China: now it is New Zealand's turn?

Discussion of current events
neverfail
Posts: 6748
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

China: now it is New Zealand's turn?

Post by neverfail » Sun May 02, 2021 8:22 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... rdern-says

New Zealand’s differences with China becoming ‘harder to reconcile’, Jacinda Ardern says
(Isn't everyone else, apart from North Korea and Russia, in the same boat?)
New Zealand’s differences with China are becoming “harder to reconcile,” the prime minister Jacinda Ardern has said, as she called on China “to act in the world in ways that are consistent with its responsibilities as a growing power”.
When dealing with Chinese matters, New Zealand's ardent (Ardern-t? :lol: :D ) Prime Minister should be careful about what she says - or else she may find New Zealand saddled with PRC sanctions on key exports.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4835
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: China: now it is New Zealand's turn?

Post by cassowary » Sun May 02, 2021 10:44 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 8:22 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... rdern-says

New Zealand’s differences with China becoming ‘harder to reconcile’, Jacinda Ardern says
(Isn't everyone else, apart from North Korea and Russia, in the same boat?)
New Zealand’s differences with China are becoming “harder to reconcile,” the prime minister Jacinda Ardern has said, as she called on China “to act in the world in ways that are consistent with its responsibilities as a growing power”.
When dealing with Chinese matters, New Zealand's ardent (Ardern-t? :lol: :D ) Prime Minister should be careful about what she says - or else she may find New Zealand saddled with PRC sanctions on key exports.
The CCP is incompatible with our way of life and government. Except maybe for Sertorio.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 4996
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: China: now it is New Zealand's turn?

Post by Sertorio » Mon May 03, 2021 3:06 am

neverfail wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 8:22 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... rdern-says

New Zealand’s differences with China becoming ‘harder to reconcile’, Jacinda Ardern says
(Isn't everyone else, apart from North Korea and Russia, in the same boat?)
New Zealand’s differences with China are becoming “harder to reconcile,” the prime minister Jacinda Ardern has said, as she called on China “to act in the world in ways that are consistent with its responsibilities as a growing power”.
When dealing with Chinese matters, New Zealand's ardent (Ardern-t? :lol: :D ) Prime Minister should be careful about what she says - or else she may find New Zealand saddled with PRC sanctions on key exports.
I have a suspicion Jacinda Ardern is being bullied by the other "four eyes"... She wants an accommodation with China but the other Anglos won't let her...

neverfail
Posts: 6748
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: China: now it is New Zealand's turn?

Post by neverfail » Mon May 03, 2021 3:40 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 10:44 pm
The CCP is incompatible with our way of life and government. Except maybe for Sertorio.
:lol: Well, we both know that our friend is a bit of an innocent. He has not had to live under terms and conditions laid down by the CCP or anythinhg close to that.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 5415
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: China: now it is New Zealand's turn?

Post by Doc » Mon May 03, 2021 6:07 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 8:22 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... rdern-says

New Zealand’s differences with China becoming ‘harder to reconcile’, Jacinda Ardern says
(Isn't everyone else, apart from North Korea and Russia, in the same boat?)
I think Putin is not all that pleased with XI and the CCP. Plus people tend to forget India is traditionally an ally of Russia.

Maybe we should start a betting pool on which side Sertorio will take if it comes down to Russia VS China :lol:
New Zealand’s differences with China are becoming “harder to reconcile,” the prime minister Jacinda Ardern has said, as she called on China “to act in the world in ways that are consistent with its responsibilities as a growing power”.
When dealing with Chinese matters, New Zealand's ardent (Ardern-t? :lol: :D ) Prime Minister should be careful about what she says - or else she may find New Zealand saddled with PRC sanctions on key exports.
The CCP's sop(ft) diplomacy is a pile of ashes. The only allies it has outside of Sertorio and large multi national corporations are allies in need.

BTW Whatever happened to all that Australian coal in ships off the Chinese coast that the CCP was refusing to take, while it was having power outages for lack of coal to burn in it huge number of coal fired electric generation plants?
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 6748
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: China: now it is New Zealand's turn?

Post by neverfail » Mon May 03, 2021 6:33 pm

Doc wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 6:07 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 8:22 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... rdern-says

New Zealand’s differences with China becoming ‘harder to reconcile’, Jacinda Ardern says
(Isn't everyone else, apart from North Korea and Russia, in the same boat?)
I think Putin is not all that pleased with XI and the CCP. Plus people tend to forget India is traditionally an ally of Russia
Good point Doc. But though Russia and China are not by any means "traditional" allies for one another the two find it very convenient to collaborate with and support one another in World affairs.

