Following China’s unannounced naval exercises off the coast of Australia late last month, there has been a noticeable increase in Chinese social media content promoting the invasion (or “nabbing/seizing”) of Australia. There has also been pushback: many Chinese bloggers and commenters have expressed alarm about the rise of such bellicose online sentiment, and the extent to which it is being allowed to proliferate online, particularly in comparison to platform censorship of some more level-headed commentary on Sino-Australian relations.
Last month’s Chinese live-fire naval drills, while technically acceptable under international maritime law, took the Australian government and military by surprise, necessitated the rerouting of nearly 50 airline flights, and highlighted the weakness of Australian naval preparedness. Canberra’s new plan, reported last week, to arm Australian soldiers with anti-ship missiles and advanced-targeting radar systems seems likely to fuel even more online saber-rattling by expansionist-minded Chinese nationalists.
A recent question posted to the Q&A site Zhihu (“Why is everyone talking about ‘seizing’ Australia?”) elicited spirited debate on the topic, and inspired a number of articles and essays, at least one of which has since been censored. In a post titled "Why Was an Article Opposing a War of Aggression Deleted?," Wu Xingchuan from the WeChat public account “Dad Talks Science” (老爸讲科学, Lǎobà jiǎng kēxué) shared a notice from platform censors informing him that his article about the Zhihu question had been deleted. Wu reposted his censored article in full, prefaced by the following query: “I would like to ask the webmaster, by voicing opposition to war, which country’s laws did I break? Which company’s platform regulations did I violate? Or is the webmaster hoping to propagate values that lead in another direction? I invite readers to give their opinions.”
CDT editors have also archived two articles, both of which are still available online, critical of those advocating a war of aggression against Australia. The first, from WeChat public account Zhang Beihai’s Natural Selection (章北海的自然选择, Zhāng Běihǎi de zìrán xuǎnzé) begins with the title "They’re Fantasizing Again, This Time About ‘Seizing’ Australia…" The author strongly criticizes online nationalists for recklessly advocating that Chinese People’s Liberation Army troops be put in harm’s way; likens those eager to get their hands on Australia’s iron ore to the Japanese Imperial Army’s resource-extraction policies in Manchuria; and features anti-imperialist, anti-expansionary quotes from former Chinese leaders Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping.
The second article, by current-events and science blogger Xiang Dongliang (of the WeChat public account “Constructive Suggestions”), takes a more satirical tone: “Well, This Seems Promising—We’re Actually Considering ‘Nabbing’ Australia!” In it, Xiang expresses utter shock that some of his compatriots could seriously advocate a military takeover of Australia, of all places. The article is translated in full, below:
Perhaps it’s due to a lack of boldness or imagination on my part, but for whatever reason, never in my life have I entertained a scenario in which China would dispatch troops to capture Australia.
Nor did I expect that some of my compatriots, brimming with confidence and grandiose ambition, would be imagining—and even mapping out—the geopolitical landscape that might follow our annexation of Australia.
A screenshot of one Zhihu user’s response to the question “Why is everyone talking about ‘seizing’ Australia?” received 11,000 likes and 1,295 comments. In comparing the pros and cons of invading Australia vs. invading Taiwan, the author notes that while Australia and Taiwan have similarly sized populations, Australia has a much larger land mass. Since both invasions would provoke harsh, across-the-board financial sanctions, reasons the author, it makes more sense to invade Australia, thus seizing more land and mineral resources, and eliminating one of the “enemy nations” that might impose economic sanctions on China. “If you don’t take what god offers you, you will suffer the consequences,” concludes the author. “If China doesn’t occupy [Australia], then Indonesia or some other country will, and China really will be ‘ambushed on all sides.’ Therefore, China must pour all of its efforts into building ships and then wait for the right opportunity!”
The thing that has most shaken my worldview in recent years is the appearance of that specific phrase "seize Australia," and the fact that these posts are still being widely disseminated on the internet.
Some critical threshold has been crossed.
Prior to this, some claimed that China’s economy had overtaken the U.S. economy, and that a monthly wage of 3,000 yuan provided a higher standard of living than a monthly wage of $2,000 U.S. dollars.
Prior to this, some claimed that the rabbit’s [China’s] fighter jets were far superior to the eagle’s [the U.S.’s] fighter jets, and that this would deter [the Americans] from “behaving rashly” in the event of a conflict over Taiwan.
Prior to this, some advocated “crushing” Japan and “making vassal states” of Vietnam and the Philippines.
Pretty arrogant stuff, but still, it stayed within certain limits.
On the one hand, these arrogant pronouncements were essentially limited to trash-talking, and were targeted at traditional "nemeses” such as the U.S., Japan, Britain, and France—countries against whom China holds historical grudges or with whom it is currently embroiled in disputes.
On the other hand, the claims being advocated were confined to the realm of "taking back territory and/or status that was once ours."
But Australia is a different case entirely.
Although it is considered a member of the “Five Eyes” and has experienced periodic frictions with China, Australia is nowhere near the top of the "nemeses” list. Moreover, Australia and China have no current territorial disputes, nor any history of competing or overlapping territorial claims—and they’re not even neighboring countries.
As illustrated by the screenshot above, some people’s support for seizing Australia is predicated entirely on dreams of territorial expansion, and the shockingly arrogant assumption that "taking Australia would be as easy as taking candy from a baby."
Here are two key takeaways about this assault on my worldview:
First, years of accumulated “ahead of the curve” propaganda and education appear to have coalesced into an alarming level of nationalist sentiment. It’s truly something fierce.
Second, the Russian-Ukrainian war has had such a profound impact on the Chinese mindset that many Chinese no longer feel the need to conceal expansionist aims, and unabashedly advocate putting them into practice. This is truly something I never expected.
I have nothing positive to say on this topic, nor any constructive suggestions. I simply wanted to share with all of you the immense shock I felt.
Popular sentiment really has shifted.
My heartfelt prayer, as a humble science blogger: May Buddha bless and protect us. [Chinese]
While Xiang highlights Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an emboldening precedent, there are other recent developments from which Chinese nationalists might also have drawn inspiration.
