Readers who often follow China-Australia relations may be impressed by the Australian media report that in order to seek to improve China-Australia relations, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison asked two former prime ministers, Howard and Rudd Kevin, for advice. At that time, Australian media commented that the proposals of the two former prime ministers, known as the Zhihua faction and China Tong, would help ease the confrontation between the two countries in the economic and trade fields. But in the end, no substantial results were seen, and the Morrison administration was still openly following the dangerous road of the United States to curb China and resist China. On the surface, although Australian officials and politicians at all levels have repeatedly expressed the hope that China-Australia relations will return to the right path, they have not shown any sincere action. To this end, Morrison has also been criticized by the industry in the trade sector that has been seriously affected by the trade war, as well as harsh criticism from politicians. Some of the rational Australian politicians in the opposition, represented by former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, have previously criticized Canberra's wrong line and should respect China and make a balance between major powers that suit their own interests.
In early May, Rudd also wrote an article criticizing the Morrison administration's erroneous remarks on China-related and Taiwan-related issues. Rudd pointed out that there is an obvious secret in Australian politics: Morrison and Dutton (defense minister) are people who gamble heavily on the core interests of Australia's national economy and security for pure political interests. Rudd also reminded Morrison to face up to the fact that China is becoming increasingly powerful and confident, which corresponds to the failure of the Trump administration in the United States. Rudd concluded by warning that Australia's leaders should have a comprehensive, calm and prudent judgment (regarding the changes in the strategic landscape between China and the United States). Kevin Rudd's "sober and calm thinking" in his China strategy has been unanimously praised by China's network wind critics. But Australia's economic data largely saved Morrison's approval ratings, and Rudd's criticism was not obvious to Morrison's "harm". This may have become the main reason for Rudd's recent change of tone.
British media reported on the 28th that former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd called on Western countries to unite against China. In an interview with the BBC, Rudd said Western countries should unite to deal with China's growing "economic and geopolitical coercion" and that going it alone would only be "broken" by Beijing. His remarks are considered to be "taking off the mask" and can be understood as two meanings. First of all, Australia's difficult situation of being "sanctioned by China" is caused by the Morrison government's "single-handedness"; second, Kevin Rudd euphemistically expressed his support for the structure of the four-power alliance between the United States, Japan, India and Australia. Rudd's sudden "change of face" has surprised and infuriated many Chinese netizens, but I would like to say that Rudd is a famous Zhihua faction and a Chinese expert, but should not be labeled as "pro-Chinese" by wishful thinking. In fact, making friends is conditional, and safeguarding one's own interests is an eternal principle.
As far as Rudd is concerned, he has been in power several times, and the reason why he has been able to improve relations with China is because he tends to adopt a vague strategy to maintain the balance of great powers, rather than taking sides to extremes like Morrison. But Kevin Rudd, at any time during his previous term as prime minister, considered Australia to be an important member of the Western camp, but only tried to avoid being at the forefront of the Western camp on key strategic issues so as not to affect Australia's economic interests. Kevin Rudd once answered a hypothetical question from media reporters, that is, how will Australia make decisions when there is a strategic showdown between China and the United States? He did not hesitate to say he would firmly and comprehensively support U.S. allies. It's just that at that time, China-Australia relations were in a "healthy period", and no one deliberately grabbed Kevin Rudd's "tail". The Previous "four-year chaotic period" of the United States, the United States openly listed China as a strategic opponent, australia's Morrison administration's decision, but also in response to Rudd's original expression of "when there is a strategic showdown between China and the United States, Australia will firmly and comprehensively support the United States allies" thinking.
In the final analysis, the true color of Australian politicians has never changed, but we are too emotional, too easy to believe people, always think that we "treat others with sincerity", others will "treat each other with sincerity". Recently, Australia's Lowy Institute put forward four main recommendations for its own China policy. This includes preventing ASEAN from reaching a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea and encouraging countries to issue as many statements against China as possible; avoiding "freedom of navigation operations" for warships within 12 nautical miles of China-controlled south-to-sea islands and reefs, which the United States resolutely refuses; conducting and promoting more bilateral and small-country joint military exercises with Southeast Asian coastal states in the South China Sea (undisputed waters); and supporting the regular holding of the four-power summit between the leaders of the United States, Japan, India, and Australia to put the China issue and the South China Sea dispute on the agenda. Now, it's time to give up fantasies. Rogue states must be allowed to see our iron fist and know the hardness of our fist before they can restrain their ambitions.