An unnecessary shadow seems to have formed over the traditionally well-functioning economic, personal and cultural links between China and Australia in recent months.

Chinese and Chinese-Australian people, and Chinese businesses in Australia, have made a huge contribution to the country’s economy and society. However, allegations are circling that Chinese companies and individuals have been using financial donations to exert a dangerous influence on Australian politics.

It appears that the head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO), Duncan Lewis, recently briefed senior members of the three main political parties concerning the suspicions that donations from, or linked to, foreign countries – by which he clearly meant China – pose risks to national security. Some individuals alleged to be working on behalf of the Chinese government were even named.

Certainly, every country has a right to try and ensure genuine threats to national security are quickly snuffed out; equally, it is natural to be concerned about any foreign involvement in domestic politics. Thus, there is a growing debate in Australia on whether to ban foreign donations to Australian political parties.

This would not be unusual in current world circumstances: many countries, including China, are conscious of the need to monitor closely any political involvement from abroad.

However, in this case there is an unhelpful element of "Cold War" thinking involved in. Australia is a generally Western-aligned nation, but geographically much closer to East Asia. This has given rise to a climate of suspicion not necessarily supported by evidence. China is now an essential partner in the Australian economy; but Chinese activities often incur suspicion that wouldn’t happen to the activities of other foreign nationals.

The issue surfaced when a senator (upper house member) Sam Dastyari admitted receiving a donation of A$1,600 (approximately RMB8,000) to pay for travel expenses from a Chinese company, Top Education. Mr. Dastyari had also received help with expenses from another Chinese company, the Yuhu Group, who have previously made generous contributions to all the major Australian parties.

Senator Dastyari was embarrassed by these revelations and admitted he’d made a mistake. Yet, donations from companies to political parties and elected representatives are a well-known feature of political life in all parliamentary democracies. The law usually requires that donations be properly registered, to ensure there is no secret influence-peddling.

However, there is nothing unlawful or reprehensible about such donations in principle. Why, then, should such a fuss be made just because the donors have Chinese links? After all, in the modern world, corporate ownership can rarely be linked solely to one country when their traded shares can be owned by anyone.

In particular, Chinese-Australians have become important players in the Australian economy – generally by using their contacts to facilitate mutually beneficial links to China. It is quite natural that Australian-based companies whose business depends on close links to China should wish to help support a good all-round Sino-Australian relationship, as British or American traders or investors would wish to do regarding their own countries.

This does not represent any kind of subversive activity, merely an activity helping to establish a convergence of interests between two countries that benefit from good mutual economic relations.

It is universally acknowledged that corruption invariably has a negative effect on any economy and on the country as a whole. China knows this as well as anyone, hence the current high-profile drive, endorsed at the highest level, to eradicate domestic corruption and illegal payments.

However, a distinction must be made between the legitimate engagement of businesses with politics and illegal attempts to purchase influence. The key to this is transparency, hence the demand that donations be registered.

It is surely mischievous to allow political prejudice to blur one’s judgment in making this vital distinction. We cannot have it said that Chinese participation in economic activity in other countries must be ipso facto suspicious and motivated by nefarious intentions.

The swift rise of China as an economic power has meant it is a vital element in national economies all over the world. Of course each country has the right to ensure that all financial dealings are regulated by the relevant laws. Yet, so long as everything is above board, there is no reason why one nation should fall more under suspicion than another.

The world is now so strongly interlinked that the prejudices of a former age should have no place. Of course China is keen to project "soft power," to influence developments in the outside world; however, this is perfectly legitimate and all countries do it. We can only hope that Sino-Australian relations are not seriously affected by this storm in a tea-cup.

Tim Collard is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://www.jhzsvip.com/opinion/timcollard.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.