Dutton Calls China the Top Security Threat as Albanese Urges Diplomacy
With less than a week until the polls, China has entered the Australian election debate.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton called China the biggest threat to Australia's national security during the final leadership debate on April 27.
'If you were to believe the intelligence that I received as defence minister and as the leader of the opposition, and no doubt that the prime minister receives as well, the biggest concern [comes] from our intelligence agencies and our defence,' Dutton said in connection to China.
When confronted with his views on the subject, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took a more diplomatic line.
'China seeks to increase its influence in the region,' he said, adding that the relationship with China is complex because it is 'our major trading partner.'
When pressed repeatedly to directly name China as the biggest threat, Albanese said, 'I'm the prime minister of a country, and how you deal as prime minister is diplomatically, and that is what we continue to do.'
Albanese cited the recent Papua New Guinea NRL deal as a key step by his government to address the situation. Under the deal, Australia will provide $600 million over a decade to help establish the team.
In return, Papua New Guinea will sign a 'parallel' agreement on 'strategic trust' aimed at preventing Beijing from securing a major security presence in the country.
Australia-China Stability Tested
Australia's relationship with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) saw cautious stabilisation in 2024, building on the thaw that began after Albanese's Labor government took office in 2022.
A breakthrough came when Beijing lifted its trade ban on live rock lobsters, ending a key pillar of its earlier campaign of economic coercion.
Anti-dumping tariffs on Australian wine were also removed, beef exports resumed with the lifting of restrictions on two meat processors, and Canberra ended its anti-dumping measures on Chinese sinks.
Travel links also improved, with Beijing expanding visa-free access for Australians from 15 to 30 days.
Diplomatic activity and high-level meetings resumed, with Foreign Ministers Penny Wong and Wang Yi holding multiple rounds of talks, Premier Li Qiang visiting Australia, and Treasurer Jim Chalmers travelling to Beijing.
Yet tensions lurked just beneath the surface. The sentencing of Australian pro-democracy writer Yang Jun to death with a two-year reprieve drew condemnation from Canberra.
Australian intelligence agencies warned of rising espionage and foreign interference, culminating in the first local conviction under foreign interference laws.
Cybersecurity remained a battleground, with Australia joining allies in exposing CCP-linked hacking operations.
Military tensions also flared when a Chinese fighter jet dangerously deployed flares near an Australian navy helicopter in the Yellow Sea. Through it all, CCP state media kept up its propaganda on AUKUS, the Quad, and Australia's growing military ties with the United States.
A Critical Year Ahead
A new analysis from the UTS's Australia-China Relations Institute warns that the Trump administration and the Australian election outcome will heavily influence the next chapter of the Australia-China relationship.
Economic warfare between the United States and China could sharpen Australia's dilemma between its security alliance with Washington and its economic dependence on Beijing.
The report notes that a U.S.-China tech war could push Australia to tighten controls on critical minerals or join a U.S.-led supply chain.
Conversely, a Trump retreat from the green energy transition could ease pressure on Australian lithium exports to China.
