 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
|
|
|
 |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Here are his views in Dec last year. I don't see anything here that differs from my own views:
| Quote: | Australia’s China Problem
Dec 3, 2020
GARETH EVANS
There are many legitimate concerns about China’s behavior, including its defiance of international law in the South China Sea, domestic violations of human rights, and discriminatory and overprotective trade and industrial policies. But Australia’s huge economic dependence on China obliges it to get along with its larger neighbor.
MELBOURNE – Australia’s China problem – official contacts frozen and many of our exports under siege – is now gaining attention far beyond our shores. Much of the world, given stark evidence of the economic havoc that China’s displeasure can wreak, and of the ugly depths to which its “wolf warrior diplomacy” can descend, is trying to understand both how we fell into this hole, and whether we can climb out of it with our dignity intact.
How have Australia’s relations with China deteriorated so spectacularly? The short answer is that, although the most recent escalations have come from the Chinese side, for several years Australia has not properly managed the need both to get along with China and to stand up to it. As Geoff Raby, a former Australian ambassador to China, has argued, we have failed to devise a middle way between sycophancy and hostility. Or, to cite the immortal wisdom of the 1930s Scottish labor leader Jimmy Maxton: “If you can’t ride two horses at once, you shouldn’t be in the bloody circus.”
Australia’s huge economic dependence on China – the market for more than one-third of our exports, far more than the United States or any European country – gives us no choice but to get along with our larger regional neighbor. It is fanciful to think we can find alternative markets on that scale any time soon, or perhaps ever.
But, as a self-respecting sovereign country committed to a decent, rules-based international order, nor can we simply roll over when confronted with many aspects of China’s behavior. These include its defiance of international law in the South China Sea, egregious domestic violations of human rights in Xinjiang (and in the case of Hong Kong, of treaty obligations as well), discriminatory and overprotective trade and industrial policies, periodic cyberattacks, and attempts to exercise undue influence over Australia’s governing institutions. Most recently and extraordinarily, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian tweeted a fake image of an Australian soldier murdering an Afghan child.
On these issues, the question is not whether Australia should stand up to China, but how. Unfortunately, our recent responses to official Chinese behavior have made us extremely vulnerable – much more so than other regional powers such as Japan, which have been performing a similarly tricky balancing act vis-à-vis China.
One error is what the French statesman Talleyrand once described as “excessive zeal” – evident in the strident, tone-deaf language used by then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull when he introduced legislation targeting undue Chinese influence in 2017. There has also been too much over-the-top behavior, such as the June 2020 police and security-service raids on the homes of Chinese journalists living in Australia. And there has been too much outright offensiveness on the part of self-described parliamentary “Wolverines,” who have channeled US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s anti-communist rhetoric and tended to demonize our hugely valuable Chinese-Australian community.
In addition, Australia has failed to consider fully the risks of not only irritating but also hurting China, as we have done by not just joining but leading international efforts to shut out the telecommunications firm Huawei and introducing tough foreign-investment restrictions and foreign-influence laws. For a medium-size, middleweight, and highly economically vulnerable country, caution is sometimes the better part of valor. China needs Australia’s iron ore, but it can comfortably live without our coal, wine, food, and student and tourist destinations.
Moreover, many of Australia’s recent stands – in particular our operationally and diplomatically ill-prepared braying for an inquiry into China’s COVID-19 response – have fueled the narrative that we are a US “deputy sheriff.” This has left Australia – a far easier target than America – exposed to even heavier Chinese counter-punching.
Analysis of the problem points the way to the solution, for both Australia and others whom China might similarly target. Getting out of the hole will not be quick or easy, but it can be done, by following five guidelines.
First and foremost, Australian leaders need to stop digging and not add any more grounds for complaint to those already on China’s charge sheet. That does not mean backing off on issues like the South China Sea, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Nor does it entail reversing our failure to curb China-unfriendly press comment (though some self-restraint from the media would be a consummation devoutly to be wished). But it does mean thinking carefully about whether it would be wise to introduce even more legislation inhibiting Chinese investment and partnerships with China by universities and state governments.
Second, we must moderate our official language, as Prime Minister Scott Morrison and some of his senior ministers have belatedly started to do. This should include emphasizing the positives in the Australia-China relationship, and remembering that, in diplomacy, words are bullets – even when our criticism of Chinese behavior is entirely legitimate.
Third, the optics of independence are vital. Our leaders should make it absolutely clear that any negative Australian position on China reflects our own national judgment and not the guidance of imperial masters in Washington, DC. |
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-china-strategy-australia-needs-by-gareth-evans-2020-12
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Last edited by pietillidie on Tue May 11, 2021 7:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Here are his views on Taiwan and war nonsense yesterday:
| Quote: | Talking up war over Taiwan flouts reason, fact, judgment and Australia’s national interest
It is never wise, in foreign affairs and defence policymaking, for emotion to trump reason, for politics to trump objectivity, or for sensitive judgment calls on major national interest issues to be made before they have to be. Talking up, as so many now are, the prospect of war with China — with Taiwan as the likely trigger point — runs the risk of offending all three prescriptions.
