How to relate to China? Whitlam 1971

A Chinese friend is writing about her time during the Cultural Revolution and she got to the time when the ice thawed between China and the US. She asked when Whitlam made his first visit to China and when he became PM. The visit was in July 1971 and one of his first moves after December 1972 was to formalize relations. At the time we were fighting communists on the ground in Vietnam, including Chinese soldiers according to some accounts.

Whitlam earned eternal infamy due to his attitude to refugees from the communist regime. Does anyone know how many South Vietnamese were murdered in the takeover or died in gulags over the  years?

With the wisdom of  hindsight we might wonder how we could have done better in our relationship to communist China over the years.  Also we might have been more alert to the activities of the useful idiots in the education system and the media who were fellow travelers and  agents of cultural marxism and identity politics.

This entry was posted in Australian Story, Politics of the Left, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to How to relate to China? Whitlam 1971

  1. Fisky

    Once Nixon had made his decision we were always falling in line. But we could have extracted more concessions in return for moving our embassy.

  2. Louis Litt

    Gough hated The Baltic refugees as they did not vote a Labour. He also allowed the conscription of young adults into the Red Army if they visited the country of their parents.
    Gough was the beginning of excluding real refugees and allowing in people who would vote labour.
    He and Dunstan began the hammering of Catholics.
    Consider you have just been Litt up,

  3. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Does anyone know how many South Vietnamese were murdered in the takeover or died in gulags over the years?

    I’ve seen claims of a hundred thousand South Vietnamese summarily executed after April 1975, and another 200,000 deaths from starvation or disease in the “re – education” camps.

  4. Mother Lode

    I remember hearing with mild perplexedness of Clinton’s (the ropist one, not the plutocratic dipsomaniacal one) decision to grant China ‘Most Favoured Nation’ trading status.

    I recall thinking that they had nowhere near enough improved their human rights, property rights and civil transparency.

    Having seen the Democrats in general and the Clintons in particular (both the criminal and the crook) in action since then I can understand it better now.

    China and the Democrats agree on what must be done, but only China has a bigger picture.

  5. Squirrel

    Ideally, China should have been given no more access to western economies than was necessary to tilt the calculus in Beijing towards engagement and peaceful co-existence rather than confrontation and attempted subversion.

    Wholesale transfer of sophisticated manufacturing has been sheer madness, as has permission to buy assets in countries with (genuine) rule of law property rights, without any hope of reciprocity – but it’s hard to see clearly when you’re blinded by the dollar signs in the eyes.

  6. Neville

    And (funnily enough), it was Fraser who opened the compassion gates for Vietnamese.

  7. Mother Lode

    And (funnily enough), it was Fraser who opened the compassion gates for Vietnamese.

    Well, back in the 70’s the Labor party did not really care about racism. Their mode of attack was the power of unionism. They saw Australia as a successful and prosperous industrialised nation, ripe for the picking. Remember that the White Australia policy of turn of the century Labor was intended to stop white union members from having to compete against cheaper non-white labour.

    Ignorant and arrogant, they were a disaster for Australia – destroying the very things they coveted so much. They made Australian costs so high and performance so unreliable that businesses either offshored or went bust. Their bloodthirstiness blinded them to the warning that something was dying.

    It was only the Public Service that was able to withstand this onslaught of industrial action and excessive demands because they got their money from the government who did not win funds by efficiently supplying a service at an agreed price, but by simply raising taxes paid under threat of prosecution by armies of lawyers who exist for no reason other than to get you.

    If the public service funded itself (like business) they would have folded to.

    Instead they became a bastion of union power.

    As for Gough, it was not pure and unalloyed hatred of Vietnamese – it was coupled with his Marxist understanding of working class and class struggle. But certainly he had determined, to his own satisfaction and that of his party, that Vietnamese would spoil the pedigree of Labor’s and the Unions’ memberships.

    It was only later that Labor shifted focus and switched tactics to identity politics (of which wukkaz had previosly been one such class). Labor’s and the Unions’ image hard to be rehabilitated – much like the Democrats in the US who switched from being the party of the slavers and the KKK went to being ones who had always fought racism and the Republicans the worst offenders. JFK’s civil rights reforms were the proof – glossing over the fact he had more support from the Republicans than Democrats and that MLK was a Republican – he knew where the hope for his people lay.

    When they opened that National Museum in Canberra Keith Windshuttle noticed the display covering the 1967 Referendum, through choice of photos and carefully parsed accompanying text, gave the impression that it was Whitlam’s achievement.

    The left always lies.

Comments are closed.