Australia and China

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 5122
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Australia and China

Post by Sertorio » Sun May 30, 2021 11:55 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sun May 30, 2021 11:47 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Sun May 30, 2021 11:23 pm
And New Zealand is probably twice as smart as Australia, because it understood that international relations must be based on dialogue, diplomacy, cooperation and trade, and Australia thinks it must be based on confrontation, even when it leads to war and destruction...
:lol: Some Kiwis are quite smart Sertorio - so much so that approx. 15% of New Zealand's entire population has moved to Australia permanently. :D

But moving from individual preferences (around 650,000 of them by my info.) to national policy: on Sunday on a current affairs program I watched Kiwi's (mainly businessmen) involved in their country's trade with China being interviewed and the message I picked up loud and clear from their lips was one of fatalistic resignation. Their country is too small and geographically remote (i.e. powerless) to make any difference anyway so why fight China? Better for NZ to "go with the flow!"

I sometimes even wonder what this country is doing as a member state of the Western alliance. Useless ballast!

:?: :idea: (A bit like Portugal in NATO, eh? :) )
I sometimes wonder what "the Western Alliance" is all about? Threatening violence on all countries which may hinder the West's imperial designs? Well, in case you failed to notice it, the American Empire is on its last legs...

neverfail
Posts: 6861
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Australia and China

Post by neverfail » Mon May 31, 2021 1:18 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sun May 30, 2021 11:55 pm
I sometimes wonder what "the Western Alliance" is all about? Threatening violence on all countries which may hinder the West's imperial designs? Well, in case you failed to notice it, the American Empire is on its last legs...
Perhaps you need a "refresher" course in recent history Sertorio.

(if you do not know this then there was something badly amiss with the courses you undertook to gain your academic credentials.)

NATO began in the World War Two era originally as the alliance formed jointly by the United States and the United Kingdom to counter the Axis alliance led by Nazi Germany - which was at the time not threatening violence on other countries but COMMITTING violence against these on a grand scale. (But since you seem to have this crazy aversion for Anglo led alliances I would not put it past you to have sometimes wished with hindsight that the Axis bloc had won. Imagine had Nazi Germany been the post-WW2 superpower?)

In any case, even while war raged free French forces led by Charles de Gaulle were admitted to the alliance. With the advent of the Cold War: as it was clear that the USSR had sinister expansionist ambitions of its own, other countries in Western Europe were permitted to join in what amounted to a mutual pact of self defence to thwart the USSR. Individually these formerly squabbling countries had not a hope in opposing the Soviet Union but jointly by pooling their resources they had a chance.

(Would you have preferred the USSR to have become dominant over western as well as eastern Europe Sertorio?)

Admittedly, Nato since the end of the Soviet Union in 1991 has struggled to identify a new role for itself and in traditional form might now be superceded. But that does not mean that the need for a Western alliance of interested member states is a thing of the past.

Nato does not operate in the Asia-Pacific region but America's allies are linked to the United States in a series of bilateral and trilateral defence treaties. Quite a different scenario to the European one.

So allow me to make this clear Sertorio: The NATO alliance along with the ones formed in the Asia pacific was not built to advance America's (or anyone elses) imperial designs to to thwart those of repugnant totalitarian and authoritarian regimes who had the ambition to impose their ways on us.

True during the Second World War and during the Cold War as well.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 5122
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Australia and China

Post by Sertorio » Mon May 31, 2021 3:01 am

neverfail wrote:
Mon May 31, 2021 1:18 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sun May 30, 2021 11:55 pm
I sometimes wonder what "the Western Alliance" is all about? Threatening violence on all countries which may hinder the West's imperial designs? Well, in case you failed to notice it, the American Empire is on its last legs...
Perhaps you need a "refresher" course in recent history Sertorio.

(if you do not know this then there was something badly amiss with the courses you undertook to gain your academic credentials.)

NATO began in the World War Two era originally as the alliance formed jointly by the United States and the United Kingdom to counter the Axis alliance led by Nazi Germany - which was at the time not threatening violence on other countries but COMMITTING violence against these on a grand scale. (But since you seem to have this crazy aversion for Anglo led alliances I would not put it past you to have sometimes wished with hindsight that the Axis bloc had won. Imagine had Nazi Germany been the post-WW2 superpower?)

In any case, even while war raged free French forces led by Charles de Gaulle were admitted to the alliance. With the advent of the Cold War: as it was clear that the USSR had sinister expansionist ambitions of its own, other countries in Western Europe were permitted to join in what amounted to a mutual pact of self defence to thwart the USSR. Individually these formerly squabbling countries had not a hope in opposing the Soviet Union but jointly by pooling their resources they had a chance.

