What Albanese's visit reveals about China relations in a turbulent world
The Advertiser18-07-2025
The Albanese government has faced an increasingly uncertain world since its re-election in May.
US President Donald Trump has cast a long shadow over the Australia-US alliance, raising fresh questions about Canberra's long-term regional strategy.
Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's approach to foreign policy is reflecting a careful recalibration - one that seeks to balance security partnerships with the pursuit of economic opportunities, especially with Australia's largest trading partner, China.
Albanese has wrapped up a six-day visit to China which was characterised by a highly pragmatic approach to dealing with the problems and irritants in the bilateral relationship.
Albanese's visit to Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu - cities emblematic of Australia's political, economic and cultural connections with China - was more than symbolic.
It was a high-profile diplomatic venture, with Albanese meeting both the Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang.
But it was more than a leaders' summit. A large team of key business leaders in banking, manufacturing, mining and education were on the trip to meet their Chinese counterparts and seek more cooperation.
Economic engagement dominated the visit. As Albanese highlighted before his trip, "my priority is jobs".
Broader partnerships spanning multiple sectors, including healthcare, education and green energy, were canvassed. The two nations also explored closer cooperation on energy transition and climate change.
Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian has even floated a collaboration on artificial intelligence.
However, the suggestion has been met with caution in Canberra due to ongoing concerns around national security and data governance.
Beyond trade and investment, the visit also marked an effort to rebuild people-to-people exchanges.
Since last year, Australian citizens have been able to visit China for up to 30 days without a visa. In turn, Australia will welcome more Chinese visitors under a new Memorandum of Understanding promoting Australia as a premier tourist destination for Chinese travellers.
Albanese's meetings with Xi Jinping and Li Qiang also yielded concrete results.
The official joint statement emphasised economic cooperation, particularly in climate-related areas such as steel decarbonisation, dryland farming and the green economy.
These outcomes align with the Albanese government's guiding principle: cooperate where we can.
The deeper economic cooperation has been noted in China, where there is an expectation collaboration will continue to accelerate on the back of improved relations.
As James Laurenceson of the Australia-China Relations Institute recently noted, a stronger economic partnership will help foster more resilient ties across the board.
Other analysts also see increased mutual benefits in the bilateral relationship.
China-watcher James Curran suggests the visit may signal a maturing, more independent Australian foreign policy.
The primary role of Australian statecraft is to do everything we possibly can to avoid a conflict. To avoid ever getting close to a decision about following the Americans into a war of that kind.
This was best illustrated by Albanese's refusal to provide Washington with a wide-ranging and largely open-ended commitment to support the US in any conflict with China over Taiwan.
Indeed, as Curran observes, Albanese has tried to steer the relationship away from disagreement and towards pragmatic engagement.
Following his meeting with Xi, Albanese was repeatedly asked by Australian journalists if he raised sensitive issues such as Taiwan, China's military build-up and the South China Sea.
While he confirmed these topics were addressed, he emphasised a preference for peaceful engagement:
[...] we want peace and security in the region. That is in the interest of both Australia and in the interest of China.
Unsurprisingly, the joint statement made no reference to these issues, reflecting a mutual decision to sidestep confrontation in favour of stabilising the relationship.
This diplomatic posture toward China would appear to be a defining feature of the Albanese government's second term: strengthening cooperation while quietly managing differences.
Rather than highlighting points of contention, the government is opting to avoid open disagreement where possible.
Overt disputes risk destabilising bilateral ties. If issues are raised publicly, it is unlikely to shift entrenched positions on either side. This explains why the ownership of the Port of Darwin, for example, was not mentioned during Albanese's meeting with Xi.
Critics, however, argue this risks projecting weakness towards China.
Justin Bassi, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, warns the government is staying silent in the face of ongoing Chinese coercion:
Australia is only complying with China's desires when the government says nothing and leaves the public to trust that the threats posed by China are all being dealt with in the classified realm. This is not viable policy. Australia's sovereignty must not be contingent on Beijing's preferences.
Even within China, analysts are cautious about Albanese's approach. As one Chinese scholar told us, "a stable relationship does not necessarily mean a friendly one".
In fact, while the Chinese media has stressed Australia and China's shared commitment to regional stability, this was barely mentioned in the official joint statement.
Still, there is recognition on both sides that pragmatism rather than ideological grandstanding is the more sustainable path forward.
In sum, Albanese's visit does not mark a dramatic reset or bold new direction in Australia-China relations. Rather, it signals a shift toward greater realism.
In an increasingly complex and multipolar world, diplomacy grounded in mutual interests, rather than ideology, is not just practical, but may be a growing trend across the globe.
The Albanese government has faced an increasingly uncertain world since its re-election in May.
US President Donald Trump has cast a long shadow over the Australia-US alliance, raising fresh questions about Canberra's long-term regional strategy.
Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's approach to foreign policy is reflecting a careful recalibration - one that seeks to balance security partnerships with the pursuit of economic opportunities, especially with Australia's largest trading partner, China.
Albanese has wrapped up a six-day visit to China which was characterised by a highly pragmatic approach to dealing with the problems and irritants in the bilateral relationship.
