Engaging with China on matters of global security isnt nave its what real leadership should look like, writesMark Beeson.

VLADIMIR LENINis usually given the credit for popularising the phraseuseful idiotsto describe Western intellectuals who defended the Russian version of communism. I suspect Ill be described this way for taking part in a platform for dialogue about global security hosted by the Chinese People's Association for Peace and Disarmament (CPAPD).

In the interests of full disclosure, I should confess that this was my second trip to China in less than a year and on both occasions, my hosts paid for my travel and accommodation, not to mention taking me out for many enjoyable excursions and dinners. It's fair to say that this has influenced my view of them and the country they come from. If that was the intention, it was very successful.

The CPAPD is notionally an NGO, but in reality, it is more of a GONGO: a government-organised, non-government organisation. Significantly, the opening address of the conference was given byLiu Jianchao, Minister of the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. Clearly, not a neutral observer.

The re-elected Labor Government has a chance to adopt a defence strategy that values what's most important to Australians their very lives.

Does this make the CPAPD hopelessly compromised and a mouthpiece for Chinese propaganda? Possibly. But either way, it's a chance to meet and even cooperate with people who just may be interested in establishing transnational relationships of a sort that would seem vital in the increasingly unlikely event that we are ever to address any of the world's many pressing problems.

At the very least, it's a chance to exchange views with informed, thoughtful people who give the impression, at least, of being concerned about precisely the sorts of problems that I and many other Australians are increasingly grappling with. Rather encouragingly, there were many young delegates from genuinely independent and progressive NGOs in Asia, Latin America and Africa who were full of good ideas and even optimism about the prospects of implementing them.

No doubt, people in Canberras self-referential policy-making circles will regard my views about the possibility of state-sponsored cooperation between grassroots organisations as nave and hopelessly out of touch with reality. Perhaps so. But I thought it was at least useful for someone from Australia to turn up and demonstrate that not everyone in this country is reflexively anti-Chinese or deeply suspicious about the implications of talking to, much less actually cooperating with, people in the PRC.

It's not as if China is the only country that is keen to promote a particular view about the countrys place in the world, generally, and its foreign policy in particular. The only thing that distinguishes the PRC in that context is the absence of a clear separation between the state and actors from its still underdeveloped and constrained civil society.

And yet, are we so much better given that many of our think tanks and NGOs are sponsored by the private sector or, even more alarmingly, arms manufacturers who directly benefit from ramping up the China scare rhetoric? This is a reality that hasnot gone unnoticedin China.

If actions speak louder than words, its also worth pointing out that China has at least attempted to do something about climate change. True, its still the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, but imagine how much worse things would be for everybody if it werent also theleading adopterof wind and solar power. At least Chinese PresidentXi Jinpingtalks about the need for developing anecological civilisationthat transcends national borders.

A live-fire exercise conducted by the Chinese Navy has stirred anti-China sentiment through the media and Opposition, branding the ALP as weak.

Australian PMAnthony Albanese, by contrast, looks no more likely to do anything meaningful about climate change than he did during his first term, his thumping election win notwithstanding. Despite Albaneseadmitting, Tragically, were seeing more extreme weather events. Theyre occurring more frequently and theyre more intense, the ALP haspredictably approveda 40-year extension toWoodsides Northwest Shelf project.

Participants at the Wanshou Dialogue were very concerned about the environment and surprised to hear that emissions from Western Australias gas exports are 182 million tonnes of CO2 annually, which is greater than the emissions of153 individual countries. They also seemed genuinely interested insuggestionsabout how Australia and China could provide a useful and potentially influential model of cooperative action to address the common challenge of climate change.

This may well be a quixotic fantasy on my part, but Im not sure it makes me an idiot, useful or otherwise. The impact of climate change is becoming even more dramatic in Australia than it is in China. Policymakers who consciously make the problem worse while bleating about its impact are not just hypocritical but unambiguously idiotic.

Its hard to imagine things changing unless there is pressure from below in the form of a transnational dialogue between potentially like-minded people from civil society and academia. Even state-sponsored versions are better than none. But I would say that, wouldnt I?

Mark Beesonis an adjunct professor at the University of Technology Sydney and Griffith University. He was previously Professor of International Politics at the University of Western Australia.

Related Articles

• Fool's gold: China beguiles the South Pacific
• Navy exercise sees anti-China hysteria grow Down Under
• America plays catch-up with China in South Pacific
• U.S. aggression against China ignores lessons of Hiroshima
• U.S. dashes hopes after China meeting