Chinese embassy statement is ‘unfortunate’, but commentary by Andrew Hastie and James Paterson is ‘perhaps itself excessive’

This article is more than 10 months old

This article is more than 10 months old

Both China and the two Liberal MPs blocked from a study trip over their strident human rights criticisms need to dial back their rhetoric, the head of the not-for-profit policy institute that organised the tour has said.

Alistair Nicholas, the chief executive of China Matters, told Guardian Australia that Andrew Hastie and James Paterson’s “engagement with the media had made it difficult for China to let them in at this time” after news of the planned December trip leaked to the West Australian.

Both Scott Morrison and the deputy Liberal leader, Josh Frydenberg, backed the Liberal MPs, labelling China’s decision “very disappointing” on Monday.

The December trip has now been called off but the China Matters chief executive insists that it can resume trips centred around off-the-record conversations to help policymakers learn about sensitive topics including alleged human rights abuses, with a trip by March or April 2020 already in the works.

Paul Keating lambasts Australia's security agencies and 'pious' media for anti-China rhetoric Read more

“The Chinese embassy said that Hastie and Paterson were not welcome on the China Matters tour at this time,” Nicholas said, noting it did not say they were “never welcome in China”.

After news of the trip leaked on Friday, China responded by calling on the pair to “genuinely repent and redress their mistakes” – which they have refused to do – and warning that it “will never yield to colonisation of ideas and values”.

Nicholas acknowledged the Chinese embassy statement was “unfortunate” and the language was “over the top”.

“We need to stop and think – both sides need to dial back some of the rhetoric … Australia needs to get the relationship with China back on an even keel.”

Hastie, the chair of the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security, has compared the west’s complacency about the rise of China to France’s inadequate defences against Nazi Germany.

Nicholas said that intervention was “perhaps itself excessive”. Given the fact China spent seven years fighting Japanese fascism in the second world war “the comparison with Nazi Germany was always going to be taken badly”, he said.

The comments also demonstrated “a bit of a lack of understanding” that the Chinese Communist party is “not expansionist” in outlook, he claimed, adding “that’s not to say that there aren’t things for China to be brought to brook on” – including the mass internment of Uighurs in Xinjiang.

Nicholas said that China’s decision did not mean that Australian politicians could not raise human rights concerns, but it’s “a matter of when, and how and the tone of language” used to do so. “Let’s dial back the rhetoric and speak up for our values in a proper, respectful manner.”

He noted China Matters had never been told it couldn’t bring anyone because of criticism of China, and past trips had asked “tough questions” about protests in Hong Kong, the treatment of Uighurs and the detention of the writer Yang Hengjun.

“I anticipate the study tours can continue – I have no reason to think they are no longer viable.”

On Monday Paterson said he and Hastie had been giving voice to “genuine concerns” about the Uighurs, China’s activities in the South China Sea and attempts to influence Australian politics – rejecting the view this constituted “colonisation”.

“Andrew [Hastie] and I were both invited by China Matters to visit China and they did so knowing full well that we were critics of the Chinese Communist party,” he told Radio National.

“But we accepted in good faith, hoping that we would have a respectful dialogue with our counterparts.”

Paterson also defended Hastie’s claim that the west’s belief that economic liberalisation would naturally lead to democratisation in China was its “Maginot Line”.

“I think we do also have to be measured and respectful, but we can’t use that as an excuse not to be clear,” Paterson said.

“And to be fair to Andrew, what he was talking about was the complacency of the western powers in the 20th century in response to a rising power that wanted to change the existing global order.

“Well, that’s exactly what we’re dealing with now. That’s not an attempt to equate China to Nazi Germany.

Australia's foreign minister labels China's treatment of Uighurs 'disturbing' Read more

“It’s just saying we have a rising power that doesn’t accept the global order that wants to change it and the west has to know how to respond to that.

“And I don’t think we can ignore the lessons of history just because some of those comparisons can be sensitive at times.”

Paterson said that the “best-case scenario, if we take the Chinese Communist party at their word, [is that] there are a million people of a minority faith who are forcibly detained in re-education camps” labelling it a “very disturbing crackdown on the individual liberties and religious freedoms of a minority faith”.

“The worst-case scenario doesn’t even bear thinking about.”

On Monday Australia’s foreign minister, Marise Payne, labelled new details of China’s mass internment of Uighurs “disturbing” and reiterated demands for China to end arbitrary detention.

The former Australian prime minister Paul Keating warned Australia’s approach to China had been supplanted by the phobias of security agencies and the hysteria of “pious” and “do-gooder” journalists.