Albanese's visit to Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu - cities emblematic of Australia's political, economic and cultural connections with China - was more than symbolic.
It was a high-profile diplomatic venture, with Albanese meeting both the Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang.
But it was more than a leaders' summit. A large team of key business leaders in banking, manufacturing, mining and education were on the trip to meet their Chinese counterparts and seek more cooperation.
Economic engagement dominated the visit. As Albanese highlighted before his trip, "my priority is jobs".
Broader partnerships spanning multiple sectors, including healthcare, education and green energy, were canvassed. The two nations also explored closer cooperation on energy transition and climate change.
Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian has even floated a collaboration on artificial intelligence.
However, the suggestion has been met with caution in Canberra due to ongoing concerns around national security and data governance.
Beyond trade and investment, the visit also marked an effort to rebuild people-to-people exchanges.
Since last year, Australian citizens have been able to visit China for up to 30 days without a visa. In turn, Australia will welcome more Chinese visitors under a new Memorandum of Understanding promoting Australia as a premier tourist destination for Chinese travellers.
Albanese's meetings with Xi Jinping and Li Qiang also yielded concrete results.
The official joint statement emphasised economic cooperation, particularly in climate-related areas such as steel decarbonisation, dryland farming and the green economy.
These outcomes align with the Albanese government's guiding principle: cooperate where we can.
The deeper economic cooperation has been noted in China, where there is an expectation collaboration will continue to accelerate on the back of improved relations.
As James Laurenceson of the Australia-China Relations Institute recently noted, a stronger economic partnership will help foster more resilient ties across the board.
Other analysts also see increased mutual benefits in the bilateral relationship.
China-watcher James Curran suggests the visit may signal a maturing, more independent Australian foreign policy.
The primary role of Australian statecraft is to do everything we possibly can to avoid a conflict. To avoid ever getting close to a decision about following the Americans into a war of that kind.
This was best illustrated by Albanese's refusal to provide Washington with a wide-ranging and largely open-ended commitment to support the US in any conflict with China over Taiwan.
Indeed, as Curran observes, Albanese has tried to steer the relationship away from disagreement and towards pragmatic engagement.
Following his meeting with Xi, Albanese was repeatedly asked by Australian journalists if he raised sensitive issues such as Taiwan, China's military build-up and the South China Sea.
While he confirmed these topics were addressed, he emphasised a preference for peaceful engagement:
[...] we want peace and security in the region. That is in the interest of both Australia and in the interest of China.
Unsurprisingly, the joint statement made no reference to these issues, reflecting a mutual decision to sidestep confrontation in favour of stabilising the relationship.
This diplomatic posture toward China would appear to be a defining feature of the Albanese government's second term: strengthening cooperation while quietly managing differences.
Rather than highlighting points of contention, the government is opting to avoid open disagreement where possible.
Overt disputes risk destabilising bilateral ties. If issues are raised publicly, it is unlikely to shift entrenched positions on either side. This explains why the ownership of the Port of Darwin, for example, was not mentioned during Albanese's meeting with Xi.
Critics, however, argue this risks projecting weakness towards China.
Justin Bassi, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, warns the government is staying silent in the face of ongoing Chinese coercion:
Australia is only complying with China's desires when the government says nothing and leaves the public to trust that the threats posed by China are all being dealt with in the classified realm. This is not viable policy. Australia's sovereignty must not be contingent on Beijing's preferences.
Even within China, analysts are cautious about Albanese's approach. As one Chinese scholar told us, "a stable relationship does not necessarily mean a friendly one".
In fact, while the Chinese media has stressed Australia and China's shared commitment to regional stability, this was barely mentioned in the official joint statement.
Still, there is recognition on both sides that pragmatism rather than ideological grandstanding is the more sustainable path forward.
In sum, Albanese's visit does not mark a dramatic reset or bold new direction in Australia-China relations. Rather, it signals a shift toward greater realism.
In an increasingly complex and multipolar world, diplomacy grounded in mutual interests, rather than ideology, is not just practical, but may be a growing trend across the globe.
The Albanese government has faced an increasingly uncertain world since its re-election in May.
US President Donald Trump has cast a long shadow over the Australia-US alliance, raising fresh questions about Canberra's long-term regional strategy.
Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's approach to foreign policy is reflecting a careful recalibration - one that seeks to balance security partnerships with the pursuit of economic opportunities, especially with Australia's largest trading partner, China.
Albanese has wrapped up a six-day visit to China which was characterised by a highly pragmatic approach to dealing with the problems and irritants in the bilateral relationship.
Albanese's visit to Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu - cities emblematic of Australia's political, economic and cultural connections with China - was more than symbolic.
It was a high-profile diplomatic venture, with Albanese meeting both the Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang.
But it was more than a leaders' summit. A large team of key business leaders in banking, manufacturing, mining and education were on the trip to meet their Chinese counterparts and seek more cooperation.
Economic engagement dominated the visit. As Albanese highlighted before his trip, "my priority is jobs".
Broader partnerships spanning multiple sectors, including healthcare, education and green energy, were canvassed. The two nations also explored closer cooperation on energy transition and climate change.
Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian has even floated a collaboration on artificial intelligence.
However, the suggestion has been met with caution in Canberra due to ongoing concerns around national security and data governance.
Beyond trade and investment, the visit also marked an effort to rebuild people-to-people exchanges.
Since last year, Australian citizens have been able to visit China for up to 30 days without a visa. In turn, Australia will welcome more Chinese visitors under a new Memorandum of Understanding promoting Australia as a premier tourist destination for Chinese travellers.
Albanese's meetings with Xi Jinping and Li Qiang also yielded concrete results.
The official joint statement emphasised economic cooperation, particularly in climate-related areas such as steel decarbonisation, dryland farming and the green economy.
These outcomes align with the Albanese government's guiding principle: cooperate where we can.
The deeper economic cooperation has been noted in China, where there is an expectation collaboration will continue to accelerate on the back of improved relations.
As James Laurenceson of the Australia-China Relations Institute recently noted, a stronger economic partnership will help foster more resilient ties across the board.
Other analysts also see increased mutual benefits in the bilateral relationship.
China-watcher James Curran suggests the visit may signal a maturing, more independent Australian foreign policy.
The primary role of Australian statecraft is to do everything we possibly can to avoid a conflict. To avoid ever getting close to a decision about following the Americans into a war of that kind.
This was best illustrated by Albanese's refusal to provide Washington with a wide-ranging and largely open-ended commitment to support the US in any conflict with China over Taiwan.
Indeed, as Curran observes, Albanese has tried to steer the relationship away from disagreement and towards pragmatic engagement.
Following his meeting with Xi, Albanese was repeatedly asked by Australian journalists if he raised sensitive issues such as Taiwan, China's military build-up and the South China Sea.
While he confirmed these topics were addressed, he emphasised a preference for peaceful engagement:
[...] we want peace and security in the region. That is in the interest of both Australia and in the interest of China.
Unsurprisingly, the joint statement made no reference to these issues, reflecting a mutual decision to sidestep confrontation in favour of stabilising the relationship.
This diplomatic posture toward China would appear to be a defining feature of the Albanese government's second term: strengthening cooperation while quietly managing differences.
Rather than highlighting points of contention, the government is opting to avoid open disagreement where possible.
Overt disputes risk destabilising bilateral ties. If issues are raised publicly, it is unlikely to shift entrenched positions on either side. This explains why the ownership of the Port of Darwin, for example, was not mentioned during Albanese's meeting with Xi.
Critics, however, argue this risks projecting weakness towards China.
Justin Bassi, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, warns the government is staying silent in the face of ongoing Chinese coercion:
Australia is only complying with China's desires when the government says nothing and leaves the public to trust that the threats posed by China are all being dealt with in the classified realm. This is not viable policy. Australia's sovereignty must not be contingent on Beijing's preferences.
Even within China, analysts are cautious about Albanese's approach. As one Chinese scholar told us, "a stable relationship does not necessarily mean a friendly one".
In fact, while the Chinese media has stressed Australia and China's shared commitment to regional stability, this was barely mentioned in the official joint statement.
Still, there is recognition on both sides that pragmatism rather than ideological grandstanding is the more sustainable path forward.
In sum, Albanese's visit does not mark a dramatic reset or bold new direction in Australia-China relations. Rather, it signals a shift toward greater realism.
In an increasingly complex and multipolar world, diplomacy grounded in mutual interests, rather than ideology, is not just practical, but may be a growing trend across the globe.
The Albanese government has faced an increasingly uncertain world since its re-election in May.
US President Donald Trump has cast a long shadow over the Australia-US alliance, raising fresh questions about Canberra's long-term regional strategy.
Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's approach to foreign policy is reflecting a careful recalibration - one that seeks to balance security partnerships with the pursuit of economic opportunities, especially with Australia's largest trading partner, China.
Albanese has wrapped up a six-day visit to China which was characterised by a highly pragmatic approach to dealing with the problems and irritants in the bilateral relationship.
Albanese's visit to Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu - cities emblematic of Australia's political, economic and cultural connections with China - was more than symbolic.
It was a high-profile diplomatic venture, with Albanese meeting both the Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang.
But it was more than a leaders' summit. A large team of key business leaders in banking, manufacturing, mining and education were on the trip to meet their Chinese counterparts and seek more cooperation.
Economic engagement dominated the visit. As Albanese highlighted before his trip, "my priority is jobs".
Broader partnerships spanning multiple sectors, including healthcare, education and green energy, were canvassed. The two nations also explored closer cooperation on energy transition and climate change.
Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian has even floated a collaboration on artificial intelligence.
However, the suggestion has been met with caution in Canberra due to ongoing concerns around national security and data governance.
Beyond trade and investment, the visit also marked an effort to rebuild people-to-people exchanges.
Since last year, Australian citizens have been able to visit China for up to 30 days without a visa. In turn, Australia will welcome more Chinese visitors under a new Memorandum of Understanding promoting Australia as a premier tourist destination for Chinese travellers.
Albanese's meetings with Xi Jinping and Li Qiang also yielded concrete results.
