DOCSLIB.ORG

An Abbott Government China Policy: a Chinese Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Abbott Government China Policy: a Chinese Perspective 12 7 November 2013 An Abbott Government China Policy: A Chinese Perspective Dr Fujian Li FDI Visiting Fellow Key Points As a conservative politician, Tony Abbott may not see China as the first priority in his foreign policy agenda. The Coalition, which has a tradition of pragmatism, will certainly try to play a delicate balance between the US and China. In calculating Australia’s national interests , it is hard to see any significant strategic shift in favour of China happening in the foreseeable future. China looks forward to having a more stable and predictable business relationship with Australia under the Abbott Government. Summary Now is an interesting time to think about the future of the Sino-Australian relationship, not only due to the sheer changes in political and economic dynamics that have happened in the region and the globe, but also because both countries have just had changes of leadership. The Sino-Australian relationship is potentially standing at a new starting point. * This paper is based on a speech prepared for the 2013 Emerging Leaders’ Dialogue, supported by Griffith University, Peking University and the Queensland State Government. Analysis The result of the general election in 2013 may not have been a surprise to Australians, even though Kevin Rudd, who is widely known in China as Lu Kewen, reclaimed the role of prime minister in June and tried very hard to save his party. Five years ago, when an Australian leader spoke excellent Mandarin in China, the entire Chinese nation felt respected and proud. Nobody had expected, however, that so many frictions would be created in Mr Rudd’s first term. So, from the perspective of China, who is Prime Minister Tony Abbott? Is he a friend or foe of China? Will Australia draw closer to China, or will Canberra work with Washington to try to contain Beijing? Here is one Chinese evaluation. Mr Abbott certainly appears to fit the mould of a typical conservative politician. He is keen on traditional Western values and has a strong religious belief. The idea of conservative liberalism and the glorious Anglosphere seem to be embedded in his blood. Anglosphere may be a good term to generalise Abbott’s foreign policy thinking, at least before he became prime minister. The so-called Anglosphere consists of five English- speaking, Anglo-Saxon-dominated countries: the US, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Sometimes, it also expands to include their closest allies, such as Japan and NATO members (putting aside possible espionage issues). In the view of Anglosphere supporters, the current international orders, both political and economic, are shaped and protected by the five countries, with the UK having taken the lead before the two world wars, and the US after. Since the Cold War era, the intelligence-sharing mechanism among the Anglosphere countries has been another close bond. It is why, in the strategic domain, the Anglosphere is also known as the “Five Eyes”. In his speeches and books, Mr Abbott has never indicated a belief that the potential international political and economic changes brought about by the rise of China would shake the dominance of the Anglosphere. Therefore, Australia does not need to choose and remains firmly in the Western camp. He strongly supports the US pivot to Asia and believes that the alliance is the bedrock of Australia’s security policy. In his remarks to US think-tank the Heritage Foundation, Abbott even claimed that he had never treated the US as a foreign country. This does not, however, mean that Mr Abbott is automatically “against” Asia or China. In fact, even during his campaign, “less Geneva, more Jakarta” was a key theme. Unlike his predecessor, Abbott is not a “China Hand”; rather, he claims Japan is Australia’s best friend in Asia. Abbott believes that, because it is a successful democracy, Japan should play a greater role in international society and be allowed to become “normal”. Page 2 of 6 Abbott’s conservatism is not much different from that of his political mentor, former Coalition prime minister, John Howard. In fact, before Howard began his premiership, he was even labelled a racist, and former Prime Minister Paul Keating made the judgement that Howard would never be accepted by the region. His judgement was premature, however. During the 11-year Howard era, Australia successfully built a healthy and strong relationship with the region. On one hand, Howard was awarded the role of the US “deputy sheriff” in the region. On the other hand, economic relations with Australia’s Asian neighbours quickly advanced. During the 1999 East Timor crisis, Australia’s intervention caused a serious breach in its ties with Indonesia. Surprisingly though, Howard managed to swiftly repair the relationship and to advance it even further. These contradictory facts are recognised by Michael Wesley as the Howard paradox. In fact, the magic behind the paradox is the Coalition’s political pragmatism. Kevin Rudd may have had more foreign knowledge and experience than Howard and been more ambitious with his famous idea of the Asia-Pacific Community. However, his multilateral diplomacy was a bit too idealist and lacked the flexibility of Howard’s bilateralism. Mr Rudd was too confident of his China expertise to realise that the Chinese Government was actually somewhat annoyed by his self-appointed role as China’s Zheng You (or critical friend). We are not sure whether Howard also wanted to be China’s true friend, but we do know he would have liked to have been China’s best business partner. The Abbott Government is expected to inherit the sophisticated diplomatic