Australia shouldn’t be worried about Chinese ownership
Should Australians be worried about ‘Chinese ownership’ of farms, land and other resources? Both sides of the debate have conventionally looked like the following: One side argues that blocking Chinese investment only hurts Australians by denying them economic benefits and opportunities. The other side argues that the Chinese government, with whom many successful Chinese businesspeople are somehow linked, is hell-bent on extending its influence on Australia, which doesn’t align with our national security interests.
We shouldn’t block investment from China simply because their government can’t be trusted. Because ultimately, if there is some genuine national security threat that manifests itself, then the Australian government can just push the ‘nationalise’ button. Australia’s constitution allows this and requires compensation on “just terms”, an option that should be avoided. But surely the potential threat of nationalisation in dire circumstances that will hopefully never eventuate is better than blocking the sale of land and assets to foreign investors who want to develop them? If it does ever happen, what could the Chinese government do about it? Nothing.
Under current military capabilities, the US would trounce China if they attacked Australia and it would give the US the excuse it needs to mobilise the alliance of countries who are also threatened by Chinese expansionism and influence. Upfront, the necessary combined force generation to safely bring a force over such a distance between mainland China and Australia, would need air, surface and subsurface support with adequate preparatory fire from standoff weapons such as ICBM, some launch of seaborne IRBM, maybe some bomber activity (last one possible, but questionable from an aircraft escort and safety aspect). As for logistics, such a transit would see a very long supply line created and the expeditionary force would need substantial stocks of first wave supplies.
Australia’s greatest defence is still our distance from other adversaries and the vast water around us. Not to mention the significant need for China to have spent significant diplomatic effort to achieve support from any country nearby. Rather, Australians should be more concerned about sabotage and cyber attacks upon their civilian infrastructure.
In any case, the Chinese government would have to begrudgingly admit that Australia nationalising would be our government simply doing what China would have no hesitation in doing itself. And chances are that many in the long laundry list of corrupt countries who are being locked into ‘debt slavery’ through Chinese government loans under the Belt and Road Initiative might realise that they’re in the same boat. Indeed, this is probably the fallback they themselves see. In international politics, leverage is everything, as the US tariffs on China have certainly hurt China more than they’ve hurt the US, with a lot of Chinese trade with the US already facing competition from other developing markets like Brazil, India, Vietnam and Bangladesh who are happy to sell agricultural products and manufactured goods to the US that previously or currently come from China. Perhaps the emperor may not have any new clothes after all.