(Would you have preferred the USSR to have become dominant over western as well as eastern Europe Sertorio?)

Admittedly, Nato since the end of the Soviet Union in 1991 has struggled to identify a new role for itself and in traditional form might now be superceded. But that does not mean that the need for a Western alliance of interested member states is a thing of the past.

Nato does not operate in the Asia-Pacific region but America's allies are linked to the United States in a series of bilateral and trilateral defence treaties. Quite a different scenario to the European one.

So allow me to make this clear Sertorio: The NATO alliance along with the ones formed in the Asia pacific was not built to advance America's (or anyone elses) imperial designs to to thwart those of repugnant totalitarian and authoritarian regimes who had the ambition to impose their ways on us.

True during the Second World War and during the Cold War as well.
That's just what I needed, an history lesson!... :roll: Pity you didn't tell us about how much France loved the UK and the US both during and after WWII...

Today NATO is no more than the American instrument to further their imperial fantasies... The war against Servia... The war against Libya... The war in Afghanistan... The invention of a Russian threat... The overthrowing of undesired South American governments... As an Australian you may not mind being a vassal as the price to pay for protection against nonexistent threats, but I do not sell my soul to the devil...

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 5122
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Australia and China

Post by Sertorio » Mon May 31, 2021 4:14 am

A Chinese view:
NZ doesn’t need a lesson in China trade from Australia
By Global Times - Published: May 30, 2021 08:47 PM

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202105/1224884.shtml

With the prime ministers of Australia and New Zealand set to meet on Sunday for the first time in 15 months, some Australian media outlets appeared to be using the timing to drive a wedge between New Zealand and China, but that may only underscore their increasing envy of their neighbor's apparent advantage in trade with China.

A promotional video clip by newsmagazine show 60 Minutes Australia went on viral on social media last week. A voiceover in the video accused New Zealand of ditching friends for "a fast Chinese buck," but for anyone who has the basic knowledge of China-New Zealand trade cooperation, such accusation is nonsense and ridiculous.

Following China-Australia trade ties becoming strained amid the deteriorating bilateral relations caused by Canberra's provocation, some Australian media outlets have been hitting out at China-New Zealand trade, criticizing the latter for cozying up to China for economic interests. Such rhetoric is full of contempt for the judgment and diplomatic independence of New Zealand.

It is true that economic and trade cooperation between China and New Zealand has been moving forward on a steady and healthy footing. In January this year, the two trading partners signed an upgrade to their existing free trade agreement, which is bound to benefit New Zealand exporters of agricultural, dairy and seafood products amid deepening bilateral economic ties. If anything, such development only makes Australian politicians more envious and frustrated, because their government has consistently refused to make any real move to ease tensions with China.

From another perspective, Australian media's attempt to drive a wedge between China and New Zealand may be a reflection of their despair toward the prospects of China-Australia trade. In early May, after Australia revoked agreements signed between Victoria state and China on the Belt and Road Initiative, the National Development and Reform Commission suspended all activities under the China-Australia Strategic Economic Dialogue, marking a further downward spiral in bilateral relations.

Yet, the irony is that instead of reflecting on the provocative actions and hostility toward China, some politicians and media outlets in Australia have been trying to step up pressure on New Zealand, in the hope of dragging it into the same mire.

But New Zealand will not necessarily be the second Australia despite the historic friendship between the two countries. It is clear to New Zealand that none of its Western allies could or would compensate them for the loss caused by trade tensions with China, and instead, those allies would only compete to fill the market void in China as proved in Australia's case.

We believe New Zealand knows how to weigh its own interests.
New Zealand being a sovereign nation it can trade with whomever it wants. One thing is sure: if the US and its vassals decide on waging war on China, New Zealand will be untouched, and may even receive some Australian refugees...

neverfail
Posts: 6861
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Australia and China

Post by neverfail » Mon May 31, 2021 5:15 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Mon May 31, 2021 4:14 am
New Zealand being a sovereign nation it can trade with whomever it wants. One thing is sure: if the US and its vassals decide on waging war on China, New Zealand will be untouched, and may even receive some Australian refugees...
:lol: Are you fucking-well joking Sertorio?

As I pointed out two posts ago: New Zealand is over TWICE as dependent on trade with the PRC as is Australia: and their international trade prospects, like their natural rersource trove, is far more limited than that of Australia. Literally a country that needs to content itself with the crumbs brushed off the rich man's table.

So their choice not to follow in the footsteps of the Australian government and challenge the authority of the PRC government is not a sign of superior virtue but of internationally weak bargaining power.

Like we Australians they know on which side their bread is buttered.

