A spectre is haunting Australia — the spectre of China. Well, at least that's what the mainstream media and the think tank crowd that like to occupy Parliament House in Canberra want you to think. Here is a sample:
“Policing in the Pacific has never been about propping up governments; it has always been about serving communities. Yet Beijing’s introduction of Mao-era community policing into Solomon Islands last week was a sharp departure from this tradition.” — Raelene Lockhorst and John Coyne, ASPI The Strategist
“Sovereign states need to come to grips with authoritarian regimes using sub-national relationships to undermine national unity.” — Justin Bassi and James Corera, ASPI The Strategist
“China is about to host an extraordinary military gathering with some of the world's most powerful leaders, but United States President Donald Trump isn't on the guest list.” — Allyson Horn, ABC News
“The question nearly everyone — Labor friend or foe — is asking is, why would Daniel Andrews turn up for a class photo alongside autocrats and dictators?” — Nicole Asher, ABC News
“The meat-eaters are hunting in a pack. The eagle is no longer a reliable protector. The age of carnivores is upon us.” — Peter Hartcher, The Sydney Morning Herald
Some are sophisticated enough not to directly accuse the Chinese of potentially invading Australia, but some directly say that they are a threat.
“Beijing deployed a naval task group to the waters around Australia for three related reasons. First, to demonstrate the reach and potency of Chinese sea power and to put Australia on notice that it is vulnerable to the application of that power. Second, to test our political and military responses. Third, to rehearse for wartime operations against Australia.” — Michael Pezzullo ASPI The Strategist
The Real Outcomes of Anti-China Rhetoric
When you take a moment to think about it, without discarding the possibility that this is all a bit too much, an overblown narrative. Then you start to realise the impractical dynamics that the Chinese would have to overcome in order to actually physically pull off an Australian invasion. Why would they even bother? If they need our natural resources, as they so commonly do, then they can just buy it from an Australian company. And you can say that about almost any product or service that is available in Australia, unless there's some silly sanction involved.
The first and now second term of the Albanese government has certainly cooled the ‘war’ dynamic to a significant degree. But given that, the narrative still crops up from time to time again in the mainstream media, and by those think tanks. One seems to think the Canberra crowd doesn't necessarily mind the idea of keeping this antagonism going. As if it were some Australian concept of Machiavellianism.
One outcome of the ‘Ooh China’ mentality is the approach that we are applying to our partners in the Pacific Islands Nations. This approach can be simplified, as Australia is effectively shoehorning many of these Nations into security arrangements with Australia. The effective outcome making Australia the de facto sole security partner of these Pacific Island Nations, by requiring nations to consult Australia regarding other partnerships as a general theme in these treaties.
Australia’s Pacific Prize
“One of the things that I want in the Pacific is for the Pacific family to look after our own security. And that's why we established the Pacific Policing Initiative. That has been very successful. There have already been three deployments of the multilateral dimension of that, there's already been substantial training as well at the Pinkenba facility in Brisbane. And what I talk about is Australia's ongoing support as a security partner of choice in the Pacific.” — Press conference, Sydney, Friday 12 September 2025, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese
“Look, we always discuss defence relationships. And Australia plays an important role in this region. Throughout the Pacific, we are the security partner of choice. And that's a good thing for democracies in the region.” — Television interview — Sky Politics Now, Monday 15 September 2025, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese
One of the more significant outcomes of this pacific approach by the Australian Government, is how we have decided to treat the Nation of Tuvalu. Which their leaders have decided to accept, but not without some critique from dissenting Tuvalu people.
“The Falepili is actually Australia weaponising our poverty, our vulnerabilities in Tuvalu to its advantage at the international level… I think it’s a very, very serious issue… Australia is a close friend of Tuvalu, and that remains to be the case. The question is, did we need to move further into interfering into the sovereign rights, sovereignty rights and cultural rights of one party in order to achieve what is actually a matter driven by geopolitical interest in the Pacific. Did we need to bully small islands? I don’t think so.” — Former Tuvaluan PM, Enele Sopoaga, ABC 730
The Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union treaty includes that aforementioned de facto sole security partnership.
“Tuvalu shall mutually agree with Australia any partnership, arrangement or engagement with any other State or entity on security and defence-related matters. Such matters include but are not limited to defence, policing, border protection, cyber security and critical infrastructure, including ports, telecommunications and energy infrastructure.” — The Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union treaty Article 4, Section 4
And a curious promise, which has manifested itself within a kind of rhetoric regarding reparations for climate change damage. To provide a very special visa to a significant quantity of people of Tuvalu, effectively adopting them as a part of Australian society, without providing them citizenship. This visa provides them with a number of benefits including unlimited rights to visit Australia, to be able to work in Australia, and to be able to utilise welfare benefits in Australia. Though a layman Australian hearing that list of visa benefits may be a bit confused, thinking that they are citizens, when that are not.