The official joint statement emphasised economic cooperation, particularly in climate-related areas such as steel decarbonisation, dryland farming and the green economy.
These outcomes align with the Albanese government's guiding principle: cooperate where we can.
The deeper economic cooperation has been noted in China, where there is an expectation collaboration will continue to accelerate on the back of improved relations.
As James Laurenceson of the Australia-China Relations Institute recently noted, a stronger economic partnership will help foster more resilient ties across the board.
Other analysts also see increased mutual benefits in the bilateral relationship.
China-watcher James Curran suggests the visit may signal a maturing, more independent Australian foreign policy.
The primary role of Australian statecraft is to do everything we possibly can to avoid a conflict. To avoid ever getting close to a decision about following the Americans into a war of that kind.
This was best illustrated by Albanese's refusal to provide Washington with a wide-ranging and largely open-ended commitment to support the US in any conflict with China over Taiwan.
Indeed, as Curran observes, Albanese has tried to steer the relationship away from disagreement and towards pragmatic engagement.
Following his meeting with Xi, Albanese was repeatedly asked by Australian journalists if he raised sensitive issues such as Taiwan, China's military build-up and the South China Sea.
While he confirmed these topics were addressed, he emphasised a preference for peaceful engagement:
[...] we want peace and security in the region. That is in the interest of both Australia and in the interest of China.
Unsurprisingly, the joint statement made no reference to these issues, reflecting a mutual decision to sidestep confrontation in favour of stabilising the relationship.
This diplomatic posture toward China would appear to be a defining feature of the Albanese government's second term: strengthening cooperation while quietly managing differences.
Rather than highlighting points of contention, the government is opting to avoid open disagreement where possible.
Overt disputes risk destabilising bilateral ties. If issues are raised publicly, it is unlikely to shift entrenched positions on either side. This explains why the ownership of the Port of Darwin, for example, was not mentioned during Albanese's meeting with Xi.
Critics, however, argue this risks projecting weakness towards China.
Justin Bassi, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, warns the government is staying silent in the face of ongoing Chinese coercion:
Australia is only complying with China's desires when the government says nothing and leaves the public to trust that the threats posed by China are all being dealt with in the classified realm. This is not viable policy. Australia's sovereignty must not be contingent on Beijing's preferences.
Even within China, analysts are cautious about Albanese's approach. As one Chinese scholar told us, "a stable relationship does not necessarily mean a friendly one".
In fact, while the Chinese media has stressed Australia and China's shared commitment to regional stability, this was barely mentioned in the official joint statement.
Still, there is recognition on both sides that pragmatism rather than ideological grandstanding is the more sustainable path forward.
In sum, Albanese's visit does not mark a dramatic reset or bold new direction in Australia-China relations. Rather, it signals a shift toward greater realism.
In an increasingly complex and multipolar world, diplomacy grounded in mutual interests, rather than ideology, is not just practical, but may be a growing trend across the globe.
US President Donald Trump has cast a long shadow over the Australia-US alliance, raising fresh questions about Canberra's long-term regional strategy.
Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's approach to foreign policy is reflecting a careful recalibration - one that seeks to balance security partnerships with the pursuit of economic opportunities, especially with Australia's largest trading partner, China.
Albanese has wrapped up a six-day visit to China which was characterised by a highly pragmatic approach to dealing with the problems and irritants in the bilateral relationship.
Albanese's visit to Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu - cities emblematic of Australia's political, economic and cultural connections with China - was more than symbolic.
It was a high-profile diplomatic venture, with Albanese meeting both the Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang.
But it was more than a leaders' summit. A large team of key business leaders in banking, manufacturing, mining and education were on the trip to meet their Chinese counterparts and seek more cooperation.
Economic engagement dominated the visit. As Albanese highlighted before his trip, "my priority is jobs".
Broader partnerships spanning multiple sectors, including healthcare, education and green energy, were canvassed. The two nations also explored closer cooperation on energy transition and climate change.
Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian has even floated a collaboration on artificial intelligence.
However, the suggestion has been met with caution in Canberra due to ongoing concerns around national security and data governance.
Beyond trade and investment, the visit also marked an effort to rebuild people-to-people exchanges.
Since last year, Australian citizens have been able to visit China for up to 30 days without a visa. In turn, Australia will welcome more Chinese visitors under a new Memorandum of Understanding promoting Australia as a premier tourist destination for Chinese travellers.
Albanese's meetings with Xi Jinping and Li Qiang also yielded concrete results.
The official joint statement emphasised economic cooperation, particularly in climate-related areas such as steel decarbonisation, dryland farming and the green economy.
These outcomes align with the Albanese government's guiding principle: cooperate where we can.
The deeper economic cooperation has been noted in China, where there is an expectation collaboration will continue to accelerate on the back of improved relations.
As James Laurenceson of the Australia-China Relations Institute recently noted, a stronger economic partnership will help foster more resilient ties across the board.
Other analysts also see increased mutual benefits in the bilateral relationship.
China-watcher James Curran suggests the visit may signal a maturing, more independent Australian foreign policy.
