On engaging with China | CBC

MATT GALLOWAY: Countries around the world are trying to come to terms with some of the most painful parts of their histories. In Israel, an explosive documentary by a Jewish filmmaker has launched a new national discussion around what happened when the state itself was formed. In 30 minutes, what happened in the razed Palestinian village of Tantura and why that story has been so difficult to tell for decades as the Beijing Olympics get set to begin, though, we start with former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on how the world should engage with China. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MATT GALLOWAY: On Friday, Beijing welcomes athletes from all over the world to the Winter Olympics, it has been 14 years since China last played host and in that time a lot has changed. China is a wealthier and more powerful country, and as its influence has grown, so have the political and diplomatic challenges. My guest this morning is the former prime minister of Australia. He's also a scholar of Chinese history and politics and a fluent Mandarin speaker, and he's now president of the Asia Society, a think tank in New York City. Kevin Rudd is in Brisbane this morning. Kevin Rudd. Good Morning!

KEVIN RUDD: Good morning, good to be with you.

MATT GALLOWAY: It's great to have you here. You were Prime Minister of Australia the last time that Beijing hosted the Olympics and you attended, despite some criticism from Pro Tibet activists. This time around, Canada, Australia and seven other seven seven other countries are holding what they're calling a diplomatic boycott over concerns around human rights abuses in Xinjiang. Is that the right decision to not send elected representatives and not send leaders of countries to these Olympics?

KEVIN RUDD: My own view on the question of diplomatic boycotts is that they don't mean a lot. I'm old enough to remember what happened when the international community imposed a much broader boycott, including athletes to the Moscow and pigs back in 1980. From China's perspective, they will turn the opening ceremony and the event itself into their own domestic propaganda exercise. And frankly, the presence or absence of a bunch of foreign diplomats or political representatives doesn't add up to too much. The key question in my mind is a broader one, which is what are the prospects and the possibilities of genuine improvement long term in China's own domestic human rights performance? And what's the best means by which to bring about substantial change within the country?

MATT GALLOWAY: And that really speaks to the heart of the issue in some ways. I mean, Australia is a lot like Canada in many ways where wealthy countries. But we are I think it's fair to say middling powers. We have deep economic ties to China. But there are also real concerns about the country's growing influence and its autocratic government. And so given all of that, how do you go about negotiating a relationship with China? What should what should a country like Canada be doing to to figure out how it relates with China now?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, Canada is not Robinson Crusoe here. Most of us who are middle powers in the world and certainly those of us who come from the liberal democratic will face with common challenges. China, when I attended the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics in 2008, was using that Olympics ceremony as its global coming out party, if you like. And since then, and particularly since the rise of Xi Jinping four years later in 2012, China has progressively become more assertive in its foreign policy within the region and increasingly, as we see from events in Europe and small countries like this whole area, globally as well. But at the same time, the dilemma created for all of us is that China, progressively simply because of its economic scale, is becoming the largest economic partner for more than 120-130 countries around the world. So therein lies the dilemma. My argument in terms of principles for how you can best balance the relationship with China today is probably along these lines. One in your dealings with the Chinese. Be very plain about the fact that we do believe and will never change our views about the universality of human rights, as articulated in the Universal Declaration of 1948 and the relevant UN covenants. I think the second principle is countries like Canada and Australia, a long standing, proud allies, the audit states. We don't always agree with the Americans on on everything. But where we will stand as allies, and that's not about to change either. Certainly, though, to be clear with the Chinese that we are in the business of maximising a mutually beneficial economic, trade and investment relationship so that our companies can get out there and do business is a force big one as well. In the questions of global governance, like global climate change action, we must have China around the table. Canada, Australia, United States and others must be engaging the world's largest emitter on the global necessity and imperative for bringing down carbon emissions. So we must be engaging with the Chinese and the institutions of global governance in the final one, I suppose, is this, if you are going to disagree with China, if you're a middle power or a smaller power and you're going to do so publicly and on a principled basis, it's best to do so in the company of friends rather than simply freewheeling with China. It's much more difficult for Beijing to take punitive action against a country if you act collectively as opposed to simply acting individually. And that, I think, is the principle of people like the Canadians and the Australians to bear in mind, in the future.

MATT GALLOWAY: How is that complicated when your citizens are snatched off the streets in China, we saw Canadians like Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were arrested, held and what many people believe were arbitrary detentions. There are other Canadians that are still being held there. Australia has had its citizens arbitrarily detained and accused of espionage. So how do you approach that framework that you just laid out when that is occurring?

