What can Australia do? Stay neutral, like Ireland did in WWII. Choosing the past over the future - which siding with the US means - is a particularly bad choice. You will have to live with a strong China, so start by being friendly to them and profit from what trade with China can bring to you. You may be assured that China will not try to occupy Australia!...neverfail wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:39 pmNational security, Sertorio.
Step by step this country seems to be battening down the hatches in preparation for the coming war between the USA and the PRC over Taiwan.
We would rather the conflict to not happen but what can a comparatively small power like ours do? We have no control over what the big powers decide.
In like manner in March 1941 the Australian government expelled the entire Japanese population of several thousand in Australia back to Japan. That turned out to be a very provident move; bearing in mind that in southeast Asia; wherever there were Japanese immigrant settlers established there were "plants" among them sent out by the Imperial Japanese government as spies and sabotuers. I have seen and heard testimony as to how effective these plants were in the subsequent Japanese invasion throughout this region and in the tightening of the Japanese grip on them.
Imperian Japan planned its war against The West years ahead.
In the case of Hawaii where there was a numerically large immigrant Japanese population: it took only one elderly spy in the service of the Japanese military to sound out and report the underwater depth contours of Pearl Harbour: crucial information in the planning of the subsequent airborne attack on the US naval base.
While most Japanese settlers may have been innocent of wrongdoing they still (inadvertently or otherwise) provided a smoke screen cover for the fewer who were up to no good.
That this expulsion of Japanese nationals might seem with hindsight now to have been a "scattergun" approach to solving the problem as were the mass arrests of Japanese immigrant settlers in both the USA and Canada after the Pearl Harbour raid: but considering the prevailing circumstances of the day with the entire world apparently going to hell and the future outcome of the War unclear, I consider these moves to have been well justified.
Discussion of current events
Broadly I actually agree with you in principle here Sertorio. But you will never persuade any of our policymakers, especially the current crowd in government, to dispense with the ANZUS treaty. Ironically the treaty only binds both parties to "consult" with one another if attacked by a foreign third power. Nothing in it to say that either is obliged to go to war with the offending (unnamed) powerin support of its ally. They have sold and oversold the importance of this treaty and misrepresented its contents to the public for as far back as I can recall.Sertorio wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:58 amWhat can Australia do? Stay neutral, like Ireland did in WWII. Choosing the past over the future - which siding with the US means - is a particularly bad choice. You will have to live with a strong China, so start by being friendly to them and profit from what trade with China can bring to you. You may be assured that China will not try to occupy Australia!...
Sertorio, I wanted top post this link to illustrate the latest move in the Australia-China trade war: but there is a paragraph in it that rivited my attention be4cause of its wider, global implications (duplicated by me in colour):
That confirms a suspicion I have long harboured. That due to the fact that sea transport is cheaper the transcontinental road and rail projects that the PRC government is so enthusiastically building across Eurasia will never pay their own way and are destined to be a constant, unsustainable fiscal drain on the Chinese treasury.https://asiatimes.com/2021/04/thorny-au ... ve-branch/
Thorny Australia response to China’s olive branch?
But some China and trade experts think this threat is overblown. The grand BRI scheme is already running into objections: that it supports ill-planned prestige projects, that weak governments are being loaded with more expensive loans than they could get from international institutions, and that projects employ mostly Chinese workers.
At the latest Boao Forum, the Chinese counterpart to the annual Davos Forum of global business and political stars, the Maesk shipping giant’s Jens Eskelund pointed out that the Eurasian rail network was expanding its freight haul to 97 European cities by “huge and unsustainable” subsidies.
When a container ship recently blocked the Suez Canal, no one was talking about using this rail system as an alternative.
Belt and road is only a PRC white elephant prestige project.
p.s. Ellen: Israel be warned. Reconsider that silly proposed rail project between the Gulf of Aqaba and one of your Israeli Mediterranean ports as alternative to the Suez Canal. It sounds to me like a scaled down PRC trans-Eurasia rail project and as such likely to prove a loss making white elephant.
Maybe...neverfail wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:26 amThat due to the fact that sea transport is cheaper the transcontinental road and rail projects that the PRC government is so enthusiastically building across Eurasia will never pay their own way and are destined to be a constant, unsustainable fiscal drain on the Chinese treasury.
Belt and road is only a PRC white elephant prestige project.
As usual, no definite answer is possible for this problem...Rail freight is much faster than the ocean freight. It is more expensive than sea freight but cheaper than air freight. Moving goods by train is perfect for high-value industrial products such as vehicles, electronics and computer equipment, as well as promotional equipment that must reach their final destination as quickly as possible.
Yes, rail freight transportation is cheaper than air but more expensive than water. But in places, where transportation through harbours is not possible, rail is a more efficient choice.
https://container-xchange.com/blog/rail ... -overview/
Australia’s puerile and provocative war-mongering towards China is raising the risk of all-out military conflict
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/522263-austral ... ing-china/
Instead of seeking to engage in a pragmatic dialogue with China – that recognises that nation’s legitimate strategic interests, and the fact that China is a major world power and Australia is not – Australian politicians and bureaucrats seem determined to indulge themselves in acts of retribution and puerile war mongering.