The primary role of Australian statecraft is to do everything we possibly can to avoid a conflict. To avoid ever getting close to a decision about following the Americans into a war of that kind.
This was best illustrated by Albanese's refusal to provide Washington with a wide-ranging and largely open-ended commitment to support the US in any conflict with China over Taiwan.
Indeed, as Curran observes, Albanese has tried to steer the relationship away from disagreement and towards pragmatic engagement.
Following his meeting with Xi, Albanese was repeatedly asked by Australian journalists if he raised sensitive issues such as Taiwan, China's military build-up and the South China Sea.
While he confirmed these topics were addressed, he emphasised a preference for peaceful engagement:
[...] we want peace and security in the region. That is in the interest of both Australia and in the interest of China.
Unsurprisingly, the joint statement made no reference to these issues, reflecting a mutual decision to sidestep confrontation in favour of stabilising the relationship.
This diplomatic posture toward China would appear to be a defining feature of the Albanese government's second term: strengthening cooperation while quietly managing differences.
Rather than highlighting points of contention, the government is opting to avoid open disagreement where possible.
Overt disputes risk destabilising bilateral ties. If issues are raised publicly, it is unlikely to shift entrenched positions on either side. This explains why the ownership of the Port of Darwin, for example, was not mentioned during Albanese's meeting with Xi.
Critics, however, argue this risks projecting weakness towards China.
Justin Bassi, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, warns the government is staying silent in the face of ongoing Chinese coercion:
Australia is only complying with China's desires when the government says nothing and leaves the public to trust that the threats posed by China are all being dealt with in the classified realm. This is not viable policy. Australia's sovereignty must not be contingent on Beijing's preferences.
Even within China, analysts are cautious about Albanese's approach. As one Chinese scholar told us, "a stable relationship does not necessarily mean a friendly one".
In fact, while the Chinese media has stressed Australia and China's shared commitment to regional stability, this was barely mentioned in the official joint statement.
Still, there is recognition on both sides that pragmatism rather than ideological grandstanding is the more sustainable path forward.
In sum, Albanese's visit does not mark a dramatic reset or bold new direction in Australia-China relations. Rather, it signals a shift toward greater realism.
In an increasingly complex and multipolar world, diplomacy grounded in mutual interests, rather than ideology, is not just practical, but may be a growing trend across the globe.
The Albanese government has faced an increasingly uncertain world since its re-election in May.
US President Donald Trump has cast a long shadow over the Australia-US alliance, raising fresh questions about Canberra's long-term regional strategy.
Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's approach to foreign policy is reflecting a careful recalibration - one that seeks to balance security partnerships with the pursuit of economic opportunities, especially with Australia's largest trading partner, China.
Albanese has wrapped up a six-day visit to China which was characterised by a highly pragmatic approach to dealing with the problems and irritants in the bilateral relationship.
Albanese's visit to Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu - cities emblematic of Australia's political, economic and cultural connections with China - was more than symbolic.
It was a high-profile diplomatic venture, with Albanese meeting both the Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang.
But it was more than a leaders' summit. A large team of key business leaders in banking, manufacturing, mining and education were on the trip to meet their Chinese counterparts and seek more cooperation.
Economic engagement dominated the visit. As Albanese highlighted before his trip, "my priority is jobs".
Broader partnerships spanning multiple sectors, including healthcare, education and green energy, were canvassed. The two nations also explored closer cooperation on energy transition and climate change.
Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian has even floated a collaboration on artificial intelligence.
However, the suggestion has been met with caution in Canberra due to ongoing concerns around national security and data governance.
Beyond trade and investment, the visit also marked an effort to rebuild people-to-people exchanges.
Since last year, Australian citizens have been able to visit China for up to 30 days without a visa. In turn, Australia will welcome more Chinese visitors under a new Memorandum of Understanding promoting Australia as a premier tourist destination for Chinese travellers.
Albanese's meetings with Xi Jinping and Li Qiang also yielded concrete results.
The official joint statement emphasised economic cooperation, particularly in climate-related areas such as steel decarbonisation, dryland farming and the green economy.
These outcomes align with the Albanese government's guiding principle: cooperate where we can.
The deeper economic cooperation has been noted in China, where there is an expectation collaboration will continue to accelerate on the back of improved relations.
As James Laurenceson of the Australia-China Relations Institute recently noted, a stronger economic partnership will help foster more resilient ties across the board.
Other analysts also see increased mutual benefits in the bilateral relationship.
China-watcher James Curran suggests the visit may signal a maturing, more independent Australian foreign policy.
The primary role of Australian statecraft is to do everything we possibly can to avoid a conflict. To avoid ever getting close to a decision about following the Americans into a war of that kind.
This was best illustrated by Albanese's refusal to provide Washington with a wide-ranging and largely open-ended commitment to support the US in any conflict with China over Taiwan.
Indeed, as Curran observes, Albanese has tried to steer the relationship away from disagreement and towards pragmatic engagement.
Following his meeting with Xi, Albanese was repeatedly asked by Australian journalists if he raised sensitive issues such as Taiwan, China's military build-up and the South China Sea.