traditions of the Howard Government. He will strengthen the Anglosphere identity but, at the same time, will try not to miss any business opportunities with Asia, particularly China. No matter the conservatism of Mr Abbott, or the pragmatism of the Coalition, the overall goal of Australia’s foreign policy is necessarily to serve the national interest. So, what are Australia’s national interests? In the context of a competition between China and the US, how would Australia make its choices? Certainly, in the foreseeable future, Australia will continue to ally itself with the US, rather than lean towards China. This stance is the result of a cost-benefit calculation. Geographically, Australia remains far from its Western allies. Its long coastline, large amount areas of empty land and its situation within a region that has alien cultures and institutions, means that invasion anxiety never entirely disappears from the minds of Australian policymakers. For the sake of its national security, Australia must continue to show loyalty through concrete actions so as not to be abandoned by the US. Although some thinkers, such as Hugh White, have called for reflection on Australia’s choice and beseeched Australians not to stake their future in any “Great Game” between China and the US, the sympathisers are few. The mainstream tune has not changed. People who hold a positive view of the Sino-Australian relationship are used to drawing on trade statistics as evidence. It is self-evident that the economic relationship with China Page 3 of 6 determines the prosperity of Australia. According to a recent report by the International Monetary Fund, Australia is more exposed to a slowing Chinese economy than any country apart from Mongolia. But, despite Australia’s huge volumes of trade with China, the bilateral economic relationship is rather one-dimensional. The overwhelming majority of Australian exports to China are commodities. What China sells to Australia are mainly cheap consumer goods. Any complex production network is almost non-existent. True, China and Australia have mutual investments and the flow of Chinese capital into Australia is increasing rapidly. If, however, we compare the value of Chinese investments in Australia with those of the US and UK, it is pointless to be overenthusiastic. More ironically, as pointed out by James Reilly, a Sydney-based scholar, the more Australia depends on China economically, the higher its perception of threats will be. Therefore, Australia will naturally adopt a hedging policy by allying with the US, India and Japan to balance the influence of China. With such a calculation, no matter which party dominates in Canberra, it will not be a simple matter to shift Australia’s fundamental strategic settings in favour of China. Such is the understanding of the élite, but what about the public? According to a 2013 poll conducted by the Lowy Institute for International Policy, 76 per cent of the public believe that Australia’s most important economic relationship is with China. At the same time, 57 per cent of Australians are concerned about the level of Chinese investment, and believe the government has permitted too much. Strategically, a significant minority (41 per cent) believe that China will become a military threat to Australia in 20 years’ time. Eighty-two per cent of Australians support the alliance with the US, and 61 per cent view the basing of US forces in Australia positively. The poll results indicate that, on the one hand, the Australian public expects a stronger economic relationship with China and Asia. On the other hand, they have limited strategic confidence in China. The optimistic nature of Australians is clearly shown in the poll as well, with 87 per cent of the respondents believing that Australia can maintain a balance between the US and China without any problems. Australians have many reasons to be optimistic. On the day following the Coalition’s electoral victory, the newly appointed Chinese Ambassador to Australia, Mr Ma Zhaoxu, quickly conveyed the congratulations of the Chinese Government to Mr Abbott. Ambassador Ma was previously the assistant minister of Foreign Affairs, which is in the rank of the ministry’s leadership.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Most Vitriolic Parliament
    THE MOST VITRIOLIC PARLIAMENT EVIDENCE OF THE VITRIOLIC NATURE OF THE 43 RD PARLIAMENT AND POTENTIAL CAUSES Nicolas Adams, 321 382 For Master of Arts (Research), June 2016 The University of Melbourne, School of Social and Political Sciences Supervisors: Prof. John Murphy, Dr. Scott Brenton i Abstract It has been suggested that the period of the Gillard government was the most vitriolic in recent political history. This impression has been formed by many commentators and actors, however very little quantitative data exists which either confirms or disproves this theory. Utilising an analysis of standing orders within the House of Representatives it was found that a relatively fair case can be made that the 43rd parliament was more vitriolic than any in the preceding two decades. This period in the data, however, was trumped by the first year of the Abbott government. Along with this conclusion the data showed that the cause of the vitriol during this period could not be narrowed to one specific driver. It can be seen that issues such as the minority government, style of opposition, gender and even to a certain extent the speakership would have all contributed to any mutation of the tone of debate. ii Declaration I declare that this thesis contains only my original work towards my Masters of Arts (Research) except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text to other material used. Equally this thesis is fewer than the maximum word limit as approved by the Research Higher Degrees Committee. iii Acknowledgements I wish to acknowledge my two supervisors, Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • The Abbott Government's Attacks on Australia's Environment, and Their Effects on Our Natural Heritage and Future Prosperity
