On Sunday Chinese Premier Li Keqiang concluded his five-day visit to Australia having signed a slew of bilateral agreements. Li Keqiang last visited Australia in 2009, a year described by former ambassador to China Geoff Raby as ‘our collective annus horribilis’.
Eight years ago, few could have predicted that in his next visit down under, Li would be championing global free trade and open markets as the remedy to American protectionism. Yet Chinese state media coverage of the premier’s visit aimed to communicate exactly that.
The People’s Daily, mouthpiece for the Chinese Communist Party, heralded last Tuesday that Li’s visit would send positive signals on trade and investment liberalisation against the rising trend of protectionism. An article published on Thursday reported that ‘as countries with important global influence … Australia and China will jointly … oppose protectionism’.
Xinhua News Agency also sought to portray China as the defender of free trade and economic globalisation. One article announced that Li’s visit would push China and Australia towards an age of prosperity based on free trade. The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement was frequently used as an example of successful ‘win-win cooperation’.
State media coverage also provided hints at how Beijing perceives its evolving relationship with Canberra.
The day after Li arrived, the state tabloid Global Times ran an editorial that argued ‘there is no reason for Australia and China to confront each other’. It described Australia-China relations as positive and deep with a ‘strong momentum to overcome any problem’. Reference was made to Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s statement last month that Australia can continue to be an ally of the United States while being China’s comprehensive strategic partner.
Global Times has not always been so well disposed to Australia. It has thrice published editorials labelling the nation a ‘paper cat’ for the Australian government’s stance on the South China Sea. Beijing’s position is that the dispute should be resolved between claimant states alone and that ‘foreign interference’ from the US, Japan, and Australia is unconstructive. Indeed, Thursday’s editorial ultimately placed responsibility on Canberra for any hiccups in the bilateral relationship, and briefly chided Australia for its ‘intermittent attacks on China’.
Australia’s Chinese-language media outlets, meanwhile, focused on the crowds of Chinese-Australians and overseas Chinese who gathered to welcome the premier. At a Saturday event in Sydney Town Hall, Li thanked the Australian-Chinese community for their ‘pure hearts on display for the motherland’.
Beijing’s influence over Australia’s Chinese-language media has become a matter of concern in recent months. Over the weekend a UTS professor critical of this Beijing’s growing control over Chinese-language news outlets in Australia was prevented from boarding his return flight to Sydney. Perhaps indicative of this growing influence, the more mundane aspects of Li’s visit were covered almost exclusively by reposts of state media reports.