Even though it might give the PRC a minor diplomatic victory: I just wish that New Zealand would turn honest and withdraw from the Five Eyes agreement along with all other treaties that link it to the Western alliance. It's heart is not (and never has been) in the job.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 3272
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Australia and China

Post by Milo » Mon May 31, 2021 6:05 pm

neverfail wrote:
Mon May 31, 2021 5:15 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Mon May 31, 2021 4:14 am
New Zealand being a sovereign nation it can trade with whomever it wants. One thing is sure: if the US and its vassals decide on waging war on China, New Zealand will be untouched, and may even receive some Australian refugees...
:lol: Are you fucking-well joking Sertorio?

As I pointed out two posts ago: New Zealand is over TWICE as dependent on trade with the PRC as is Australia: and their international trade prospects, like their natural rersource trove, is far more limited than that of Australia. Literally a country that needs to content itself with the crumbs brushed off the rich man's table.

So their choice not to follow in the footsteps of the Australian government and challenge the authority of the PRC government is not a sign of superior virtue but of internationally weak bargaining power.

Like we Australians they know on which side their bread is buttered.

Even though it might give the PRC a minor diplomatic victory: I just wish that New Zealand would turn honest and withdraw from the Five Eyes agreement along with all other treaties that link it to the Western alliance. It's heart is not (and never has been) in the job.
As far as I know, nothing’s been done about this, either way.

Reads like the CCP equivalent of ‘This is a very nice place you have here. It would be a pity were something to happen to it.’

Trump isn’t around to undermine alliances and amplify the IRA in the same way anymore. China and Russia will have to adjust.

neverfail
Posts: 6861
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Australia and China

Post by neverfail » Mon May 31, 2021 6:20 pm

P.S. Sertorio: do you really believe that the PRC's selective trade embargos on Australian goods are doing Scott Morrison and the government he leads any political harm?

Among those interviewed in the (Australian) 60 Minites program was a vintier in Victoria - who has suffered considerable financial losses from foregone exports of wine to China - our wine industry being probably the hardest hit so far by PRC embargos. Did this man condemn the stand taken by our government that caused him this loss? Not a bit of it! Instead he contended that the government led by Scott Morrison was and is right to stand up to the PRC government on such a matter of high principle.

That man's words would probably sum up the prevailing attitude among producers in the industries out here that have been targeted by PRC embargos and suffered losses accordingly - the vast majority of whom would be voter-supporters for the government parties. No sign of any voter backlash against the government because of the loss of those markets in China.

If Xi Jinpeng and his CCP colleagues would only collectively pull their heads from out of their rear anal passages; look at the situation with clear sets of eyes instead of indulging themselves in a hubris of power politics over the matter; they would realise that their attempts to bully the Australian government into submission have so far proved entirely counterproductive and make haste to abandon those policies.

neverfail
Posts: 6861
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Australia and China

Post by neverfail » Wed Jun 23, 2021 3:58 pm

"China is insecure and brittle"

Australia’s departing top diplomat Frances Adamson has warned China’s insecurity and power can be a volatile combination, saying its “siege mentality” and resistance to scrutiny is in no one’s interests.

The secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, who finishes her five-year term on Friday, also suggested Australia may need to spend more on diplomacy and foreign aid to project its influence abroad at a time of increased uncertainty in the region.

Ms Adamson defended Australia’s handling of its deteriorating relationship with China, insisting she did not regret pushing for an independent inquiry into the coronavirus last year without first marshalling international support.

Beijing imposed more than $20 billion of trade strikes on Australia in response to the COVID-19 inquiry push, as well as other decisions such as banning Chinese telco Huawei from the 5G network.

Speaking at the National Press Club in Canberra, Ms Adamson on Wednesday said under Chinese President Xi Jinping “the clock has been wound back” by prioritising ideology and quashing voices of dissent.

“Few really grasp that this great power is still dogged by insecurity as much as driven by ambition. That it has a deeply defensive mindset – perceiving external threats even as it pushes its interests over those of others,” she said.

“It is too ready to suspect containment instead of judging issues on their individual merits.

“This siege mentality – this unwillingness to countenance scrutiny and genuine discussion of differences – serves nobody’s interests.”

She said she always found it useful to remind herself that “that the pressure exerted outwards on other countries must also be felt within, at an individual level, by those subject to that system”.

“Insecurity and power can be a volatile combination; more so if inadvertently mishandled. We need to understand what we are dealing with.”

Ms Adamson, who was Australia’s ambassador to China between 2011 and 2015, did not rule out regime change in China but said she didn’t think it would happen any time soon.

“Authoritarian regimes are inherently brittle. If and when change comes, it may well come quite quickly,” she said.

Ms Adamson said the Chinese embassy’s move last year to deliver a list of 14 grievances to Nine News, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in Canberra was a “massive own goal by China”.