Before pounding more rhetorical drums, and producing ever more strident legislative, executive, diplomatic and military responses, Australia’s Morrison government, and those in the commentariat who sail with it, need a reality check. They need to address the key factors in play here — focusing on the world as it is, not as they would ideally like it to be, or irrationally fear that it might be – as summarised in the following checklist.
First, China’s new assertiveness under President Xi Jinping is a given. China makes no secret of its ambition to match the United States as a global player, to carve out its own strategic space in the Western Pacific, and to become a regional hegemon to which all its neighbours pay deference. But Beijing also fully understands, and wants to avoid, the catastrophic horror and misery its people would suffer in any major modern war. And there is no evidence — South China Sea waters and some border nibbles apart — that it has any desire to acquire outright any other sovereign state’s territory. Of course, states must prepare for possible war based on potential adversaries’ capabilities, not their known or assumed intent. For the West to take that further, and prematurely assume Chinese intent to be generally malign, risks being dangerously self-fulfilling.
Second, Taiwan is a special case. Whether comfortable to acknowledge or not, it is not a sovereign independent state like any other. For most of its history it has been, and has been seen to be — including by itself — part of a single China. It prefers now to be independent, but does not formally claim to be, and is not recognised as such by more than a handful of states. It would be morally repugnant and reputationally destructive for China to reunify by force this freestanding, thriving democracy. But if it does, the issues are not, and will not seem to most of the world, identical to those involved in, say, Iraq’s invasion of sovereign Kuwait.
Third, that said, such forceful action is not inevitable. While Xi’s commitment to reunification is absolute, and he would no doubt want to achieve this in some form during his tenure, no Chinese political or military preparations suggest an invasion is remotely imminent. If Xi’s patience does run out and he chooses to force the issue, it is far more likely — given the difficulties of mounting any cross-water invasion and the risks of triggering wider war — that it will be by ‘all measures short of war’. Bad enough, but not the full kinetic repertoire.
Fourth, diplomacy still has a chance. It is not to be assumed that China’s patience — which has long been legendary — will run out any time soon. The ‘delicate balance of ambiguities’ of the One-China policy has long served everyone’s interests and, if cooler heads prevail, can do so for a good while yet. Various formulae are available which could inch forward the unification objective in ways that both sides could live with — objectively, if not now politically or emotionally. After Beijing’s treatment of Hong Kong it is not possible to contemplate ‘one country, two systems’. But viable alternatives include the essentially symbolic concept of ‘Greater Chinese Union’, which Linda Jakobson and I proposed in a 2004 International Crisis Group report.
Fifth, there is a rather compelling imperative to avoid, for the United States as for China, a war one may not win. China’s close-in military and cyber capability means that it could probably now neutralise any attempted localised US intervention. If that conflict escalated to all-out war, the United States would likely ultimately prevail, but at incalculably horrendous cost. Washington is under pressure from some quarters to make a completely unambiguous commitment to fight for Taiwan — to save for the West not only its political system but its microchips. Such clarity might send a strong deterrent signal. But it might also be seen as a provocation demanding a strong response. Better, perhaps, just to go on heavily arming Taiwan, enabling it to aggressively defend itself in ways that would very seriously complicate Beijing’s invasion option.
Finally, if fighting for Taiwan is a hard call for the United States to make, it is harder still for countries like Australia to contemplate. Australia has little or no capacity to influence the outcome, but a great capacity to suffer if drawn into war at any level. Alexander Downer was right to say, as Australian foreign minister in 2004, that on Taiwan the ANZUS Treaty does not apply. The only rationale for joining the United States in another military adventure which is at best questionable and at worst utterly misguided is to buy future American military support in the event of Australia having an existential crisis of its own. But if Canberra hasn’t learned by now that such support will only be forthcoming if the president of the day — who could be another Trump — decides this serves America’s own interests, it hasn’t been paying attention.
Every country must give primacy to its own national interests — which include not only security and prosperity, but being and been seen to be a good international citizen. For Australia, making clear a willingness to fight for democratic Taiwan in its hour of need might advance the third, but would manifestly prejudice the first two. As being Foreign Minister constantly taught me, sometimes idealists have no choice but to be pragmatic.
Gareth Evans is Distinguished Honorary Professor at the Australian National University. He was Australian Foreign Minister 1988-96 and President of the International Crisis Group 2000-09.
This article was published in East Asia Forum on 9 May 2021. The article was also published in Australian Financial Review on 10 May 2021 as 'Talk of war that superpowers don't want is not in our national interest'. |
https://www.gevans.org/opeds/oped230.html
https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/05/09/talking-up-war-over-taiwan-flouts-reason-fact-judgment-and-australias-national-interest/
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Last edited by pietillidie on Tue May 11, 2021 7:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | ^Paywalled Australian article is his? |
No, I meant 5FTWOD comment.