Meanwhile, growing Chinese aggression in the South China Sea—and potential U.S. intervention—could pull Canberra into direct confrontation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
13 minutes ago
- New York Post
OpenAI finds more Chinese bad actors using ChatGPT for malicious purposes
Chinese bad actors are using ChatGPT for malicious purposes – generating social media posts to sow political division across the US and seeking information on military technology, OpenAI said. An organized China-linked operation, in one such incident dubbed 'Uncle Spam,' used ChatGPT to generate social media posts that were supportive and critical of contentious topics related to US politics – and then posted both versions of the comments from separate accounts, the company said in a report released Thursday. 'This appears likely designed to exploit existing political divisions rather than to promote a specific ideological stance,' OpenAI wrote in the report, describing what is known as an influence operation. Advertisement 3 A growing number of Chinese bad actors are using ChatGPT for malicious purposes, OpenAI said. REUTERS OpenAI said it followed Meta's lead to disrupt this operation, after the social media conglomerate discovered the actors were posting at hours through the day consistent with a work day in China. The actors also used ChatGPT to make logos for their social media accounts that supported fake organizations – mainly creating personas of US veterans critical of President Trump, like a so-called 'Veterans For Justice' group. These users also tried to request code from ChatGPT that they could use to extract personal data from social media platforms like X and Bluesky, OpenAI said. Advertisement While the number of these operations has jumped, they had relatively little impact as these social media accounts typically had small followings, OpenAI said. Another group of likely Chinese actors used ChatGPT to create polarizing comments on topics like USAID funding cuts and tariffs, which were then posted across social media sites. In the comments of a TikTok video about USAID funding cuts, one of these accounts wrote: 'Our goodwill was exploited. So disappointing.' Advertisement 3 Another group of likely Chinese actors used ChatGPT to create polarizing comments on topics like USAID funding cuts and tariffs. REUTERS Another post on X took the opposite stance: '$7.9M allocated to teach Sri Lankan journalists to avoid binary-gender language. Is this the best use of development funds?' These actors made posts on X appearing to justify USAID cuts as a means of offsetting the tariffs. 'Tariffs make imported goods outrageously expensive, yet the government splurges on overseas aid. Who's supposed to keep eating?' one post said. Advertisement Another read: 'Tariffs are choking us, yet the government is spending money to 'fund' foreign politics.' 3 The operations used ChatGPT to write divisive comments on some of the Trump administration's policies, including USAID funding cuts and tariffs. AFP via Getty Images In another China-linked operation, users posed as professionals based in Europe or Turkey working for nonexistent European news outlets. They engaged with journalists and analysts on social media platforms like X, and offered money in exchange for information on the US economy and classified documents, all while using ChatGPT to translate their requests. OpenAI said it also banned ChatGPT accounts associated with several bad actors who have been publicly linked to the People's Republic of China. These accounts asked ChatGPT for help with software development and for research into US military networks and government technology. OpenAI regularly releases reports on malicious activity across its platform, including reports on fake content for websites and social media platforms and attempts to create damaging malware.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
President Donald Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping discuss trade deal in 'very good' phone call
June 5 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump said Thursday that he and Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke on the phone that morning about the trade deal currently in place between the United States and China. Trump described the call as "very good" in a post on Truth Social, adding he and Xi discussed the "intricacies" of the trade deal between the two nations. "The call lasted approximately one and a half hours, and resulted in a very positive conclusion for both countries." Trump posted to Truth Social Thursday. Trump said the two hashed out a future meeting in regard to rare earth minerals. "There should no longer be any questions respecting the complexity of rare earth products. Our respective teams will be meeting shortly at a location to be determined," Trump said. The Trump administration had expected China to ease export restrictions on rare earth minerals after talks held last month. China had imposed those restrictions in April in response to tariffs levied by Trump on Chinese goods. Trump also noted that Xi invited him to visit China, which was also confirmed by Chinese state media. "I reciprocated. As presidents of two great nations, this is something that we both look forward to doing," he said. Neither spoke of Ukraine's war on Russia or any issues that involved Iran, according to Trump, who added that the media will be informed when the meeting between the two countries will take place. However, as per the account posted to Chinese state media Thursday, Xi also allegedly said the United States should "handle Taiwan question with caution" in order to avoid "danger of conflict, confrontation," and that Trump told him "Chinese students are welcome to study" in the United States. There has been no confirmation from the Trump administration in regard to either of these claims. The U.S. State Department announced last month it would "aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields. We will also revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications from the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong." Trump made no mention of either of those points of conversation purported by Chinese state media. The two leaders are believed to have last spoken in January before Trump's inauguration.
