I cannot help thinking if this might be the resurgence of Chinese exclusion & expulsion that occurred in the 19th & early 20th centuries (so much for the End of History). Exclusion today is less about Chinese immigration than about political participation from Chinese immigrants.
'Chinese Exclusion 2.0' now seems to sweep across the Five-Eyes countries. By coincidence or by design, the five countries were also known for their Chinese exclusion legislations and poll tax policies. Then as now Australia was the canary in the (gold) mine and led the way.
"The Victorian Act of 1855 was the first of its kind in the Australian colonies. It imposed a poll tax of ten pounds upon every Chinese arrival and limited the number of Chinese on board each vessel to one person for every 10 tonnes of goods." peril.com.au/topics/politic…
"Other countries, such as New Zealand and Canada, followed this Australian precedent of using a head or poll tax as an immigration restriction measure."
In the US "the Workingmen’s Party ... exploited existing Sinophobia to position the anti-Chinese movement as 'peaceful' advocacy for workers rights.... they leveraged the threat of violence to pressure Congress into considering Chinese exclusion." newrepublic.com/article/149437…
"Whilst there hasn’t been any Chinese exclusion policies, the British government did in fact have a Chinese expulsion policy which required the ‘Compulsory repatriation of undesirable Chinese seamen’" alexanderchow.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/the…
The parallel with the Five Eyes countries' renewed fear of Chinese influence & interference is uncanny. Of course this can be purely coincidental or a result of paranoia on my part. Or there is no parallel at all, some would vehemently protest. History has progressed after all.
Note: If immigration policy could be tweaked to help with this new type of exclusion, all the better, according to some pundits.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As far as I can see, the 'China's assertiveness' narrative (a gentler, easier-to-swallow version of the previous 'China threat' narrative) was designed to create fear (of China) and division in the region, fear and division which was largely absent there until roughly 2009-2010.
In 2000 China proposed a free trade area with ASEAN. Framework agreement was signed in 2002. Between 2003-2008, trade with ASEAN grew from US$59.6 billion to US$192.5 billion. One IPE expert noted at a 2007 conference that China hadn't gotten one step wrong in dealing with ASEAN.
Sometimes I wonder if we've really travelled that far from the blatant anti-Chinese racism of the past in this country. As some Australian scholars pointed out, Chineseness played a central but largely negative role in the formation of Australian identity since Federation.
Helen Irving: "while there was doubt about the meaning of citizenship when Australia federated, there was one certainty amidst the doubt and that was that Australian citizens were not going to be Chinese. The Immigration
Restriction Act made this clear.
... The Chinese were thus used to identify the type of citizenship the Australian nation would not embrace…‘The Chinaman’ was the starkest example of what ‘Australian’ was not." Today of course such overt racism and discrimination against Chineseness has waned, but its never
This seems to be a case of mutually self-fulfilling prophecies at work: each side claims to be defensive against a foreign threat, and that 'defence' in turn is seen by each other as threatening which justifies further 'defence' preparation which then confirms mutual fear.
Simply insisting that one's own is peaceful whereas the other is completely offensive is just disingenuous. However, 'at least in Asia' (let's be honest, mostly on China's 'doorsteps'), doesn't China have a slightly more credible case than the US when it claims to be defensive?
Unless of course China, seen as the Other and mainly an object, isn't treated as equally human and thus doesn't deserve to have its subjectivity or its own security concerns. In that case, only 'we' are entitled to have concerns. Yet doesn't this border on wishful thinking?
5 days after Kunming bus bombing (21/07/2008) for which Turkistan Islamic Party 'claimed' responsibility, Rice warned China that "security threats have to be dealt with... But security should not become in any way a cover to try and deal with dissent." app.ft.com/content/c361bb…
Her words struck me at the time & I thought: Wow! That just sent an interesting message both to Beijing and its opponents in Xinjiang. Back then I had a gut feeling that this wouldn't augur well for Xinjiang. Within 15 days Kashgar attacks and Kuqa sucide bombing occurred.
I was baffled by her message because that was during the height of the US-led war on terrorism, and in the wake of Bush Jr.'s stark message that "either you're with us or you're with the terrorists". It seemed clear that the US wasn't really with China re its terrorist problems.
Great news folks! There's never been a better time to become a China analyst. Besides the mentoring opportunities offered by US intelligence gurus, and the plentiful amount of financial support from defence sectors, now you can gain instance fame simply by using Google.
Seriously, the Googlisation of China studies is THE best & most groundbreaking paradigm shift in the field's history, ever. Wannabe even more cutting-edge? Remember Google Maps? No Chinese language skills, no problem! Google Translate just a click away. What are you waiting for?
This field has really come a long way from the days when China watchers had to repeatedly go to two mainland informants in Hong Kong for their fieldwork studies on China. Scientific knowledge does experience accumulation and progress after all. e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/knowl…
Engage in your research in good faith I did. It's by your (ASPI) own admission that your research is based on 'highly suspected', 'possible camps', 'could be', waiting-for-coroboration-type speculation and insinuation. There is nothing good faith about this type of practice
and it's everything against the spirit of research. Also research in good faith, in this case, China's policy in Xinjiang, should be to engage with the policy and its pros and cons. Like China's one-child policy, or any Chinese policy, it should be scrutinised and criticised.
But such criticisms should be based on solid evidence and bona fide intentions to help improve its policy, or help it changed. And research in good faith should also invite or at least welcome others to scrutinise one's own research, rather than trying to silence and intimidate