The China history wars
Labor and the Coalition are both attempting to rewrite the history of Australia’s China reset. But neither party is telling the full story of what is arguably a rare bipartisan success.
As Anthony Albanese returns from a carefully choreographed trip to China, a new round of history wars has broken out — this time over who has better managed Australia’s most strategically complex relationship and biggest trading partner.
For most of the week-long visit, the prime minister avoided controversy, offering messages of cautious optimism while signalling that the government would not compromise on Australia’s national interest.
But the diplomatic equilibrium was unsettled on Thursday after a reporter raised remarks made by opposition frontbencher James Paterson. Sources close to the prime minister say few figures in the Coalition get under his skin, but Paterson is a rare exception.
Earlier that day, Paterson said Albanese’s visit to China was worthwhile, but that the focus on pandas and climbing the Great Wall was “a little bit indulgent” — presumably because it echoed earlier trips to China by Labor leaders Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke. His comments were no different in substance from those made by leader Sussan Ley.
