China in the Pacific Islands: Beyond the ‘Bad Dragon’ Narrative
129publications even highlight elements of characterization casting bad light
on China. For example, Beijing is accused of violating norms associated
with human rights and democratic standards. Further points of salience,
such as the CPC’s atheism and the PRC’s unquenchable thirst for
resources, are highlighted as potentially disruptive of traditional Pacific
Island equilibria and lifestyles.^22
Notably, “the Chinese” are regularly identified as a homogenous group,
a cohesive leviathan. Even when the diversity among Chinese actors in the
region is acknowledged, it is often instrumental in perpetuating negative
descriptions of the “sons of the dragon.”^23 Like the Chinese, Pacific Island
actors are also frequently presented as “one lot.” The Pacific islanders
mentioned and examined by Western media are mostly elites, particularly
opportunistic, or morally reprehensible and greedy, politicians. Western
analysis of how the increasing Chinese presence is impacting the life of
the islanders usually prefers an anecdotal narrative, which can be easily
employed to emphasize the pernicious effects of Chinese illegal migration,
extensive fishing, aggressive entrepreneurship, et similia.^24 Such a regime
of representation mirrors prior research on China in Africa and Latin
America, and it is revealing of the patterns of established/traditional
powers’ discursive responses to Beijing’s accession and expansion into
their perceived sphere of influence.^25 One vector of this narrative is the
postulate that, unlike those of the Chinese, the activities of Western
governmental and private sector actors are informed by clear ethical
principles and constraints. This moral juxtaposition is clearly conducive to
the kind of image that the Sydney Morning Herald formulates as “the
totalitarian super-bogey,”^26 exploiting the political, economic, and social
vulnerabilities of the island nations without any moral constraints.
Unbound by the moral inhibitors embedded into Australia and New
Zealand’s ethos, China is free to “exploit the situation,”^27 “seize chance in
turmoil,”^28 “buy influence and favours,”^29 and so on.
Concurrently, the moral connection or elective affinity between China
and the (supposedly) morally flawed and inept island elites is either subtly
(^22) Dorling, “Fears over China's Growing Influence.”
(^23) Squires, “China's New South Pacific influence.”
(^24) ABC News, “China-Taiwan Rivalry Causing Unrest and Corruption: Report.”
(^25) Armony, “China's Export to Latin America: Corruption.”
(^26) Sydney Morning Herald, “China: the New Big Buddy on our Block.”
(^27) Sydney Morning Herald, “Region Enters a New Era of Shifting Alliances.”
(^28) The Australian, “China Seizes Chance in Solomons Turmoil“, 6.
(^29) Sydney Morning Herald, “Have Cash, Will Spend”, 8.