While he confirmed these topics were addressed, he emphasised a preference for peaceful engagement:
[...] we want peace and security in the region. That is in the interest of both Australia and in the interest of China.
Unsurprisingly, the joint statement made no reference to these issues, reflecting a mutual decision to sidestep confrontation in favour of stabilising the relationship.
This diplomatic posture toward China would appear to be a defining feature of the Albanese government's second term: strengthening cooperation while quietly managing differences.
Rather than highlighting points of contention, the government is opting to avoid open disagreement where possible.
Overt disputes risk destabilising bilateral ties. If issues are raised publicly, it is unlikely to shift entrenched positions on either side. This explains why the ownership of the Port of Darwin, for example, was not mentioned during Albanese's meeting with Xi.
Critics, however, argue this risks projecting weakness towards China.
Justin Bassi, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, warns the government is staying silent in the face of ongoing Chinese coercion:
Australia is only complying with China's desires when the government says nothing and leaves the public to trust that the threats posed by China are all being dealt with in the classified realm. This is not viable policy. Australia's sovereignty must not be contingent on Beijing's preferences.
Even within China, analysts are cautious about Albanese's approach. As one Chinese scholar told us, "a stable relationship does not necessarily mean a friendly one".
In fact, while the Chinese media has stressed Australia and China's shared commitment to regional stability, this was barely mentioned in the official joint statement.
Still, there is recognition on both sides that pragmatism rather than ideological grandstanding is the more sustainable path forward.
In sum, Albanese's visit does not mark a dramatic reset or bold new direction in Australia-China relations. Rather, it signals a shift toward greater realism.
In an increasingly complex and multipolar world, diplomacy grounded in mutual interests, rather than ideology, is not just practical, but may be a growing trend across the globe.
The Albanese government has faced an increasingly uncertain world since its re-election in May.
US President Donald Trump has cast a long shadow over the Australia-US alliance, raising fresh questions about Canberra's long-term regional strategy.
Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's approach to foreign policy is reflecting a careful recalibration - one that seeks to balance security partnerships with the pursuit of economic opportunities, especially with Australia's largest trading partner, China.
Albanese has wrapped up a six-day visit to China which was characterised by a highly pragmatic approach to dealing with the problems and irritants in the bilateral relationship.
Albanese's visit to Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu - cities emblematic of Australia's political, economic and cultural connections with China - was more than symbolic.
It was a high-profile diplomatic venture, with Albanese meeting both the Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang.
But it was more than a leaders' summit. A large team of key business leaders in banking, manufacturing, mining and education were on the trip to meet their Chinese counterparts and seek more cooperation.
Economic engagement dominated the visit. As Albanese highlighted before his trip, "my priority is jobs".
Broader partnerships spanning multiple sectors, including healthcare, education and green energy, were canvassed. The two nations also explored closer cooperation on energy transition and climate change.
Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian has even floated a collaboration on artificial intelligence.
However, the suggestion has been met with caution in Canberra due to ongoing concerns around national security and data governance.
Beyond trade and investment, the visit also marked an effort to rebuild people-to-people exchanges.
Since last year, Australian citizens have been able to visit China for up to 30 days without a visa. In turn, Australia will welcome more Chinese visitors under a new Memorandum of Understanding promoting Australia as a premier tourist destination for Chinese travellers.
Albanese's meetings with Xi Jinping and Li Qiang also yielded concrete results.
The official joint statement emphasised economic cooperation, particularly in climate-related areas such as steel decarbonisation, dryland farming and the green economy.
These outcomes align with the Albanese government's guiding principle: cooperate where we can.
The deeper economic cooperation has been noted in China, where there is an expectation collaboration will continue to accelerate on the back of improved relations.
As James Laurenceson of the Australia-China Relations Institute recently noted, a stronger economic partnership will help foster more resilient ties across the board.
Other analysts also see increased mutual benefits in the bilateral relationship.
China-watcher James Curran suggests the visit may signal a maturing, more independent Australian foreign policy.
The primary role of Australian statecraft is to do everything we possibly can to avoid a conflict. To avoid ever getting close to a decision about following the Americans into a war of that kind.
This was best illustrated by Albanese's refusal to provide Washington with a wide-ranging and largely open-ended commitment to support the US in any conflict with China over Taiwan.
Indeed, as Curran observes, Albanese has tried to steer the relationship away from disagreement and towards pragmatic engagement.
Following his meeting with Xi, Albanese was repeatedly asked by Australian journalists if he raised sensitive issues such as Taiwan, China's military build-up and the South China Sea.
While he confirmed these topics were addressed, he emphasised a preference for peaceful engagement:
[...] we want peace and security in the region. That is in the interest of both Australia and in the interest of China.
Unsurprisingly, the joint statement made no reference to these issues, reflecting a mutual decision to sidestep confrontation in favour of stabilising the relationship.
This diplomatic posture toward China would appear to be a defining feature of the Albanese government's second term: strengthening cooperation while quietly managing differences.
Rather than highlighting points of contention, the government is opting to avoid open disagreement where possible.