It has not come down to this yet: but were I in Putin's shoes and changing circumstances compelled me to make a clear choice between China and India as an ally it would make more sense for me to choose China and dispense with India than vice versa.
New Zealand’s differences with China are becoming “harder to reconcile,” the prime minister Jacinda Ardern has said, as she called on China “to act in the world in ways that are consistent with its responsibilities as a growing power”.
When dealing with Chinese matters, New Zealand's ardent (Ardern-t? :lol: :D ) Prime Minister should be careful about what she says - or else she may find New Zealand saddled with PRC sanctions on key exports.
The CCP's sop(ft) diplomacy is a pile of ashes. The only allies it has outside of Sertorio and large multi national corporations are allies in need.
Nations form alliances because of need. That is as true of Russia-China today as of any other.
BTW Whatever happened to all that Australian coal in ships off the Chinese coast that the CCP was refusing to take, while it was having power outages for lack of coal to burn in it huge number of coal fired electric generation plants?
They are still there anchored off the China coast - and I believe that a lot of the crewmen manning the vessels (mainly Indian and Filipino nationals) , for all intents and purposes trapped aboard ship, are by now suffering mental health issues as a consequence.

neverfail
Posts: 6748
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: China: now it is New Zealand's turn?

Post by neverfail » Mon May 03, 2021 7:40 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 3:06 am
I have a suspicion Jacinda Ardern is being bullied by the other "four eyes"... She wants an accommodation with China but the other Anglos won't let her...
You don't know either New Zealand or its very proud, highly independent people.

Did you know that in 1986 there was a serious rift between NZ and the USA over the issue of nuclear armed and powered ships retaining access to New Zeanand ports? The US all but expelled NZ from the trilateral alliance with the United States that NZ was part of.

A Labour government headed by a man named David Lange (pron. Long-ee) won their election that year and Lange immediately got his government to prepare legislation outlawing visits to NZ seaports by nuclear armed and/or powered ships. The US took exception to this move since they had a policy of not identifying any of their navy vessels as nuclear or not (to make it harder for Soviet military intelligence to pinpoint the US navy vessels likely to be carrying nuclear warheads). It made it impossible for ships of the US navy to any longer pay courtesy calls to NZ ports.

There is not the slightest evidence that Lange's move was anti-American - just anti nuclear. Lange was a devout Methodist who viewed his own mission (and that of his church) to build the new Jerusalem here on earth and ridding the World of nuclear weapons as a building block in fulfilment of that mission. In addition Lange had a large following of Maori and other Polynesian voters in his constituency. Regardless of what Pacific islands they eminate from Polynesians are universally fearful of nuclear power and anything to do with it so Lange's move was very popular with this section of his voter support base.

In Australia the Hawke government (also a Labor government) took a very dim view of the Lange anti-nuclear initiave - Hawke on at least one occasion caught by the TV news cameras railing against it. Why were the NZ and Australian responses so different? In NZ Lange was (and still is) regarded by his countrymen as something of a national hero for standing up to those damned Yanks: here in Australia he was more commonly considered a bloody fool for throwing into jeopardy the defence security of this entire region.

The reason (as a newspaper report/analysis I read at the time explained) was because the alliance with the United States was (and had never been) seen the same way in the two countries. The United Kingdom, not the United States, had been the traditional ally and patron/backer of New Zealand.

I recall during my first visit to New Zealand in 1968 getting into conversation with a middle aged Kiwi women who (along with a Canadian visitor staying at the same boarding house) who expressed with bemusement how her country had long been an ally of Britain. " but we seem to be going more with the United States now". She had not the least comprehension as to how global power had changed since the vanished days when Britaninia ruled the waves. This lady was at an age at which I estimated that during the Second World War she would have been aged in her late teens or early 20's. In Australia there could not have been even one woman (or man) of that age who would have been in any doubt as to why, post WW2, her/his country had entered into an alliance with the US.

The Anzus pact was apparently viewed in NZ only as a short-term expedient for the duration of the Cold War. By 1986 with Gorbachev in charge of the USSR that decades long standoff between the superpowers was clearly on the wane - so some of them over in NZ must have concluded that the alliance was by then superceded by the changing course of World events and so NZ could safely dispense with it. What Lange (and similarly like-minded Kiwis) did not comprehend was that in Australia the alliance was viewed as a centrepiece to a whole web of ties, cultural economic and political, that an unbroken succession of Austrlian governments had energetically been building with the United States over all the decades since the end of the Second World War and was meant to last for well beyond the end of the Cold War.

In light of the above past precedent re. Lange and his defiance of the United States with his anti-nuclear legislation: do you really believe that any NZ Prime Minister would be cowed by US (or other Anglo) pressure in the way you suggest, Sertorio?

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 3219
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: China: now it is New Zealand's turn?

Post by Milo » Tue May 04, 2021 12:09 pm

neverfail wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 7:40 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 3:06 am
I have a suspicion Jacinda Ardern is being bullied by the other "four eyes"... She wants an accommodation with China but the other Anglos won't let her...
You don't know either New Zealand or its very proud, highly independent people.

