Australia and China

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

Re: China threatens Australia - again!

Post by Sertorio » Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:58 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:39 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:38 am

I suppose you are under the illusion that Australia (Victoria) will benefit from scrapping the BRI agreement. In which way, may I ask?...
National 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.
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
Posts: 6861
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: China threatens Australia - again!

Post by neverfail » Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:26 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:58 am
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!...
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, 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):
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.
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.

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.

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

Re: China threatens Australia - again!

Post by Sertorio » Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:33 am

neverfail wrote:
Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:26 am
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.

Belt and road is only a PRC white elephant prestige project.
Maybe...
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/
As usual, no definite answer is possible for this problem...

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

Re: Australia and China

Post by Sertorio » Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:02 pm

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.

(...)

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

Re: Australia and China

Post by Sertorio » Thu May 13, 2021 8:24 am

Canberra's defense spending means economic carnage
By Global Times - Published: May 12, 2021 08:49 PM
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202105/1223299.shtml

Image
Australia being saved by the US...
Illustration: Chen Xia/GT

Even after single-handedly driving China-Australia ties to a near-frozen state, the Morrison government appears to be dead set on further escalating regional confrontation by substantially increasing investment in defense and national security - apparently to maintain its role of an attack dog for the US' so-called Indo-Pacific strategy aiming to contain China.

The Australian federal government plans to spend 270 billion Australian dollars ($212 billion) over the next decade on upgrading defense capabilities to "promote an open and peaceful Indo-Pacific," according to media reports, citing a newly released economic plan by Australia's Treasury Department.

The hefty defense and security investment will include spending on upgrading infrastructure facilities aimed at assisting US military as well as other collaborative weaponry projects with the US, media reports said.

The spending plan came as some Australian politicians and media outlets have been pushing Australia to join forces with the US if a military conflict breaks out in the Taiwan Straits. In such context, observers generally see the move as a signal from Canberra that it will continue and even escalate its confrontational approach toward China.

While it is not all that shocking to see Canberra echoing the US' so-called "Indo-Pacific strategy" to contain China, it is still inconceivable that Australian politicians would be willing to run huge deficits to curry favor with the US. Ultimately, the defense spending could mean more carnage for the Australian economy.

According to the Treasury Department's budget plan for the fiscal year starting on July 1, none of its other spending plans could be comparable to the defense spending with the total expenses for the next fiscal year set at A$589 billion. For instance, the government proposed a A$17.7 billion spending on elderly care over five years, falling way short of even one-tenth of the defense budget.

Moreover, with such aggressive military spending plan, it is also questionable whether the country's budget deficit will decline in the coming years, as the Treasury claims, after hitting a record high of A$161 billion for the fiscal year ending on June 30.

But judging from the way Australian politicians talk and act, they are not so concerned about trade and economic issues that could affect the jobs and livelihoods of millions of Australians. If they were, they would have stopped their unreasonable provocative political stunts that wreak havoc on bilateral relations.

Australia's trade ties with China, its largest trading partner, will unlikely improve in the foreseeable future, which has and will continue to add pressure on the Australian economy. As Canberra continues on its confrontational approach, China's National Development and Reform Commission recently halted exchanges with Australia.

This week, some media outlets reported that liquefied natural gas (LNG) is regarded as the latest Australian export that could bear the brunt of deteriorating ties. A Bloomberg report stated on Monday that at least two Chinese small LNG importers were told not to purchase Australian LNG next year.

While the authenticity of the report remains unclear and China is unlikely to issue export ban without justified reasons, it doesn't mean China won't seek diversification of LNG supplies.

In fact, considering the tensions between the two sides and Canberra's reluctance to show even the slightest sign of willingness to repair bilateral ties, China's diversification push may cover more products.

It is Australia's relentless and unreasonable provocations that push China to seek such diversification. Certainly, China does not seek to initiate a "trade war," but a comprehensive counter plan is necessary to not just protect China's interests but also deter any potential provocation from Canberra.
Although this is a Global Times article, we cannot call it propaganda. It is simply a criticism of how the Chinese see Australia's policies towards China. Whether it is realistic or not, that's another question. But Australians would do well to consider whether their country's policies are adequate or not.

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

Re: Australia and China

Post by neverfail » Thu May 13, 2021 2:27 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Thu May 13, 2021 8:24 am
Canberra's defense spending means economic carnage
By Global Times - Published: May 12, 2021 08:49 PM
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202105/1223299.shtml
Although this is a Global Times article, we cannot call it propaganda. It is simply a criticism of how the Chinese see Australia's policies towards China. Whether it is realistic or not, that's another question. But Australians would do well to consider whether their country's policies are adequate or not.
More like a depitcion of how the PRC's rulers want the world to view Australia than fair and factual criticism.