Overt disputes risk destabilising bilateral ties. If issues are raised publicly, it is unlikely to shift entrenched positions on either side. This explains why the ownership of the Port of Darwin, for example, was not mentioned during Albanese's meeting with Xi.
Critics, however, argue this risks projecting weakness towards China.
Justin Bassi, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, warns the government is staying silent in the face of ongoing Chinese coercion:
Australia is only complying with China's desires when the government says nothing and leaves the public to trust that the threats posed by China are all being dealt with in the classified realm. This is not viable policy. Australia's sovereignty must not be contingent on Beijing's preferences.
Even within China, analysts are cautious about Albanese's approach. As one Chinese scholar told us, "a stable relationship does not necessarily mean a friendly one".
In fact, while the Chinese media has stressed Australia and China's shared commitment to regional stability, this was barely mentioned in the official joint statement.
Still, there is recognition on both sides that pragmatism rather than ideological grandstanding is the more sustainable path forward.
In sum, Albanese's visit does not mark a dramatic reset or bold new direction in Australia-China relations. Rather, it signals a shift toward greater realism.
In an increasingly complex and multipolar world, diplomacy grounded in mutual interests, rather than ideology, is not just practical, but may be a growing trend across the globe.
The Albanese government has faced an increasingly uncertain world since its re-election in May.
US President Donald Trump has cast a long shadow over the Australia-US alliance, raising fresh questions about Canberra's long-term regional strategy.
Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's approach to foreign policy is reflecting a careful recalibration - one that seeks to balance security partnerships with the pursuit of economic opportunities, especially with Australia's largest trading partner, China.
Albanese has wrapped up a six-day visit to China which was characterised by a highly pragmatic approach to dealing with the problems and irritants in the bilateral relationship.
Albanese's visit to Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu - cities emblematic of Australia's political, economic and cultural connections with China - was more than symbolic.
It was a high-profile diplomatic venture, with Albanese meeting both the Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang.
But it was more than a leaders' summit. A large team of key business leaders in banking, manufacturing, mining and education were on the trip to meet their Chinese counterparts and seek more cooperation.
Economic engagement dominated the visit. As Albanese highlighted before his trip, "my priority is jobs".
Broader partnerships spanning multiple sectors, including healthcare, education and green energy, were canvassed. The two nations also explored closer cooperation on energy transition and climate change.
Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian has even floated a collaboration on artificial intelligence.
However, the suggestion has been met with caution in Canberra due to ongoing concerns around national security and data governance.
Beyond trade and investment, the visit also marked an effort to rebuild people-to-people exchanges.
Since last year, Australian citizens have been able to visit China for up to 30 days without a visa. In turn, Australia will welcome more Chinese visitors under a new Memorandum of Understanding promoting Australia as a premier tourist destination for Chinese travellers.
Albanese's meetings with Xi Jinping and Li Qiang also yielded concrete results.
The official joint statement emphasised economic cooperation, particularly in climate-related areas such as steel decarbonisation, dryland farming and the green economy.
These outcomes align with the Albanese government's guiding principle: cooperate where we can.
The deeper economic cooperation has been noted in China, where there is an expectation collaboration will continue to accelerate on the back of improved relations.
As James Laurenceson of the Australia-China Relations Institute recently noted, a stronger economic partnership will help foster more resilient ties across the board.
Other analysts also see increased mutual benefits in the bilateral relationship.
China-watcher James Curran suggests the visit may signal a maturing, more independent Australian foreign policy.
The primary role of Australian statecraft is to do everything we possibly can to avoid a conflict. To avoid ever getting close to a decision about following the Americans into a war of that kind.
This was best illustrated by Albanese's refusal to provide Washington with a wide-ranging and largely open-ended commitment to support the US in any conflict with China over Taiwan.
Indeed, as Curran observes, Albanese has tried to steer the relationship away from disagreement and towards pragmatic engagement.
Following his meeting with Xi, Albanese was repeatedly asked by Australian journalists if he raised sensitive issues such as Taiwan, China's military build-up and the South China Sea.
While he confirmed these topics were addressed, he emphasised a preference for peaceful engagement:
[...] we want peace and security in the region. That is in the interest of both Australia and in the interest of China.
Unsurprisingly, the joint statement made no reference to these issues, reflecting a mutual decision to sidestep confrontation in favour of stabilising the relationship.
This diplomatic posture toward China would appear to be a defining feature of the Albanese government's second term: strengthening cooperation while quietly managing differences.
Rather than highlighting points of contention, the government is opting to avoid open disagreement where possible.
Overt disputes risk destabilising bilateral ties. If issues are raised publicly, it is unlikely to shift entrenched positions on either side. This explains why the ownership of the Port of Darwin, for example, was not mentioned during Albanese's meeting with Xi.
Critics, however, argue this risks projecting weakness towards China.
Justin Bassi, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, warns the government is staying silent in the face of ongoing Chinese coercion:
Australia is only complying with China's desires when the government says nothing and leaves the public to trust that the threats posed by China are all being dealt with in the classified realm. This is not viable policy. Australia's sovereignty must not be contingent on Beijing's preferences.