“I couldn’t understand why they did it.”

She said it may take some time for the Australia-China relationship to mend and it would only happen “when China sees its own interests as being served by a different model”.

“China is immensely pragmatic, and if and when it chooses to sit down with us and others to conduct a relationship that is constructive and mutually beneficial... we will be ready and so will others,” she said.


Australia attracted Beijing’s ire when it became the first country to call for an independent inquiry into the pandemic. While it eventually partnered with the European Union to establish the inquiry through the World Health Assembly, it didn’t secure the public support of other countries before Foreign Minister Marise Payne announced it on the ABC’s Insiders program.

Ms Adamson said criticism of the government’s approach “always puzzles me” as it was “totally obvious that an inquiry was needed”. But she later conceded that “whichever country had spoken first to get rolling an idea which absolutely at its time needed to be undertaken, there would have been a reaction to it”.

https://www.watoday.com.au/politics/fed ... l#comments
Even though Ms Frances Adamson may be suspect of feeling the need to defend her record as Australia's retiring Foreign Affairs secretary, her very forthright words on the China-Australia relationship still make absolute sense to me.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 5122
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Australia and China

Post by Sertorio » Wed Jun 23, 2021 4:20 pm

neverfail wrote:
Wed Jun 23, 2021 3:58 pm
"China is insecure and brittle"

Australia’s departing top diplomat Frances Adamson has warned China’s insecurity and power can be a volatile combination, saying its “siege mentality” and resistance to scrutiny is in no one’s interests.

The secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, who finishes her five-year term on Friday, also suggested Australia may need to spend more on diplomacy and foreign aid to project its influence abroad at a time of increased uncertainty in the region.

Ms Adamson defended Australia’s handling of its deteriorating relationship with China, insisting she did not regret pushing for an independent inquiry into the coronavirus last year without first marshalling international support.

Beijing imposed more than $20 billion of trade strikes on Australia in response to the COVID-19 inquiry push, as well as other decisions such as banning Chinese telco Huawei from the 5G network.

Speaking at the National Press Club in Canberra, Ms Adamson on Wednesday said under Chinese President Xi Jinping “the clock has been wound back” by prioritising ideology and quashing voices of dissent.

“Few really grasp that this great power is still dogged by insecurity as much as driven by ambition. That it has a deeply defensive mindset – perceiving external threats even as it pushes its interests over those of others,” she said.

“It is too ready to suspect containment instead of judging issues on their individual merits.

“This siege mentality – this unwillingness to countenance scrutiny and genuine discussion of differences – serves nobody’s interests.”

She said she always found it useful to remind herself that “that the pressure exerted outwards on other countries must also be felt within, at an individual level, by those subject to that system”.

“Insecurity and power can be a volatile combination; more so if inadvertently mishandled. We need to understand what we are dealing with.”

Ms Adamson, who was Australia’s ambassador to China between 2011 and 2015, did not rule out regime change in China but said she didn’t think it would happen any time soon.

“Authoritarian regimes are inherently brittle. If and when change comes, it may well come quite quickly,” she said.

Ms Adamson said the Chinese embassy’s move last year to deliver a list of 14 grievances to Nine News, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in Canberra was a “massive own goal by China”.

“I couldn’t understand why they did it.”

She said it may take some time for the Australia-China relationship to mend and it would only happen “when China sees its own interests as being served by a different model”.

“China is immensely pragmatic, and if and when it chooses to sit down with us and others to conduct a relationship that is constructive and mutually beneficial... we will be ready and so will others,” she said.


Australia attracted Beijing’s ire when it became the first country to call for an independent inquiry into the pandemic. While it eventually partnered with the European Union to establish the inquiry through the World Health Assembly, it didn’t secure the public support of other countries before Foreign Minister Marise Payne announced it on the ABC’s Insiders program.

Ms Adamson said criticism of the government’s approach “always puzzles me” as it was “totally obvious that an inquiry was needed”. But she later conceded that “whichever country had spoken first to get rolling an idea which absolutely at its time needed to be undertaken, there would have been a reaction to it”.

https://www.watoday.com.au/politics/fed ... l#comments
Even though Ms Frances Adamson may be suspect of feeling the need to defend her record as Australia's retiring Foreign Affairs secretary, her very forthright words on the China-Australia relationship still make absolute sense to me.
“Few really grasp that this great power is still dogged by insecurity"...

China may be many different things, but insecure is definitely not one of them...Any country with the rate of growth since 1949 shown by China, with its remarkable achievements in industrial terms, in science, in space, in technology, cannot feel insecure. It will feel an immense pride and confidence it will successfully deal with any challenges, whether economic, political or military. But the Anglo complex of superiority will not allow them to see China as it really is.

Post Reply