Albanese walks a fine line between China and the US

The Albanese government has faced an increasingly uncertain world since its re-election in May. US President Donald Trump has cast a long shadow over the Australia-US alliance, raising fresh questions about Canberra’s long-term regional strategy.

Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s approach to foreign policy is reflecting a careful recalibration – one that seeks to balance security partnerships with the pursuit of economic opportunities, especially with largest trading partner, China.

This week, he wrapped up a six-day visit to China which was characterized by a highly pragmatic approach to dealing with bilateral relationship. His visit to Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu was more than symbolic.

It was a high-profile diplomatic venture, with Albanese meeting both Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang. But it was more than a leaders’ summit. A large team of key business leaders in banking, manufacturing, mining and education were also on the trip.

Economic engagement dominated the visit. As Albanese highlighted before his trip, “my priority is jobs.” Broader partnerships spanning multiple sectors, including healthcare, education and green energy, were canvassed.

Ongoing concerns

The two nations also explored closer cooperation on energy transition and climate change. Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian even floated a collaboration on AI.

Yet, the suggestion has been met with caution in Canberra due to ongoing concerns around national security and data governance. Beyond trade and investment, the visit also marked an effort to rebuild people-to-people exchanges.

Since last year, Australian citizens have been able to visit China for up to 30 days without a visa. In turn, Australia will promote the country as a premier tourist destination for Chinese travelers under a new Memorandum of Understanding.

Albanese’s meetings with Xi and Li also yielded concrete results. The official joint statement emphasized economic cooperation, particularly in climate-related areas such as steel decarbonization, farming and the green economy.

These outcomes align with the Australian government’s guiding principle of cooperate where we can. The deeper economic cooperation has also been noted in China, where there is an expectation collaboration will continue to accelerate on the back of improved relations.

As James Laurenceson, of the Australia-China Relations Institute, noted, a stronger economic partnership will help foster more resilient ties across the board. Other analysts also see increased mutual benefits in the bilateral relationship.

China-watcher James Curran suggests the visit may signal a maturing, more independent Australian foreign policy. “The primary role of statecraft is to do everything we possibly can to avoid conflict,” he said, adding:

To avoid ever getting close to a decision about following the Americans into a war.

This was best illustrated by Albanese’s refusal to provide Washington with an open-ended commitment to support the United States in a conflict with China over Taiwan. Indeed, as Curran observed, he has tried to steer the relationship toward pragmatic engagement.

Mutual decision

Following his meeting with Xi, Albanese was repeatedly asked by Australian journalists if he raised sensitive issues such as Taiwan, China’s military build-up and the South China Sea.

While he confirmed these topics were addressed, he emphasized a preference for peaceful engagement. “We want peace and security in the region. That is in the interest of both Australia and in the interest of China,” Albanese said.

Unsurprisingly, the joint statement made no reference to these issues, reflecting a mutual decision to sidestep confrontation in favor of stabilizing the relationship. This diplomatic posture would appear to be a defining feature of the Albanese government’s second term.

Strengthening cooperation while quietly managing differences appears to be the policy. As opposed to highlighting points of contention, his administration is opting to avoid open disagreement where possible.

Overt disputes risk destabilizing bilateral ties. If issues are raised publicly, it is unlikely to shift entrenched positions on either side. This explains why the ownership of the Port of Darwin, for example, was not mentioned during Albanese’s meeting with Xi.

Still, critics argue this risks projecting weakness towards China. Justin Bassi, the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, has warned that the government is staying silent in the face of ongoing Chinese coercion:

Australia is only complying with China’s desires when [it] says nothing and leaves the public to trust that the threats posed by China are all being dealt with … This is not viable policy. Australia’s sovereignty must not be contingent on Beijing’s preferences.

Even within China, analysts are cautious about Albanese’s approach. As one Chinese scholar told us, “a stable relationship does not necessarily mean a friendly one.”

Ideological grandstanding

In fact, while the Chinese media stressed Australia and China’s shared commitment to regional stability, this was barely mentioned in the official joint statement.

Yet, there is recognition that pragmatism rather than ideological grandstanding is the more sustainable path forward.

Overall, Albanese’s visit does not mark a dramatic reset in Australia-China relations. Rather, it signals a shift toward greater realism. In an increasingly complex world, diplomacy grounded in mutual interests is not just practical, but may be a growing trend across the globe.

Edward Sing Yue Chan is a Postdoctoral Fellow in China Studies at Australian National University. Guangyi Pan is a Lecturer in International Political Studies at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at UNSW Canberra and UNSW Sydney.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of China Factor.