Yesterday, China’s Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian penned an op-ed to coincide with China’s largest-ever military parade marking the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II.

A grand show of China’s conventional and nuclear military power, the occasion is also being used to propagate the Chinese Communist Party’s preferred narrative that it was at the vanguard in the “War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression” and a leader in the “World Anti-Fascist War”. Never mind that it was the forces of the Chinese Nationalist government, led by Chiang Kai-shek — not the Chinese Communists pursuing a guerrilla warfare approach — that suffered the bulk of the casualties in major battles with the Japanese.

This contributed significantly to the weakening of Nationalist forces when they resumed and lost the civil war against the CCP and subsequently fled to Taiwan. If we use “history as a mirror” as the ambassador recommends, the CCP would need to face some uncomfortable truths.

The traumas of the 20th century were caused by expansionist autocratic regimes — not only fascist but also communist — inflicting violence on their people and others, using force to overwhelm smaller states or coerce them into passivity or neutrality, without regard for international law. If history is any guide, these aggressive authoritarian traits remain the primary threats to peace, prosperity and stability today.

China is embarking on the most rapid military buildup since World War II to underpin an expansionary territorial and geopolitical agenda.

Let’s speak plainly. In our region, the main cause of instability is China. While the Chinese ambassador calls for all nations to “firmly uphold the United Nations-centred system … underpinned by international law … and principles of the UN Charter”, Beijing refuses to abide by the binding 2016 ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration voiding its expansive territorial claims over the South China Sea.

Instead, it has militarised its illegal artificial islands and coercively prevents weaker states such as the Philippines and Vietnam from enjoying their maritime rights. Japan too, continues to face persistent challenges to its control over the Senkaku Islands (which China calls the Diaoyu Islands) while the Taiwanese military is steadily being worn down as it faces record-breaking numbers of Chinese military planes entering its airspace daily.

As we approach President Xi’s 2027 deadline for the People’s Liberation Army to be capable of invading Taiwan, his statement that “the historical trend toward China’s ultimate and inevitable reunification is unstoppable” credibly raises the risk of outright conflict in our region. Remember that the One China policy that states like Australia follow does not extend to China having the right to integrate Taiwan into the mainland using coercion or outright force.

On Ukraine, far from being the bulwark against aggression, China has not only failed to condemn Russia’s invasion, but it has also been the major spoiler of Western sanctions, allowing Moscow to prolong its campaign and put itself in a dominant position to retain control of Ukrainian territory.

This has included Chinese exports of semiconductors, chip-making equipment and spare parts, critical minerals that are key components of gunpowder and explosives production, and millions of light dual-use drones. Beijing has thrown an economic lifeline to its no-limits partner as its largest buyer of oil, and second-largest buyer of LNG, both of which represent around 20 per cent of Russian GDP.

On the economic front, while US trade tariffs have opened space for China to position itself as a champion of free trade and economic globalisation, this would require all of us to have short and selective historical memory of “unfair” Chinese trade practices.

“China’s Fourteen Grievances have not been withdrawn. They form some of the red lines Beijing is imposing on Australian decision-making.”

The present crisis of the world trading system has arisen precisely because of China’s restrictions on market access and behind-the-border measures — cheap capital and heavy state subsidies — which give unfair advantages to local firms and state-owned enterprises in key industrial sectors and legalises forced industrial and intellectual property transfers from foreign to Chinese companies.

There are other important questions. When Ambassador Xiao expresses China’s readiness to “work with Australia in a spirit of mutual respect, equality, [and] mutual benefit” one might ask if this means refraining from interference in Australia’s democratic process. ASIO chief Mike Burgess continues to assess that China is the major espionage, cyber and interference threat to Australia, with a Chinese national arrested last month for carrying out covert operations against a Buddhist association banned in China.

This is well known to be the tip of the iceberg. Relaying the message from Beijing, Ambassador Xiao is promising to extend the hand of friendship to Australia. A hallmark of friendship is the ability to disagree constructively. Previous Coalition governments under Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison raised differences about China’s policies towards Taiwan, the Senkaku, the South China Sea, Chinese cyber espionage, and foreign interference in our domestic affairs among others.

The Chinese response was the Fourteen Grievances issued by the Chinese embassy to justify economic punishments against Australia. Here, Beijing demanded the right to define key domestic and external policies for Australia. Those grievances have not been withdrawn. They form some of the red lines Beijing is imposing on Australian sovereign decision-making.

To paraphrase George Santayana, those who forget or misrepresent the past tend to repeat it — with possibly terrible consequences for all of us. The 20th century was a disastrously violent century for the world because great authoritarian powers saw fit to use military force and coercion to impose their will on smaller powers.

China is embarking on the most rapid military buildup since World War II to underpin an expansionary territorial and geopolitical agenda. The question is whether or what it has learnt from history.