    SUBMISSION TO Senate Inquiry - Australia's environment - The Abbott Government's attacks on Australia's environment, and their effects on our natural heritage and future prosperity. On the 18 June 2014 the Senate referred the following matter for inquiry and report by the third sitting day in 2015: Terms of reference include: (a) attacks on carbon pricing, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the renewable energy target, the Climate Change Authority and the Climate Commission; (b) attacks on federal environmental protection through handing approval powers over to state governments, which have poor track records and recent environment staff cuts; (c) attacks on funding for community environment organisations and the Environmental Defenders Offices, abolition of the Biodiversity Fund, and cuts to programs including, Landcare and Caring for our Country; (d) undermining Australia's compliance with the World Heritage Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Ramsar Convention, in particular by attacking the Great Barrier Reef and the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Areas; and (e) any other related matters. The closing date for submissions to the Inquiry is 1 September 2014.The details are through this site: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communicatio ns/Ausenviron 1 Submission from Dr Mary MacGibbon (Lecturer in Science at UTS and University of Sydney), Kate Watson BA Dip Ed LLM Ingrid Strewe M Env Ed Abbott government is trashing our environment for the sake of a dying industry Since Australia’s conservative government took office almost six months ago, Prime Minister Tony Abbott has declared the country open for business.
    [Show full text]
  • 22. Gender and the 2013 Election: the Abbott 'Mandate'
    22. Gender and the 2013 Election: The Abbott ‘mandate’ Kirsty McLaren and Marian Sawer In the 2013 federal election, Tony Abbott was again wooing women voters with his relatively generous paid parental leave scheme and the constant sight of his wife and daughters on the campaign trail. Like Julia Gillard in 2010, Kevin Rudd was assuring voters that he was not someone to make an issue of gender and he failed to produce a women’s policy. Despite these attempts to neutralise gender it continued to be an undercurrent in the election, in part because of the preceding replacement of Australia’s first woman prime minister and in part because of campaigning around the gender implications of an Abbott victory. To evaluate the role of gender in the 2013 election, we draw together evidence on the campaign, campaign policies, the participation of women, the discursive positioning of male leaders and unofficial gender-based campaigning. We also apply a new international model of the dimensions of male dominance in the old democracies and the stages through which such dominance is overcome. We argue that, though feminist campaigning was a feature of the campaign, traditional views on gender remain powerful. Raising issues of gender equality, as Julia Gillard did in the latter part of her prime ministership, is perceived as electorally damaging, particularly among blue-collar voters. The prelude to the election Gender received most attention in the run-up to the election in 2012–13 rather than during the campaign itself. Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s famous misogyny speech of 2012 was prompted in immediate terms by the Leader of the Opposition drawing attention to sexism in what she perceived as a hypocritical way.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pacific Solution As Australia's Policy
    THE 3AC,F,C SOL8TI21 AS A8STRA/,A‘S P2/,CY TOWARDS ASYLUM SEEKER AND IRREGULAR MARITIME ARRIVALS (IMAS) IN THE JOHN HOWARD ERA Hardi Alunaza SD1, Ireng Maulana2 and Adityo Darmawan Sudagung3 1Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Tanjungpura Email: [email protected] 2 Political Sciences Iowa State University Email: [email protected] 3International Relations Department Universitas Tanjungpura Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT This research is attempted to answer the question of why John Howard used the Pacific Solution as Australian policy towards Asylum Seekers and Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAS). By using the descriptive method with a qualitative approach, the researchers took a specific interest in decision-making theory and sovereignty concept to analyze the phenomena. The policy governing the authority of the Australian Government in the face of the Asylum Seeker by applying multiple strategies to suppress and deter IMAs. The results of this research indicate that John Howard used Pacific Solution with emphasis on three important aspects. First, eliminating migration zone in Australia. Second, building cooperation with third countries in the South Pacific, namely Nauru and Papua New Guinea in shaping the center of IMAs defense. On the other hand, Howard also made some amendments to the Migration Act by reducing the rights of refugees. Immigrants who are seen as a factor of progress and development of the State Australia turned into a new dimension that threatens economic development, security, and socio-cultural. Keywords: Pacific Solution; asylum seeker; Irregular Maritime Arrivals ABSTRAK Tulisan ini disajikan untuk menjawab pertanyaan mengapa John Howard menggunakan The Pacific Solution sebagai kebijakan Australia terhadap Asylum Seeker dan Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs).
