This article examines China’s economic coercion against Australia, its expanding influence over UN specialized agencies, the strategic importance of the International Telecommunication Union in 5G and cybersecurity, and the Thousand Talents Plan. Drawing on an essay by Tetsuhide Yamaoka and parliamentary questions raised by Haruko Arimura, it explores the structure of China’s “silent invasion.”

2020-07-04
Is it not like appointing a thief as the head of the police when a country accused of launching vast numbers of cyberattacks occupies the leadership of an organization responsible for providing expert assistance in cybersecurity?
The following is based on a regular column by Tetsuhide Yamaoka titled “When the Invisible Invasion Becomes Visible,” published in the current issue of the monthly magazine WiLL.
Tetsuhide Yamaoka helped prevent the installation in Australia of a so-called comfort women statue, a symbol of South Korea’s anti-Japanese propaganda in the international community.
In that sense, he too is a “national treasure,” in the meaning defined by Saichō.
The emphasis within the text, other than the headings, and the passages enclosed by asterisks are mine.
The Japanese edition of Silent Invasion: China’s Influence in Australia sold through five printings in less than two weeks after its release.
The book is the Japanese translation of Silent Invasion, a warning written by Professor Clive Hamilton of Charles Sturt University in Australia.
Professor Hamilton investigated in detail and exposed the reality of China’s attempts to gain control over Australia.
Although several publishers initially refused the manuscript, he finally succeeded in having it published.
Geopolitical analyst Dr. Shinji Okuyama spent two years translating the book, while I had the honor of supervising and reviewing the entire translation.
Silent Invasion was published in Australia in 2018 and caused a major public reaction.
Nevertheless, many Australians remained reluctant to confront the severe reality described in the book.
In principle, every nation tends to prioritize economic interests.
Australia did not want to imagine a situation in which it would have to surrender the wealth it had gained through trade with China.
The coronavirus pandemic, however, became a wake-up call.
China’s self-righteous and self-centered conduct demonstrated that continuing to tolerate its behavior for the sake of economic gain could eventually result in the loss of national sovereignty.
Australia had awakened, but it was soon subjected to coercion by an increasingly arrogant China.
When Australia called for an independent investigation into the origins of the coronavirus, China resorted to its familiar tactic of economic intimidation.
The Chinese ambassador to Australia stated:
“Chinese people may not want to eat Australian beef or drink Australian wine. Chinese parents may reconsider whether Australia is an appropriate destination for their children’s education.”
When Australia replied that its demand for an independent investigation was reasonable, China quickly began imposing concrete retaliatory measures.
It suspended imports from four Australian meat-processing companies, imposed tariffs of 80 percent on barley, delayed iron ore at ports, and instructed power stations not to use Australian coal.
In the past, Australia might have yielded at that point.
A defeatist belief that “nothing is gained by angering China” had long been influential.
Australia, however, had awakened to the threat of a silent invasion and maintained a firm position.
Its response reflected a strong determination to defend national sovereignty.
China’s harassment nevertheless continued.
It warned its citizens not to travel to Australia, alleging that Chinese people were being subjected to coronavirus-related racial discrimination there.
Australia immediately responded:
“The allegation is unfounded. Australia is one of the world’s most successful multicultural societies, and Chinese Australians are important contributors to the nation.”
China then accused Australian politicians of ignoring what it described as a rapid increase in racism.
Labeling an opponent “racist,” “xenophobic,” or possessed of a “Cold War mentality” is one of China’s standard methods of attack.
＊The same can be said of certain opposition politicians in Japan, including those in the Constitutional Democratic Party.＊
A Chinese spokesperson continued:
“Many Chinese people in Australia have been verbally abused and physically attacked. Some Chinese-owned properties have been damaged, and Chinese people have suffered unfair treatment in their workplaces.”
These assertions were either greatly exaggerated or fabricated.
Yet when a government makes such claims, ordinary Chinese citizens may become frightened.