Forbes
16 minutes ago
- Forbes
Fusion Energy Is The Key To World Hegemony
What would it take for the United States to lose its hegemony to a rising power like China? Right now, America appears to be ahead economically and militarily. However, there is a stark difference between America's national strategy (insofar as one exists) and China's. The US under President Trump calls for regression. It seeks to restore a manufacturing economy that peaked in the 1950s—like an elderly man trying to restore hair where it hasn't grown for decades. It is doubling down on domestic oil, gas and coal. Through tariffs, disparagement of NATO and aggression towards allies like Canada and Denmark, the administration has alienated partners that long supported a US-led world order. Fusion will be a key element to become an energy superpower. (Wal van Lierop) China, meanwhile, has a tremendous lead in developing the economy of the future. It has a near monopoly on rare earth minerals, which are needed for electronics, renewable energy systems, defense technologies and more. China leads in solar, wind and batteries, the energy systems growing at the fastest rate. It is ahead in electric vehicles, industrial robotics and drones as well. It probably has achieved parity in artificial intelligence and may surpass the US soon. If China were to take Taiwan, it would control the global market for advanced chip manufacturing. In the background, but probably most importantly, China may be on track to commercialize fusion energy before the US or its disgruntled allies. Unlike the US, China has no domestic energy industry with vocal lobbyists (and purchasable politicians) to slow progress. It is funding fusion as a national strategy while private fusion companies in the West are at the mercy of investors that, for the most part, chase low risk and quick returns. Fusion promises cheap, plentiful, baseload energy without carbon emissions. AI, data centers and industrial robotics powered by fusion would produce goods and services at much lower costs than value chains dependent on fossil-fired electricity. Militaries built on swarms of small, cheap, electronic drones and robots—powered by small, distributed fusion facilities deep underground, safe from attack—would have an edge over competitors using large, expensive, petroleum-powered vehicles with vulnerable supply chains. I cannot overstate the ramifications of China developing fusion first. As an analogy, imagine if Japan and Germany had uncovered vast reserves of oil at home in the 1920s. American and Soviet oil gave the Allies a strategic advantage over the Axis powers. Had the situation been reversed, World War II could have ended differently. While private fusion companies in the West have raised about $8 billion total, China is investing at least $1.5 annually into fusion projects—double what the US government spends. Japanese and German investments in fusion don't even come close. Canada, for the record, has no fusion funding strategy. Moreover, the government of British Columbia, home of industry leader General Fusion, seems not to understand the value of this crown asset.* On all fronts nuclear, China is leaping ahead. In April, its scientists added fresh fuel to an operational thorium molten salt reactor—a first. The thorium reserves found in Inner Mongolia, an autonomous region of China, could theoretically meet Chinese energy demand for thousands of years. The kicker: this reactor design originated in the US. As project lead Xu Hongjie put it, 'The US left its research publicly available, waiting for the right successor. We were that successor." Moreover, in January, China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) sustained a fusion reaction for 1,066 seconds, setting a new record. Its Burning Plasma Experimental Superconducting Tokamak (BEST) fusion reactor could come online by 2027 and is expected to produce five times the amount of energy it consumes. When BEST announces this milestone, Western fusion companies may be announcing that they've run out of funding. To China, fusion is not a startup project—it's a matter of national interest and security. Its scientists are patenting more fusion-related technologies than any other single country and graduating more doctorates in fusion-related fields. And because China is the top refiner and exporter of the critical minerals needed in fusion reactors (e.g., for magnets), no external force is going to slow their progress. In the meantime, China has a cheap gas station next door—Russia—supplying all the fossil fuels China could need in exchange for support in its war with Ukraine. That support includes critical minerals needed by Russian arms manufacturers. Is fusion energy, along with other Chinese-dominated technologies, enough to end US hegemony? In 1988, historian Paul Kennedy published The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a book that tried to explain the relative success (and failure) of powerful states. According to Kennedy, their rise and fall '…shows a very significant correlation over the longer term between productive and revenue-raising capacities on the one hand and military strength on the other.' Essentially, states must balance economic prosperity with strategy. Technological breakthroughs are vital to both. Innovation creates wealth, which enables the state to invest in defense and win wars. While underinvestment in defense leaves the state vulnerable to other powers, overextension and overspending on defense can run an economy into the ground, leaving it unable to sustain a strong military. Now, picture a great power—China—with a military to rival the US and fusion reactors that provide virtually unlimited energy. Imagine the clout China would have in establishing ports, military bases and consumer markets around the world if it could license that fusion technology. A China that exceeds the US in energy, industry, intelligence, mobility and defense is positioned to usurp it. Of course, China could bungle its advantage. Authoritarian regimes have a habit of mismanaging internal dissent, falsifying reality and making preventable mistakes. The rise of China is inevitable, but the self-inflicted decline of the US and its allies isn't. Rather, it's a choice reflecting how societies invest their resources and envision their future. *Disclosure: The author is an investor in General Fusion and sits on its board of directors.