This relates to the paywalled article. https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6253431999001
<Snip - let's just play the ball, please. Thanks - Pies4shaw for BBMods>
I was, the man was in the road. Would you rather I report each instance of bullshit trolling or can we behave and be treated like adults?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Last edited by stui magpie on Tue May 11, 2021 8:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | | And for some more context, this time relevant, it escaped from China, not from the USA, despite the bullshit the CCP spun in the initial stages on that issue. |
Ah, I didn't quite make the connection that this story was being cynically used to push the "COVID-19 as an act of biological warfare" conspiracy theory. Please carry on.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Pi
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Location: SA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Bio weapons have been going on since the first plague infected corpse was lobbed over a city wall during a siege at Syracuse in 212 AD probably earlier.
We should not be surprised if something leaked out of a lab; anything from cross contamination of lab animals to bio weapons experiments gone wrong. None of it needs to be a moustache twirling conspiracy theory, you can easily put it down to incompetence and corruption followed up with lies and deceit.
Even with the limited investigation the WHO was allowed to do the possibility remains of a leak from a bio lab.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00865-8
Even now the Chinese government still believes it can treat the rest of the world like it treats its own people.
_________________
Pi = Infinite = Collingwood = Always
Floreat Pica |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | | And for some more context, this time relevant, it escaped from China, not from the USA, despite the bullshit the CCP spun in the initial stages on that issue. |
Ah, I didn't quite make the connection that this story was being cynically used to push the "COVID-19 as an act of biological warfare" conspiracy theory. Please carry on. |
That wasn't the point of my post and you know it.
Regardless of whether covid came from an escape from a lab (whether it was a biological warfare research project or not) or from bat sauce on their cat burgers, it came from China.
Acting as an apologist for China and saying "look over there at what the USA is doing" doesn't provide any context at all. It's just a diversion.
FWIW (which is nothing) it's my view that covid did come from the lab in Wuhan. That is the most logical conclusion to reach. Whether the research being done there was for biological warfare is another question. Given the regime there is built upon corruption, theft, genocide and generally not being very nice people, leads many people to form a view as to what was occurring there and why. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pi wrote: | | We should not be surprised if something leaked out of a lab; anything from cross contamination of lab animals to bio weapons experiments gone wrong. None of it needs to be a moustache twirling conspiracy theory, you can easily put it down to incompetence and corruption followed up with lies and deceit. |
And yet it is, because suggestion without probability is conspiracy ipso facto. <snip>
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Pi
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Location: SA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
There is plenty of probability, it would be irrational to suggest otherwise.
_________________
Pi = Infinite = Collingwood = Always
Floreat Pica |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | Pi wrote: | | We should not be surprised if something leaked out of a lab; anything from cross contamination of lab animals to bio weapons experiments gone wrong. None of it needs to be a moustache twirling conspiracy theory, you can easily put it down to incompetence and corruption followed up with lies and deceit. |
And yet it is, because suggestion without probability is conspiracy ipso facto. Pi is indeed an irrational number. |
What is irrational is your comment.
Get yourself a dictionary and find out what a conspiracy is. Once you have done that, find out what a conspiracy theory is.
PS. You have also used ipso facto in an incorrect context. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | | FWIW (which is nothing) it's my view that covid did come from the lab in Wuhan. That is the most logical conclusion to reach. |
Logical? I look forward to you reasoning through the science for us in the first lesson.
What is it with people insisting they need to have a view on things they know nothing about? Or is this like the mining industry's 'view' on global warming?
It's tiring pointing out the obvious whenever the latest hysteria directed at some maligned group or entity drives people to pretend they're being 'logical'. Here's to more wasted hours dealing with the latest impulsive cottage industry driving the nation's geniuses to shake their fists and wreck things.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | Pi wrote: | | We should not be surprised if something leaked out of a lab; anything from cross contamination of lab animals to bio weapons experiments gone wrong. None of it needs to be a moustache twirling conspiracy theory, you can easily put it down to incompetence and corruption followed up with lies and deceit. |
And yet it is, because suggestion without probability is conspiracy ipso facto. Pi is indeed an irrational number. |
What is irrational is your comment.
Get yourself a dictionary and find out what a conspiracy is. Once you have done that, find out what a conspiracy theory is.
PS. You have also used ipso facto in an incorrect context. |
Um. No. <snip – let's try not to get into personal commentary about other posters, please. Thanks, David for BBMods.>
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pi wrote: | ^
There is plenty of probability, it would be irrational to suggest otherwise. |
That's a blinder. You've merely restated the conspiracy with a new weasel phrase to avoid defining and quantifying anything. As I say, conspiracy ipso facto.
At least global warming deniers let paid shills deliver the dirty package rather than soiling their own hands with the stuff.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Pi
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Location: SA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
