect the appearance of progress in relations with China?

This leads us to a dark suspicion. Is Labor trying to lure the votes of our immigrants from China who, quite naturally, maintain great affection for their country of origin? Is it particularly chasing the votes of those who still prefer to consume Chinese media, unintentionally keeping themselves immersed in the propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party?

Immigrants from China are the voters who are most attuned to the state of relations between Canberra and Beijing. They're the ones who, in general, are most satisfied with hearing that Albanese is getting along well with Xi.

If a foreign leader meets Xi, the event will get fawning attention in China's media, which is ultimately controlled by the party. Chinese news and social media apps such as WeChat naturally serve up the stories to users in the country whose leader has met Xi.

And Labor would have known that Albanese's visit would be a focus of Australian Chinese-language media. Thinking about electorates with many immigrants from China, Labor operatives must have been delighted by the November 7 headline in the Chinese-language publication Sydney Today: "Australian prime minister meets Xi Jinping, repairs bilateral relations".

There's no proof that Labor is adjusting foreign policy to please certain voters. But we must note uneasily that it ensured its message was not disturbed even by the worst use of violence so far against our people by the Chinese armed forces.

Told that our frigate HMAS Toowoomba had divers in the water to clear a propeller obstruction, the commander of the nearby Chinese destroyer Ningbo moved closer and fired up its sonar, a device powerful enough to create detectable echoes on a submarine tens of kilometres away.

The divers suffered minor injuries, says the Department of Defence. But notice that the Chinese commander cannot have been sure just how much harm the attack would cause.

Yet that's apparently not the sort of thing that Albanese wants to bother Xi with.

Let's consider again Labor's clearly wrong decision on October 20 to let the Landbridge Group of China keep the commercial port at Darwin. The government knows full well that Landbridge's control of the facility demolishes our standing in urging other countries, especially in the Pacific, not to let China take over their infrastructure.

But if Labor had told Landbridge to sell its long lease, Beijing would certainly have reacted with anger, which many of our Chinese immigrant voters would have noticed. Such a decision also would have ruined the ambience of Albanese's visit to Beijing, if indeed the trip could have gone ahead at all.

We must be on guard. We must closely watch Labor's handling of our relations with China, looking out for more hints that our national interest does not always rank ahead of its electoral interest.

Protecting members of our armed forces should be among the government's highest priorities. China has repeatedly used violence against them.

This time it was sound pulses that could have deafened or even caused internal injuries. Previously the eyes of an air force crew have been endangered by a military-grade laser. And debris has been dumped in front of one of our aircraft in flight, potentially damaging or even knocking out its engines.

More than 10 years ago, there was some doubt that the Chinese military was fully under civilian control when it acted aggressively against foreigners. But in the age of Xi, whom Joe Biden calls a dictator, there can be no doubt it's operating within bounds set by the high leadership.

READ MORE:

So Albanese should have told Xi in San Francisco that attacks on our people must stop. He could even have used some soft but nonetheless clear way of expressing it, such as "Mr Xi, I'm afraid there has been another of those military incidents that make things very difficult for us in promoting good relations."

But Albanese evidently didn't say even that. Instead he made a public statement only when he was back in this country and a great hullabaloo about the the matter had arisen.

There's an odour of domestic politics about all this.

Finally, I hope readers will allow this column a little I-told-you-so.

Four days before the sonar attack, I wrote that the supposedly improved relationship with China was little more than pleasant atmospherics, adding: "Don't expect 'better relations' to result in the Chinese military backing off in its aggression against our patrols of the South China Sea."

Well, the sonar attack actually happened in waters near Japan.

But it was an attack, anyway. And China didn't keep us waiting long.