Did you know that in 1986 there was a serious rift between NZ and the USA over the issue of nuclear armed and powered ships retaining access to New Zeanand ports? The US all but expelled NZ from the trilateral alliance with the United States that NZ was part of.

A Labour government headed by a man named David Lange (pron. Long-ee) won their election that year and Lange immediately got his government to prepare legislation outlawing visits to NZ seaports by nuclear armed and/or powered ships. The US took exception to this move since they had a policy of not identifying any of their navy vessels as nuclear or not (to make it harder for Soviet military intelligence to pinpoint the US navy vessels likely to be carrying nuclear warheads). It made it impossible for ships of the US navy to any longer pay courtesy calls to NZ ports.

There is not the slightest evidence that Lange's move was anti-American - just anti nuclear. Lange was a devout Methodist who viewed his own mission (and that of his church) to build the new Jerusalem here on earth and ridding the World of nuclear weapons as a building block in fulfilment of that mission. In addition Lange had a large following of Maori and other Polynesian voters in his constituency. Regardless of what Pacific islands they eminate from Polynesians are universally fearful of nuclear power and anything to do with it so Lange's move was very popular with this section of his voter support base.

In Australia the Hawke government (also a Labor government) took a very dim view of the Lange anti-nuclear initiave - Hawke on at least one occasion caught by the TV news cameras railing against it. Why were the NZ and Australian responses so different? In NZ Lange was (and still is) regarded by his countrymen as something of a national hero for standing up to those damned Yanks: here in Australia he was more commonly considered a bloody fool for throwing into jeopardy the defence security of this entire region.

The reason (as a newspaper report/analysis I read at the time explained) was because the alliance with the United States was (and had never been) seen the same way in the two countries. The United Kingdom, not the United States, had been the traditional ally and patron/backer of New Zealand.

I recall during my first visit to New Zealand in 1968 getting into conversation with a middle aged Kiwi women who (along with a Canadian visitor staying at the same boarding house) who expressed with bemusement how her country had long been an ally of Britain. " but we seem to be going more with the United States now". She had not the least comprehension as to how global power had changed since the vanished days when Britaninia ruled the waves. This lady was at an age at which I estimated that during the Second World War she would have been aged in her late teens or early 20's. In Australia there could not have been even one woman (or man) of that age who would have been in any doubt as to why, post WW2, her/his country had entered into an alliance with the US.

The Anzus pact was apparently viewed in NZ only as a short-term expedient for the duration of the Cold War. By 1986 with Gorbachev in charge of the USSR that decades long standoff between the superpowers was clearly on the wane - so some of them over in NZ must have concluded that the alliance was by then superceded by the changing course of World events and so NZ could safely dispense with it. What Lange (and similarly like-minded Kiwis) did not comprehend was that in Australia the alliance was viewed as a centrepiece to a whole web of ties, cultural economic and political, that an unbroken succession of Austrlian governments had energetically been building with the United States over all the decades since the end of the Second World War and was meant to last for well beyond the end of the Cold War.

In light of the above past precedent re. Lange and his defiance of the United States with his anti-nuclear legislation: do you really believe that any NZ Prime Minister would be cowed by US (or other Anglo) pressure in the way you suggest, Sertorio?
According to Sertorio, everyone wants to leave NATO, the southern countries of Europe all want to leave the EU, nobody wants to trade in US dollars, and Syrians all love Assad. Trouble is, the world actually according to any of those things, or even talking about them in any significant way.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 4996
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: China: now it is New Zealand's turn?

Post by Sertorio » Tue May 04, 2021 12:18 pm

Milo wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 12:09 pm

According to Sertorio, everyone wants to leave NATO, the southern countries of Europe all want to leave the EU, nobody wants to trade in US dollars, and Syrians all love Assad. Trouble is, the world actually according to any of those things, or even talking about them in any significant way.
You should read my posts more carefully. In my opinion, not everyone WANTS to leave NATO, but everyone SHOULD WANT to leave NATO. Southern countries DO NOT want to leave the EU, but some of them would want the EU to be organized differently. SOME people no longer wish to trade in US dollars. A MAJORITY of Syrians want Assad to remain President of Syria. All of which is factual and true...

neverfail
Posts: 6748
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: China: now it is New Zealand's turn?

Post by neverfail » Tue May 04, 2021 4:19 pm

Milo wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 12:09 pm
According to Sertorio, everyone wants to leave NATO, the southern countries of Europe all want to leave the EU, nobody wants to trade in US dollars, and Syrians all love Assad. Trouble is, the world actually according to any of those things, or even talking about them in any significant way.
:lol: Well, a joint European defence effort like NATO seems to make a lot more sense and has to be far cheaper than each European state going its own way in defence policy. Further it avoids the menace of arms races between European states - for centuries prior to WW2 the bane of Europe.

The EU? As a trading block I am sure that every one of the member states are now richer than they were before they joined :D . As the foundations of a politically united Europe :roll: does it really bear thinking about?

Post Reply