    [Show full text]
  • Sorry, Mr Abbott, There Is No War
    Sorry, Mr Abbott, there is no war The Age, January 11 2014 Time and again, new governments begin their work under the mistaken belief that they have been given unlimited authority to enact what they want and how they want, irrespective of public criticism. They talk of ''mandates'' and the majority view of ''right-thinking'' people. They will duly say how determined they are to implement the policies they promised, then fob off questions by saying they need to get on with the job. The best governments, however, conduct their work openly so that success can be measured with confidence. They do not try to avoid public scrutiny by closing down the flow of information, thus denying the people they represent the ability to know what is being done in their name. Prime Minister Tony Abbott believes he can hear the drums beating. Yesterday he commandeered the analogy of a nation at war to excuse his decision to shut down information about his government's treatment of asylum seekers. Mr Abbott says he has no problem with being a ''closed book'' about border control because, as he sees it, ''we are in a fierce contest with these people smugglers, and if we were at war we wouldn't be giving out information that is of use to the enemy just because we might have an idle curiosity about it ourselves''. Worse, he dismisses concerns about undue secrecy by saying ''I will be accountable to the Australian people at the next election''. Mr Abbott fundamentally does not understand that his government, like every democratically elected government, is and remains accountable at every point between elections.
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Terrorism Prevention: Appendixes Security Enterprise
    HS AC HOMELAND SECURITY OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS CENTER Practical Terrorism Prevention Appendixes BRIAN A. JACKSON, ASHLEY L. RHOADES, JORDAN R. REIMER, NATASHA LANDER, KATHERINE COSTELLO, SINA BEAGHLEY APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED Published in 2019 Preface As part of an overall reexamination of terrorism prevention (superseding the programs and activities previously known as countering violent extremism [CVE]) policy, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asked the Homeland Security Opera- tional Analysis Center (HSOAC) to examine the state of knowledge regarding terror- ism prevention organization, coordination, programming, and policy. HSOAC was tasked to examine past CVE and current terrorism prevention efforts by DHS and its interagency partners, and explore options for this policy area going forward. The appendixes supplement the findings presented in the main report. Appen- dix A presents international case studies of CVE programs, including a detailed discus- sion of their selection. Appendix B presents summaries of the lessons learned in each of the U.S. cities visited during the study, and includes a discussion of how the cities were chosen. Appendix C includes a more substantial discussion of measures and metrics for terrorism prevention, and Appendix D provides more detail on the spending calcula- tions discussed in Chapter Nine of the main report. As with the main report, this research was sponsored by the Office of Policy, DHS, and conducted within the Strategy, Policy, and Operations Program of the HSOAC federally funded research and development center (FFRDC). About the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Section 305 of Public Law 107-296, as codified at 6 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • 12. the Labor Party Campaign and Aftermath
    12. The Labor Party Campaign and Aftermath George Wright Disunity versus discipline Labor did not so much lose the election as lose government. In Australian football terms, we had put the Liberals 10 goals ahead when the year started. Labor’s defeat in 2013 had been determined years earlier as we persisted with a jaw-dropping lack of unity and seemingly endless infighting. It is remarkable that, amid all of that, we advanced literally hundreds of legislative reforms. However, very few of those were noticed by the public as a result of the number of news stories on our disunity. Even though Kevin Rudd’s opponents went silently after he resumed the leadership in June 2013, the years of infighting and undermining had left Labor in an unwinnable position. The policy changes, the legislation passed, and the reforms delivered counted for very little against an overwhelming perception of disunity. All the Coalition had to do to win was hold their nerve when we inevitably made a comeback, as we did when Kevin Rudd resumed the Labor leadership. The crucial thing that the Coalition had in spades, and ruthlessly drove home their advantage with, was the biggest thing Labor’s team lacked: discipline. Any observer of politics would observe that really where the problems for the Labor Party started was when we removed a first-term prime minister [Kevin Rudd in 2010]. Whatever the details of our incapacity to get over that, the truth is that we never did. Figure 1: Extract from George Wright’s responses to questions following his address to the National Press Club, 29 October 2013 Source: Australianpolitics.com—<australianpolitics.com/2013/10/29/george-wright-alp-federal-election- analysis.html>.
