Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > PRC Overseas Political Activities
View graph of relations

PRC Overseas Political Activities: Risk, Reaction and the Case of Australia

Research output: Book/Report/ProceedingsMonograph

Published

Standard

PRC Overseas Political Activities: Risk, Reaction and the Case of Australia. / Chubb, Andrew.
Abingdon: Routledge, 2021. 104 p. (Whitehall Papers; Vol. 98, No. 1).

Research output: Book/Report/ProceedingsMonograph

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Chubb A. PRC Overseas Political Activities: Risk, Reaction and the Case of Australia. Abingdon: Routledge, 2021. 104 p. (Whitehall Papers; 1).

Author

Chubb, Andrew. / PRC Overseas Political Activities : Risk, Reaction and the Case of Australia. Abingdon : Routledge, 2021. 104 p. (Whitehall Papers; 1).

Bibtex

@book{e66358f274b642bda9cdc929c55b4bb0,
title = "PRC Overseas Political Activities: Risk, Reaction and the Case of Australia",
abstract = "Political elites in liberal democracies are showing heightened concern about threats to national security from the overseas political activities of the PRC and its supporters. Various concerns are well founded, for covert and overt political activities are in its ruling party{\textquoteright}s Leninist DNA, pro-Beijing patriots are advancing their views with increasing vigour, and many economic actors share overlapping interests with its party-state. This paper argues, however, that an effective liberal democratic policy response requires carefully distinguishing between risks to national security, to civil liberties, and to academic freedom. Aggregating varied issues into a singular national security threat – especially under sweeping, imprecise labels such as {\textquoteleft}Chinese influence{\textquoteright} – is counterproductive to the goal of defending liberal democracy. Although it is widely hailed as a model to follow in countering PRC foreign interference, close scrutiny of Australia{\textquoteright}s aggregation-based approach illustrates key drawbacks: alarmist public policy discourse that fans xenophobia; legislative overreach that unnecessarily encroaches on civil liberties; and institutional mismatches that hamper efforts to protect diaspora communities from foreign interference. Drawing on conversations with government officials, activists, researchers, university administrators, lawyers and journalists, the paper defines and disaggregates a broad array of issues arising from the PRC{\textquoteright}s overseas political activities; identifies important risks of responding; and suggests a set of measures for liberal democracies to manage their domestic responses to China's powerful and increasingly authoritarian party-state. It demonstrates that there exists no contradiction between tackling PRC foreign interference and taking seriously the associated risks to liberal democracy from within.",
keywords = "Chinese foreign policy, Leninism, influence operations, diaspora, Authoritarianism, security and liberty, liberty, liberal democracy, national security, national security state, academic freedom, Australian politics",
author = "Andrew Chubb",
year = "2021",
month = aug,
day = "24",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781032152073",
series = "Whitehall Papers",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - BOOK

T1 - PRC Overseas Political Activities

T2 - Risk, Reaction and the Case of Australia

AU - Chubb, Andrew

PY - 2021/8/24

Y1 - 2021/8/24

N2 - Political elites in liberal democracies are showing heightened concern about threats to national security from the overseas political activities of the PRC and its supporters. Various concerns are well founded, for covert and overt political activities are in its ruling party’s Leninist DNA, pro-Beijing patriots are advancing their views with increasing vigour, and many economic actors share overlapping interests with its party-state. This paper argues, however, that an effective liberal democratic policy response requires carefully distinguishing between risks to national security, to civil liberties, and to academic freedom. Aggregating varied issues into a singular national security threat – especially under sweeping, imprecise labels such as ‘Chinese influence’ – is counterproductive to the goal of defending liberal democracy. Although it is widely hailed as a model to follow in countering PRC foreign interference, close scrutiny of Australia’s aggregation-based approach illustrates key drawbacks: alarmist public policy discourse that fans xenophobia; legislative overreach that unnecessarily encroaches on civil liberties; and institutional mismatches that hamper efforts to protect diaspora communities from foreign interference. Drawing on conversations with government officials, activists, researchers, university administrators, lawyers and journalists, the paper defines and disaggregates a broad array of issues arising from the PRC’s overseas political activities; identifies important risks of responding; and suggests a set of measures for liberal democracies to manage their domestic responses to China's powerful and increasingly authoritarian party-state. It demonstrates that there exists no contradiction between tackling PRC foreign interference and taking seriously the associated risks to liberal democracy from within.

AB - Political elites in liberal democracies are showing heightened concern about threats to national security from the overseas political activities of the PRC and its supporters. Various concerns are well founded, for covert and overt political activities are in its ruling party’s Leninist DNA, pro-Beijing patriots are advancing their views with increasing vigour, and many economic actors share overlapping interests with its party-state. This paper argues, however, that an effective liberal democratic policy response requires carefully distinguishing between risks to national security, to civil liberties, and to academic freedom. Aggregating varied issues into a singular national security threat – especially under sweeping, imprecise labels such as ‘Chinese influence’ – is counterproductive to the goal of defending liberal democracy. Although it is widely hailed as a model to follow in countering PRC foreign interference, close scrutiny of Australia’s aggregation-based approach illustrates key drawbacks: alarmist public policy discourse that fans xenophobia; legislative overreach that unnecessarily encroaches on civil liberties; and institutional mismatches that hamper efforts to protect diaspora communities from foreign interference. Drawing on conversations with government officials, activists, researchers, university administrators, lawyers and journalists, the paper defines and disaggregates a broad array of issues arising from the PRC’s overseas political activities; identifies important risks of responding; and suggests a set of measures for liberal democracies to manage their domestic responses to China's powerful and increasingly authoritarian party-state. It demonstrates that there exists no contradiction between tackling PRC foreign interference and taking seriously the associated risks to liberal democracy from within.

KW - Chinese foreign policy

KW - Leninism

KW - influence operations

KW - diaspora

KW - Authoritarianism

KW - security and liberty

KW - liberty

KW - liberal democracy

KW - national security

KW - national security state

KW - academic freedom

KW - Australian politics

M3 - Monograph

SN - 9781032152073

T3 - Whitehall Papers

BT - PRC Overseas Political Activities

PB - Routledge

CY - Abingdon

ER -