The Phantom Menace: Australia, the U.S., and the Myth of the “China Threat”

By The Swan Editorial Team

When historian Vijay Prashad took the stage in April 2025, his message to Australians was direct, unflinching, and impossible to ignore: there is no China threat. What exists instead, he argued, is a phantom—an imagined enemy conjured by Western politicians, media conglomerates, and defence contractors to justify imperial aggression, militarisation, and the permanent subordination of nations like Australia to American interests.

“It’s totally bloody illogical,” he thundered. “And yet stupid Australian military ships join the United States in freedom of navigation operations. Why? That discussion needs to be had in this country. This is about being a slavish ally of the United States.”

It was a blistering assault not just on foreign policy, but on Australia’s very identity. Has Australia ever truly existed as an independent nation, Prashad asked, or has it always been an obedient outpost of empire—first British, then American?

The Third Opium War

Prashad’s framing of U.S.–China tensions as a third opium war was among his most provocative claims. According to him, Washington’s economic and technological confrontation with Beijing is not about human rights or regional security, but about preserving global dominance.

The first two opium wars of the 19th century were attempts by Western powers to force open Chinese markets through violence and humiliation. Today’s “tech war,” Prashad argues, serves the same purpose: to halt China’s rise as a technological and industrial powerhouse.

“The United States wants to drag China back into the century of humiliation,” he warned. “They will not surrender. There is no Gorbachev in China. The Party has learned from history. They will defend themselves.”

Australia: A Subordinate Ally

Prashad’s critique of Australia’s foreign policy—if one can call it that—was merciless.

From Gallipoli to Vietnam, Iraq to AUKUS, Australia has, in his view, repeatedly fought “other people’s wars” in the service of foreign empires. He described AUKUS as “a colossal surrender of sovereignty” and accused Australian leaders of “desperate servility” to Washington.

“You don’t have a foreign policy,” he said bluntly. “And I think you need to have one. Make Australia great again—have your own foreign policy. Stand up and speak for yourselves.”

Even those within Australia’s establishment who oppose AUKUS—Keating, Carr, Turnbull—are, he said, “defending the status quo” because they critique the deal without challenging the U.S. domination that underpins it.

The Phantom Called China

Central to Prashad’s deconstruction is his insistence that the China described in Western headlines simply does not exist.

“China does not want to invade Australia. They don’t even want to invade the Philippines or Japan,” he stated. “They are pledged to what Deng Xiaoping called peace and development. Yet Australia spends billions preparing for a war that only exists in its imagination.”

He mocked the absurdity of “freedom of navigation” patrols in waters that carry Chinese and Australian goods alike: “Why would China attack ships bringing them resources they rely on? It’s totally bloody illogical.”

The Real Threat: Imperial Hypocrisy

Perhaps Prashad’s most damning insight came when he turned the mirror on the West itself.

“How is it,” he asked, “that Rodrigo Duterte, who killed thousands in his war on drugs, is condemned, but George W. Bush, who killed over a million people in Iraq, is still free? Because Duterte is not a U.S. ally. Bush is.”

In the world Prashad describes, morality bends to empire. Allies are absolved; enemies are demonised. Western democracies, he noted, are “democracies of illusion,” where even citizens no longer believe in their systems—yet they preach democracy to others.

In contrast, he pointed to surveys showing that 80 per cent of Chinese citizens say they live in a democracy and 90 per cent express satisfaction with their government. “Maybe we should listen to what real Chinese people say,” he remarked, “instead of chasing the phantom that Western media invented.”

A Technological Revolution—Not a Military One

According to Prashad, the real source of Western panic is not China’s military, but its technological ascendancy.

He cited the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s own findings: twenty years ago, the U.S. led the world in 60 of 64 critical technologies. Today, China leads in 57.

“China’s rise represents an existential threat—not to world peace, but to the U.S. political economy,” he said. “Unable to compete industrially, America uses military power to contain a country whose only real weapon is development.”

The Ultimate Questions

Prashad’s lecture, though polemical, forces Australians to confront uncomfortable truths:

1. If the China threat is a phantom, what systemic failures allow our media and politicians to build policy upon it?

2. If Australia’s sovereignty has long been surrendered to the United States, whose interests does its foreign policy truly serve?

3. And if the West’s double standards are now laid bare, is the only path to dignity and security one of independence—of reclaiming the ability to say no?

Conclusion: Beyond the Phantom

In the end, Prashad’s argument is not merely about China. It is about the self-inflicted blindness of nations that mistake obedience for security and propaganda for truth.

Australia’s “China threat” obsession, he contends, says far less about Beijing than it does about Canberra’s own insecurity—its dependence on a declining empire, and its failure to imagine itself as anything but a junior partner.

In his final words, Prashad urged Australians to look inward:
“Defend yourselves, yes—but defend yourselves from your own bourgeoisie, from your own illusions, from your own servility. That’s where the real threat lies.”

Join the conversation.
Do you agree with Prashad’s assessment that the “China threat” is a phantom narrative?