    [Show full text]
  • Sue to Adapt?
    SUE TO ADAPT? Jacqueline Peel* and Hari M. Osofsky** Forthcoming in Minnesota Law Review (2015) Climate change litigation has influenced regulation substantially in the United States. Most notably, the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA serves as the basis for federal Clean Air Act regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and power plants. However, most U.S. litigation thus far has focused on mitigation, i.e., how to limit emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. This Article is the first to address the significance of an emerging area of U.S. litigation: cases focused on forcing or limiting government action to adapt to climate change. These new lawsuits – on issues such electric grid resiliency, protective sand dunes, coastal sewage system inundation, deterioration of coastal waters, and flood insurance – will help shape local, state, and federal efforts to plan for the impacts of climate change. Although the United States has just begun to address adaptation in its courts, other common law countries are farther along. In particular, Australia, which faces many early impacts from climate change due to its geography, has more developed adaptation policy and jurisprudence. This Article not only explores the role of the developing U.S. case law, but also considers how the Australian experience might inform U.S. approaches. Drawing from extensive interviews with U.S. and Australian litigants and regulators in addition to doctrinal analysis, the Article argues that the Australian litigation illustrates pathways for U.S. litigation to build on its early cases to: (1) change planning culture, (2) use natural disasters as catalysts for adaptive planning, and (3) navigate more effectively the tensions between public adaptation interests and private property rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Connections
    Pacific Forum CSIS Comparative Connections A Triannual E-Journal on East Asian Bilateral Relations edited by Carl Baker Brad Glosserman May – August 2014 Vol. 16, No.2 September 2014 http://csis.org/program/comparative-connections Pacific Forum CSIS Based in Honolulu, Hawaii, the Pacific Forum CSIS operates as the autonomous Asia- Pacific arm of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1975, the thrust of the Forum’s work is to help develop cooperative policies in the Asia- Pacific region through debate and analyses undertaken with the region’s leaders in the academic, government, and corporate arenas. The Forum’s programs encompass current and emerging political, security, economic/business, and oceans policy issues. It collaborates with a network of more than 30 research institutes around the Pacific Rim, drawing on Asian perspectives and disseminating its projects’ findings and recommendations to opinion leaders, governments, and publics throughout the region. An international Board of Governors guides the Pacific Forum’s work. The Forum is funded by grants from foundations, corporations, individuals, and governments, the latter providing a small percentage of the forum’s annual budget. The Forum’s studies are objective and nonpartisan and it does not engage in classified or proprietary work. Comparative Connections A Triannual E-Journal on East Asian Bilateral Relations Edited by Carl Baker and Brad Glosserman Volume 16, Number 2 May – August 2014 Honolulu, Hawaii September 2014 Comparative Connections A Triannual Electronic Journal on East Asian Bilateral Relations Bilateral relationships in East Asia have long been important to regional peace and stability, but in the post-Cold War environment, these relationships have taken on a new strategic rationale as countries pursue multiple ties, beyond those with the US, to realize complex political, economic, and security interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Gillard's Clean Energy Future Package—Paradigm Change
    Gillard’s Clean Energy Future Package: Paradigm Change Minus Valence Equals Failure Author Barry, Sean Published 2015 Conference Title Australian Political Studies Association Annual Conference 2015: The Future of Politics and Political Science Version Version of Record (VoR) Copyright Statement © The Author(s) 2015. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. For information about this conference please refer to the conference’s website or contact the author(s). Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/125424 Link to published version https://auspsa.org.au/events-and-conferences/2015-apsa-conference/ Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au Gillard’s Clean Energy Future Package—Paradigm Change Minus Valence Equals Failure SEAN BARRY Griffith University It is now twenty years since Peter Hall wrote his influential Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State. He argued ideas are important in political and institutional change, developed within what he called policy paradigms. Only rarely do ideas and the social learning they create lead to what Hall called third order paradigm change, which radically alters policy and leads to adapted goals and policy instruments. The Gillard government’s Clean Energy Future Package (CEFP) was bold, challenging, and radical in the context of Australian reform and it was a good example of Hall’s third order policy paradigm change. The Abbott government, elected on an ‘axe the tax’ platform, quickly repealed the CEFP. Despite its repeal, the CEFP remains an example of rare, difficult-to-achieve third order change. The policy, however, failed to engender the emotional appeal or valence (policy ‘stickiness’) within the community.
    [Show full text]
  • The Production and Projection of a Political Image on the Tony Abbott Facebook Page
    The making of a captain: The production and projection of a political image on the Tony Abbott Facebook page Edward Hurcombe (Queensland University of Technology) Abstract Literature on politicians’ use of social media tends to concentrate on election campaigns rather than on their everyday use. In examining the construction of ‘Facebook Tony Abbott’ (an Australian conservative federal politician and ex-Prime Minister), this paper examines how his image uploads, with five main themes: military, heterosexual family, statesmanship, athleticism and activeness, assembled a broader political persona. These images serve to promote such mythic campaign image categories as the Ideal Leader and Popular Candidate, revealing the page’s permanent political campaign focus. Thus any insight the page could provide into the everyday political life of Tony Abbott was severely limited. Keywords: social media, political image, Tony Abbott, permanent campaign, Facebook Introduction: Digital politicians Many politicians now attempt to engage their electorates through social media. When he was Australian Prime Minister (2013-2015), Tony Abbott1 participated in this trend, by utilising Facebook to establish new communication channels in more interactive online spaces. With a more personalised flair, the Abbott Facebook page2 documented through images Abbott’s personal and political everyday life to its followers (461,000 and counting, as of May 2016). This article analyses the characteristic qualities of these images by examining how this social media platform was used to construct a broader political image, saturated with particular themes. Current literature has already examined the use of social media in campaigns to engage with and mobilise voters, focussing for instance on the 2008 and 2012 US presidential campaigns.
    [Show full text]
  • New Abbott Government Hits the Ground Running on Trade
    New Abbott Government Hits the Ground Running on Trade With Australia’s new government just a few weeks old, they (OECD) counterparts, growth has moderated. Mr. Abbott has have already signalled an intention to engage with the been clear that he expects broader trade and investment to international community and in particular with their close help pick up the slack. neighbours in Asia. Mr. Abbott called for “momentum towards the conclusion of Trade is vital to the success of the new government’s agenda. advantageous trade agreements,” the largest of which are in Without co-operation from regional governments and from Asia, with China and South Korea well advanced, and the long business, ambitious economic targets will not be met. This running negotiations with Japan continuing. In Bali, at his first signals a willingness to work with business and government meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, the Prime Minister where there is mutual benefit. said he wants to conclude the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) within a year. This is by any measure an Already, new Prime Minister Tony Abbott has visited his ambitious timetable but one which signals Mr. Abbott’s counterpart in Indonesia, President Yudhoyono, ostensibly to intention to progress quickly on a deal. talk about the issue of asylum seekers (Mr. Abbott was accompanied by Immigration Minister Scott Morrison), but the The broader Trans Pacific Partnership, also the subject of talks also had a broader focus on trade and investment. Prime current negotiations, has the potential to include Singapore, Minister Abbott also attended the most recent Asia Pacific Japan, Malaysia, and Vietnam, along with countries in the Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Bali, Indonesia.
    [Show full text]