Even within China, analysts are cautious about Albanese's approach. As one Chinese scholar told us, "a stable relationship does not necessarily mean a friendly one".
In fact, while the Chinese media has stressed Australia and China's shared commitment to regional stability, this was barely mentioned in the official joint statement.
Still, there is recognition on both sides that pragmatism rather than ideological grandstanding is the more sustainable path forward.
In sum, Albanese's visit does not mark a dramatic reset or bold new direction in Australia-China relations. Rather, it signals a shift toward greater realism.
In an increasingly complex and multipolar world, diplomacy grounded in mutual interests, rather than ideology, is not just practical, but may be a growing trend across the globe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
27 minutes ago
- The Age
Manager at prestigious college alleges she was frozen out for working from home
A manager at a prestigious Melbourne college who says she was frozen out at work and demoted over her working-from-home arrangement has taken her employer to the Federal Court. Kelly Reed, a commercial manager at University College – a student boarding facility attached to the University of Melbourne – says her health suffered and that she was hurt, distressed and humiliated by the conduct of her employer after she asked last year for a formally agreed arrangement to work from home most of the time. Loading The case comes as the state Labor government prepares to give workers the legally enforceable right to work remotely up to two days a week – the first Australian jurisdiction to do so – and with the right to work from home emerging as an increasingly fraught workplace issue. Reed is suing the college and two of its senior figures, college head Jennifer McDonald and its governing council chair Lisa Williams, alleging multiple breaches of the Fair Work Act after she made her flexible working request. She alleges her bosses made it difficult to do her job, demoted her and stripped her of responsibilities after she appealed in the Fair Work Commission the college's refusal of an ongoing working-from-home arrangement. Loading Courts have previously held that workers have no legally enforceable right to work remotely, but Reed and her lawyers allege the college breached the Fair Work Act by violating the work-from-home agreement that the parties had struck in the Fair Work Commission, as well as other contraventions of the legislation. The college denies any breaches of the act, has lodged a defence with the court and declined to discuss the case when contacted on Tuesday. MacDonald and Williams, in response to Reed's case, have both invoked the 'civil penalty privilege', a legal concept that shields people from giving evidence that might expose them to potential penalties.
Sydney Morning Herald
27 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Big salaries back at the big end of town
As bizoids descend on Canberra to talk productivity, living standards and artificial intelligence, CBD thought it was wise to see how the 1 per cent are travelling. Commonwealth Bank boss Matt Comyn is one of 23 guests at the government's economic reform roundtable, and, sadly for him, his company is short a couple of bil. The boss of Australia's biggest business by market capitalisation pocketed $7 million in the year to June, compared with almost $9 million in the year prior. While Comyn's fixed pay and cash bonus increased, he received less from deferred awards that vested during the year. Better that than being replaced by AI chatbots, as happened to dozens of CommBank call centre staff recently. At the Big Australian, big salaries are also par for the course – even as profits and dividends fall. Chief executive Mike Henry trousered a 16 per cent annual pay rise to $US8.5 million ($13.11 million). His colleagues Brandon Craig and Vandita Pant have also dug up healthy pay rises, netting $US3.15 million and $US4.24 million, respectively. Speaking of jobs, Comyn's predecessor Ian Narev is ensconced at job search business Seek. He's sitting on an 8.1 per cent annual pay rise to $5.4 million. Canavan's energetic table Not everyone is getting into the roundtable spirit. Nationals senator Matt Canavan sat himself at a table across from Parliament House with a sign that screamed: 'ENERGY PRICES ARE THE REAL PRODUCTIVITY ISSUE! CHANGE MY MIND'.
Sydney Morning Herald
27 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Manager at prestigious college alleges she was frozen out for working from home
A manager at a prestigious Melbourne college who says she was frozen out at work and demoted over her working-from-home arrangement has taken her employer to the Federal Court. Kelly Reed, a commercial manager at University College – a student boarding facility attached to the University of Melbourne – says her health suffered and that she was hurt, distressed and humiliated by the conduct of her employer after she asked last year for a formally agreed arrangement to work from home most of the time. Loading The case comes as the state Labor government prepares to give workers the legally enforceable right to work remotely up to two days a week – the first Australian jurisdiction to do so – and with the right to work from home emerging as an increasingly fraught workplace issue. Reed is suing the college and two of its senior figures, college head Jennifer McDonald and its governing council chair Lisa Williams, alleging multiple breaches of the Fair Work Act after she made her flexible working request. She alleges her bosses made it difficult to do her job, demoted her and stripped her of responsibilities after she appealed in the Fair Work Commission the college's refusal of an ongoing working-from-home arrangement. Loading Courts have previously held that workers have no legally enforceable right to work remotely, but Reed and her lawyers allege the college breached the Fair Work Act by violating the work-from-home agreement that the parties had struck in the Fair Work Commission, as well as other contraventions of the legislation. The college denies any breaches of the act, has lodged a defence with the court and declined to discuss the case when contacted on Tuesday. MacDonald and Williams, in response to Reed's case, have both invoked the 'civil penalty privilege', a legal concept that shields people from giving evidence that might expose them to potential penalties.