KEVIN RUDD: Will you apply automatically? What I would describe as principle number five, which is that if you're going to have a radical disagreement with Beijing, do so in the company of friends. I'm quite familiar with the case of the two Michaels. I spent a lot of time myself in a private capacity, speaking to Chinese political leaders about their interests over the last several years prior to their release. And, of course, dealing closely with the Canadian government on the way through. And Canada did well finally in the business of extracting them. But I think the principle is this what Canada also did through its government highly effectively was bring together a international coalition of countries who are opposed to, frankly, all forms of hostage diplomacy, arbitrary arrest, et cetera. And so then you didn't have just a Canadian problem from Beijing's perspective. You had a growing coalition of countries. I think by the time the Michaels case was resolved, something like 20 or 30 states who was signing up to resolutions collectively opposed to any form of arbitrary arrest or hostage diplomacy that I think actually has an effect on Beijing's concern about its global reputation.

MATT GALLOWAY: Does it because they weren't released until Meng Wanzhou was freed from house detention in Vancouver? I mean, people saw that happening within, if not minutes, then hours. So there there was unified pressure from nations around the world. But did it account for much if what the Chinese government was waiting for was the CFO of Huawei to be released from house detention?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, in the absence of the minutes of the relevant [unintelligible] meeting in Beijing, which we probably won't have available to us until sometime next century, it's hard to say what the the elements were in the final decision. All I'm observing is that China prides its international reputation, and therefore, when you have an initiative which actually makes this much more of a problem for China globally as opposed to bilaterally, it is effective. You're right in terms of the other point concerning matter amongst from far away. Plainly, the American decision through the Department of Justice was fundamental to to securing the release of the two Michaels. But with most of these things, it is a collection of oppressions which actually bring the final decision to pass.

MATT GALLOWAY: Do you think the Canadians and Australians should feel safe and going about their business in China? Or are they at risk of being snatched off the streets of our leaders get into legal or diplomatic disputes?

KEVIN RUDD: Look, it's imprudent of me as a private citizen to provide consular advice to all the good citizens of Canada and for that matter of Australia, who may or may not be travelling to China in the year ahead, depending, of course, whether they can get in because of the extraordinary COVID restrictions which apply in that country. But that's why our respective foreign services and departments of foreign affairs issue travel advisories to our own domestic communities so they can read carefully what risks they are going to be subject to. I think the broader principle is this; as China has become more powerful, as China believes that it has more leverage in the world, it will increasingly believe it can act independently and without significant fear of external sanction external sanction, which would actually damage China's interests. Therefore, everyone should be cautious about that long term development. But I would not be in the business of providing individual advice. That's why we have professionals in the field who do that for all of our citizens.

MATT GALLOWAY: Let me ask you then, as somebody who has been in the room with the Chinese President Xi Jinping, you have governments around the world that are calling what's happening in Xinjiang right now when it comes to the weaker population, a genocide. Is there anything that Canada or Australia or I guess, other like minded countries can realistically do to persuade Xi Jinping to move on issues of fundamental human rights within that country? Is the pressure and the outrage and the attention that's given going to move the needle at all for him?

KEVIN RUDD: Xi Jinping is different from his predecessors. He is certainly more powerful than his post-meal predecessors as a Chinese political leader. And if you get to know him and understand the way in which he operates is in his heart of hearts and minds of minds. A Leninist and therefore Leninist are not given to gentle conversations with foreigners about the finer sensibilities in life, including their own domestic human rights performance. However. Against that, there is also this fact, and that is China seeks to become the dominant global power sometime before mid-century, both militarily and economically. But it doesn't simply wish to do so on the basis of its military and economic muscle alone. It wishes to acquire some level of soft power on the way through, and that means improving its global reputation. Therefore, my argument is this when we have institutions like the Human Rights Commission in Geneva, we should be using the full instruments of international law and the international institutions to maximise pressure on any states not complying with our obligations under the human rights instruments. Now, I've read reports that the Human Rights Commissioner will be travelling to Beijing from Geneva sometime during the course of 2022. This will be a singularly important event to shine a spotlight on what is happening in Xinjiang. There's one further point as well is that China seeks to present an image globally at present that it is a robust upholder of the UN multilateral system. Well, one of the three pillars the UN Beyond Peace and Security and beyond development is human rights and the human rights law anchored in the covenants plus the institution. Given the power to execute the covenants of the Human Rights Commission in Geneva and its secretariat has a job to do. That's why the Bachelor, a visit to Beijing, I think is going to be singularly important.

MATT GALLOWAY: Do you believe that what's happening in Xinjiang is a genocide?

KEVIN RUDD: There's a huge technical debate about genocide in terms of whether it is the physical elimination of a people, or whether it is the systematic elimination of a culture. All I would say in terms of what I have seen through scholars who I respect, who are specialists in Xinjiang and who have spent their lives studying that part of China, conclude that the systematic efforts by the regime over the last seven years to eliminate any thing are unacceptable within Xinjiang culture and society. To the national Han majority is well underway and using measures including the use of re-education camps, which the rest of us would would conclude are incompatible with the principles of international law.

