The whole point of the post-World War II system of international rules and norms was that large countries, great powers, could not just do whatever they wanted.

The post-War order is meant to provide a check on the untrammelled power of the powerful, whether through military invasions or more subtle ways of bending the will of other countries—methods such as interference, coercion and malicious cyber intrusions.

Yet when asked recently how Australia would address China’s influence in the Pacific, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said, ‘China’s doing what great powers do, and great powers try to lift their influence and expand their influence in the region that they wish.’

To be sure, foreign policy is tough. Every country in the region and many beyond it are trying to navigate this most tricky of relationships—a great power flexing its muscle aggressively but with whom we are all deeply economically entwined. Yet that does not mean we should minimise or excuse China’s behaviour when it bulldozes rules and norms so carefully established to maintain stability and security.

This is not a case of picking one’s battles. China is waging its hybrid warfare on all fronts and setting precedents through our silence—Beijing’s overreaction to a statement on human rights by an Australian official in the UN in the past fortnight shows that Beijing hasn’t budged an inch in the past two years.

It is a calculated strategy to make Australia pull any punches at a higher level on something like human rights abuses in Xinjiang. This isn’t stabilisation—it’s Beijing saying that Australia will toe the line or else.

By limiting all but the most unavoidable criticisms of China to statements delivered by officials rather than ministers, Australia has been offering Beijing a compromise. Instead of taking that as a win, China continues to bite back hard. Fortunately this should serve only to highlight that no such compromises should be made.

The type of influence China exercises is not something we can accept as simply ‘what great powers do’. It launched a cyber attack on the Pacific Islands Forum, spreads online disinformation in the Pacific to undermine democracies and weaken Pacific partnerships, sought security agreements that lack public transparency, and undertaken various other malicious activities—such as hybrid and grey zone operations.

And that’s just in the Pacific—China is carrying out this malicious activity globally, not to mention being the main supporter enabling Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Of course, other significant powers seek influence, but responsible nations don’t behave like this. The United States for instance, as the longstanding international superpower, has built enormous global influence. But—notwithstanding its share of mistakes—it has done so overwhelmingly by cultivating alliances and genuine partnerships based on shared values and a common desire to improve conditions in the world and to the benefit of the citizens of their partner nations.

Think about it: the US has dozens of genuine friends around the world. China doesn’t have friends; it has subordinates, captive debtors, vassals.

We should remember that the trend in international politics has been to curb the kind of crass and predatory political behaviour we see from Beijing. Until about a century back, colonialism and conquests of other states were considered normal. But ideas of what constitutes acceptable international behaviour have changed dramatically, as seen through the development of international institutions, laws and norms. They don’t always work, but the international community should strive to do better, not revert to letting great powers engage in behaviour reminiscent of an earlier age.

The climate of peace and commerce that has resulted from multinational cooperation has benefited few countries as much as China with its stellar growth over recent decades. There have been continuous efforts in recent times by Indo-Pacific powers to strengthen the rules-based order and prevent it from eroding, including through the use of international law to adjudicate disputes, as the Philippines did in 2016 when it used international arbitration to resolve its dispute with China—which Beijing went on to ignore.

China’s behaviour has been completely at odds to this trend. Its worldview is based on dividing the international community into big and small powers—in which small powers should know their place in the international hierarchy. This world view does not permit peaceful settlement of disputes. Instead, the strong push their way through. Such a view should be opposed and called out, not rationalised.

Wong went on to say that the Pacific is now the field for a ‘permanent contest’. That much is true, but we cannot regard it through a false equivalence. The work that Australia does as a partner of choice, and the support we get from friends including the US, are worlds apart from the malign influence that China seeks to wield.

It is possible that at some stage, China will become so strong, and the relative balance of power so skewed, that others will not be able to push back. At that stage, countries in the region would have to find some other modus vivendi with China. But as long as they are able to, it is perfectly natural for them to push back.

Indeed, what would be unnatural would be for countries in the region to simply throw up their hands and accept Chinese hegemony. In international politics, aggressive behaviour must be countered, not explained away.