That is the purpose.
The Chinese Communist Party-affiliated English-language newspaper Global Times also expressed displeasure at the defense agreement reached in early June between Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
It wrote:
“Strengthened relations between Australia and India, particularly military cooperation, will change the strategic pattern of the entire Indo-Pacific region. Such changes will threaten peace and stability and create a confrontational atmosphere in the region.”
China thus adopts an extremely coercive attitude toward any nation it regards as weak.
UN Agencies Under Chinese Influence
While watching an Australian television discussion program, I was struck by a troubling thought.
A presenter asked:
“Can Australia stand against the enormous authoritarian state of China?”
Former Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer replied:
“The more aggressive China becomes, the more allies Australia will gain among liberal democracies, including Japan, South Korea, and India.”
It is true that liberal democratic nations must stand together against authoritarian China.
But does Japan possess that determination?
How many Japanese members of parliament even properly understand the nature of the Chinese threat?
While I was considering this question, I heard, for the first time in the Japanese Diet, a parliamentary question that accurately addressed the problem.
It was raised by Liberal Democratic Party member of the House of Councillors Haruko Arimura during a meeting of the Committee on Financial Affairs on June 2.
Arimura directly raised the structural question of how China and the international community should confront one another.
She first pointed out that China uses measures such as halting food imports to intimidate countries whose policies it dislikes, as demonstrated by its treatment of Australia.
She then emphasized that the World Health Organization was not the only UN organization over which China had gained significant influence.
According to the material presented by Arimura, Chinese nationals headed four of the fifteen UN specialized agencies in addition to the WHO:
・Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
・International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
・International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
・United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
Of these, the International Telecommunication Union is an exceptionally important organization with the following functions:
・Contributing to the formation of an international order governing the use of wired and wireless telecommunications.
・Managing the radio-frequency spectrum and satellite orbits.
・Providing specialized technical assistance in fields such as cybersecurity.
・Establishing technical performance requirements and specifications for next-generation telecommunications standards, including 5G.
As is widely known, China has sought to achieve global dominance in 5G networks through companies such as Huawei and ZTE, while the United States has attempted to prevent such dominance.
Allowing China to monopolize 5G networks would effectively give it enormous control over the communications infrastructure of other nations.
During this struggle, China had already secured substantial influence over the UN organization involved in setting 5G standards.
What could this be called other than negligence?
Moreover, if a country accused of launching vast numbers of cyberattacks occupies the leadership of an organization responsible for expert assistance in cybersecurity, is that not comparable to appointing a thief as the head of the police?
The Threat of China’s Thousand Talents Plan
Arimura also discussed China’s Thousand Talents Plan.
The Thousand Talents Plan was an overseas recruitment program approved by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party in December 2008.
Its objective was to attract world-class experts, including Nobel laureates and researchers with doctoral degrees obtained abroad, to China by offering extraordinarily favorable treatment.
Participation in the program was reportedly accompanied in some cases by an obligation to keep that participation confidential.
Researchers in Japan, as well as those in the United States, were among its targets.
Leading researchers were reportedly offered a monthly salary of approximately 5.4 million yen, annual living expenses of approximately 15 million yen, and assistance with employment and education for their spouses and children.
In January 2020, Harvard University professor Charles Lieber, then chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, was arrested and charged.
According to a statement by the United States Department of Justice, Professor Lieber had received funding from the US Department of Defense and the National Institutes of Health while participating in China’s Thousand Talents Plan.
He was arrested on allegations that he had made false statements concerning his participation and the financial support he had received.
China was attempting to acquire some of the finest scientific minds in the world.
Can Japan stand with Australia and other advanced democratic nations against China’s silent invasion?
That question did not belong only to the year 2020.
Which nation is allowed to exercise influence over sovereign governments, communications infrastructure, technological standards, research institutions, and international organizations is a question that concerns the future of liberal democratic society itself.