MATT GALLOWAY: What's been the cost of Australia's hard line on China? I think it's fair to say that Australia has taken a harder line than some other countries have banned Huawei from building its 5G network. It introduced a registry for lobbyists acting on behalf of a foreign governments and political organisations. It scrapped a Belt and Road deal with Beijing. What's been the impact of that on Australia-China relations?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, the Australia-China relationship has now been in the doghouse for about three or four years, so it's it's pretty evident what's the external evidence of it? Well, simply at a political level, to the extent that that matters, there's been zero ministerial engagement between Chinese and Australian government ministers. I think now two, virtually three years. Secondly, at a commercial level, at an economic level, China has imposed a series of trade bans on the export of of Australian goods to the People's Republic. Interestingly, in a number of those categories, we have noted that American exports in similar categories have gone up since it seems filling the vacuum left by Australian exporters, particularly in categories like wine. But the bottom line is one calculation that we have seen in this countries has probably been about. It's been about a $20 billion hit on Australian exports. The bottom line is China has sought to apply the principles of coercive economic diplomacy and coercive pressure against Australia, but that of itself begins to create a problem around the world when other countries begin to as it were joined cause with the Australian government in saying to the Chinese government that this form of economic coercion is unacceptable in terms of the principles of international trade law under the World Trade Organisation. And if that continues to grow, then I think China finds it more difficult in the future to sustain the sort of measures that it's currently got in place. Short answer to your question is it's been a difficult road. But Australians like Canadians are a proud people. If we have a view, we tend to put it forthrightly. We tend to call a spade a shovel. And as a consequence, things have not been going swimmingly with the relationship with Beijing.

MATT GALLOWAY: Which is why commentators say that Canada perhaps is still reluctant to make a decision on, for example, whether to allow the tech giant Huawei to help build our 5G infrastructure. There have been real concerns, as you know, that that equipment could be used for espionage surveillance by Chinese intelligence. Do you think, as our other Five Eyes allies have, that Canada should ban Huawei given the context that you just laid out?

KEVIN RUDD: Let me speak directly to the Australian experience. When I was prime minister, we took an initial decision around the Huawei matter and that was the use of far away hardware within the Australian National Broadband Network at the time, which is something which the then labour government of which I was prime minister was rolling out. But based on our consultations with the British and the Americans, we proceeded with that ban. Our friends in Beijing didn't like it. We didn't make a huge public song and dance about it at the time. But that's they knew perfectly well. The decision was taken and the grounds for it. And when our Chinese friends objected, I said, Of course, you wouldn't mind if I sent in the Australian telecommunications provider to provide similar hardware into the Chinese domestic broadband network. That tended to quieten the conversation fairly soon. For the Australian government, which replaced me after the 2013 election. They took the decision on Huawei and 5G, and based on my understanding of the technical advice provided to the Australian government in making that decision, then it was no real alternative for us in these circumstances. Whether or not the Canadian government has different advice before it today is a matter that you should put to offer. But I'm simply reflecting on the decisions taken here.

MATT GALLOWAY: Just in the last couple of minutes that we have. You have spent much of your life studying China. You've studied its language, its culture, its history, its politics. You're a fluent Mandarin speaker, as I mentioned. What have you learnt about? What China's rise is going to mean for the rest of the world in the years ahead?

KEVIN RUDD: Bottom line, you know, is it's big and it's bigger than probably any of us have seen in terms of global geopolitics since the end of the last World War. And I'm not sure that the collective west is really intellectually and psychologically prepared for this.

MATT GALLOWAY: What do you mean?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, when China becomes the world's largest economy, and let's just say it follows that by becoming the largest military, just think about this for a moment. It be a first time since George. The third was on the throne of England that you'll have a non-English speaking non-Western non-democratic state as the largest country in the world. That is something not within our collective and recent experience, at least over the last century of our immediate experience. So therefore, we have huge challenges to face. Our countries need what I describe as national China's strategies. They need to be coordinated not just between the Five Eyes, but across and those who hold near and dear to the principles of liberal democracy as well. China, at present, is not status quo. It is seeking to become the dominant power in East Asia. Our friends in Canada may not necessarily. That is as much a big a deal as we in Australia do, but it doesn't stop there. China's simultaneously seeking to become the dominant partner of most countries in the world and at the same time begin the fundamental rewriting of the institutions principles and governing arrangements of the of the UN based system its diplomats are currently engaged in. So therefore, we need to be prepared, vigilant and pursuing an intelligent as opposed to a politically rhetorical strategy in response to it.

MATT GALLOWAY: Kevin Rudd a pleasure to speak with you about this. There's a lot to think about and what you've said. Thank you very much.

KEVIN RUDD: Good to be with you.

MATT GALLOWAY: Kevin Rudd, former prime minister of Australia. He's president of the Asia Society. It's a think tank in New York City. You're CBC News is next. And then.