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

Re: "Australia largely winning its trade war with China"

Post by neverfail » Fri May 14, 2021 10:47 pm

China is spending more than ever on Australian imports despite punitive trade restrictions on coal, barley, meat and wine

China is paying twice as much for Russian coal of the same caloric value as that produced in New South Wales.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

https://asiatimes.com/2021/05/australia ... ith-china/

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

Re: Australia and China

Post by neverfail » Sun May 30, 2021 5:49 pm

Here is something I did not realise until now. It goes a long way towards explaining the New Zealand government's softer line on dealings with the PRC:
Australia exports of goods and services as percentage of GDP is 21.80% and imports of goods and services as percentage of GDP is 21.39%.
https://www.google.com/search?q=interna ... e&ie=UTF-8
Trade (% of GDP) in New Zealand was reported at 55.94 % in 2018, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators,

https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealan ... -data.html
Wow! It seems that New Zealand exceeds even Singapore when it comes to trading on global markets for the sake of economic solvency. By comparison Australia comes across as being comparatively more self-contained.

Now, what about percentage of dependence on the PRC for that trade?


Australia is one of the few developed nations on Earth that exports more into China than it imports from China. In the 2018-2019 fiscal year, China took in about 32.6% of all Australian exports
https://www.google.com/search?q=percent ... e&ie=UTF-8
Top export destinations of commodities from New Zealand in 2020: China with a share of 27%
https://www.google.com/search?q=Percent ... e&ie=UTF-8
Now, let's do some mathematics:

Australia relies on international trade for around 21.8% of our GDP of which 32.6% goes to China. So that is 32.6% of 21.8% = 7.10% of our GDP.

New Zealand
relies of international trade for 55.94% of their GDP of which 27% goes to China. So that is 27% of 55.94% of GDP = 15.10% of GDP.

In other words: while Australia's trade with China dwarfs that of New Zealand several times over in raw export dollar terms; when it comes to relative importance New Zealand is more than TWICE as dependent on access to the China market than is Australia.

New Zealand's softer approach to the PRC over matters like human rights abuses and PRC military outposts on artifical islands in the South China Sea can be thus easily explained in that context. By comparison Australia's has been much bolder because (as things have turned out) we can afford to be.

It also means potentially that the PRC has more leverage over New Zealand policy decisions than it does over Australian ones. (i.e. New Zealand = the softer target for PRC diplomacy.)

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

Re: Australia and China

Post by Sertorio » Sun May 30, 2021 11:23 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sun May 30, 2021 5:49 pm
Here is something I did not realise until now. It goes a long way towards explaining the New Zealand government's softer line on dealings with the PRC:
Australia exports of goods and services as percentage of GDP is 21.80% and imports of goods and services as percentage of GDP is 21.39%.
https://www.google.com/search?q=interna ... e&ie=UTF-8
Trade (% of GDP) in New Zealand was reported at 55.94 % in 2018, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators,

https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealan ... -data.html
Wow! It seems that New Zealand exceeds even Singapore when it comes to trading on global markets for the sake of economic solvency. By comparison Australia comes across as being comparatively more self-contained.

Now, what about percentage of dependence on the PRC for that trade?


Australia is one of the few developed nations on Earth that exports more into China than it imports from China. In the 2018-2019 fiscal year, China took in about 32.6% of all Australian exports
https://www.google.com/search?q=percent ... e&ie=UTF-8
Top export destinations of commodities from New Zealand in 2020: China with a share of 27%
https://www.google.com/search?q=Percent ... e&ie=UTF-8
Now, let's do some mathematics:

Australia relies on international trade for around 21.8% of our GDP of which 32.6% goes to China. So that is 32.6% of 21.8% = 7.10% of our GDP.

New Zealand
relies of international trade for 55.94% of their GDP of which 27% goes to China. So that is 27% of 55.94% of GDP = 15.10% of GDP.

In other words: while Australia's trade with China dwarfs that of New Zealand several times over in raw export dollar terms; when it comes to relative importance New Zealand is more than TWICE as dependent on access to the China market than is Australia.

New Zealand's softer approach to the PRC over matters like human rights abuses and PRC military outposts on artifical islands in the South China Sea can be thus easily explained in that context. By comparison Australia's has been much bolder because (as things have turned out) we can afford to be.

It also means potentially that the PRC has more leverage over New Zealand policy decisions than it does over Australian ones. (i.e. New Zealand = the softer target for PRC diplomacy.)
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...

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

Re: Australia and China

Post by neverfail » 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? :) )

Post Reply