“Australia shall arrange for a special human mobility pathway for citizens of Tuvalu to access Australia which shall enable citizens of Tuvalu to:
live, study and work in Australia;
access Australian education, health, and key income and family support on arrival.
To support the implementation of the pathway, Tuvalu shall ensure that its immigration, passport, citizenship and border controls are robust and meet international standards for integrity and security and are compatible with and accessible to Australia.
Australia shall provide assistance to Tuvalu to enable it to meet its obligations under paragraph 2 of this article.” — The Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union treaty Article 3
Australia and New Zealand have a history of treating the people of Pacific Islands nations as a kind of play thing. A human resource of guest workers that could be brought in and expelled as needed, and is promoted to people of Pacific Islands nations as a means of economic development. Though given the nature of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, and just how substantially different their concept of development is compared to this concept of development, one can roll their eyes.
Genuine Economic Development
“The Chinese aid differs with the Australian, New Zealand and others in that it is not given with ‘strings attached’ – China does not try and change the recipient government’s way of governing or demand that things be done their way. The other thing that makes China aid attractive is that from inception to construction, a project will be done in about 2 years, or at the request of the recipient government, sooner.” — Vanuatu journalist, Raymond Nasse
Colonialism, a function of the broader concept of Imperialism, as conceptualised by former Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin. Meant, the expansion of an Imperial system by force to another land and its people. A famous example of this would be the way the British forced Indians to buy products from Britain under British rule. One may recall the history lesson that they learnt in school of Gandhi being imprisoned for boiling water to create salt, because he didn't pay the correct taxes. One also would have learned from their schooling the atrocious examples of undue force, upon the many Aboriginal people of Pacific Islands Nations in order to facilitate the external Imperial system upon them.
The United Nations maintains a list of regions around the world that do not have self-governance, as well as a list of those who apply governance to those regions. They also make clear the responsibilities those external governments have to the non-self-governing regions that they govern. One of those countries that apply governance upon a pacific territory is France, with the classic example of the New Caledonia. But even though Tuvalu is technically regarded by the United Nations as a self-governing country. One has to reevaluate how this concept of self-governance operates. When an external country like Australia maintains such a significant level of impact, upon the daily lives of a significant quantity of a country's citizens like Tuvalu.
If it was really the intention of the Australian Government to help our Oceanic and broader Pacific partners to economically grow, facilitate win-win outcomes, and nature a couture of genuine mutual respect among countries. And not just be The United States Deputy sheriff of the Pacific. Then Australia should partner with China and their Belt and Road Initiative. Why not? We have a significant amount of natural resources and energy resources to contribute to a broader plan for regional economic development. If Australia partners with China, we will learn very quickly if they are genuine facilitators of economic development. Or, for that matter, if Australia is a genuine facilitator of economic development.
To any honest observer, it's clear that the Chinese don't see the Belt and Road Initiative as a charity effort. The Chinese President Xi Jinping said the following at the opening of the Belt and Road Initiative Forum in 2017. “China will endeavor to build a win-win business partnership with other countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative, enhance trade and investment facilitation with them, and build a Belt and Road free trade network. These efforts are designed to promote growth both in our respective regions and globally.” He also mentioned. “We are ready to share practices of development with other countries, but we have no intention to interfere in other countries' internal affairs, export our own social system and model of development, or impose our own will on others. In pursuing the Belt and Road Initiative, we will not resort to outdated geopolitical manoeuvring. What we hope to achieve is a new model of win-win cooperation. We have no intention to form a small group detrimental to stability, what we hope to create is a big family of harmonious co-existence.”
It’s obvious that the Belt and Road Initiative is a mechanism for international economic development, for the whole world’s benefit. Developing countries get a genuine opportunity for prosperity, and larger countries like China and Australia can benefit from expanded markets because people in developing countries will be wealthier. This is a win-win situation, and Australia will only lose if it does not decide to participate fully.
We hope that this article has been helpful in providing references that will encourage you to begin your own journey of understanding. The discussion contained in our articles often reflects our own author conclusions, based on the many years of observation and research. However, we understand that many of you have your own piece of the puzzle to add to our collective understanding. So, we encourage you to participate in this discussion. Are our conclusions correct or incorrect? Should we provide more writing on some simplified references in this article? Please add your respectful and constructive comments below. Also, if you have any articles of your own to submit to The Great Southern Club, we welcome your perspective on issues facing Australia, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia.
