
Now that it’s become clear China was deliberately targeting Australian journalists as some sort of tit-for-tat in the escalating diplomatic stoush between the two countries, perhaps it’s time to consider some reciprocity.
It’s not just the AFR’s Mike Smith and the ABC’s Bill Birtles who were targeted and driven from the country. The new ABC bureau chief-in-waiting Sarah Ferguson and Nine’s China correspondent-in-waiting Eryk Bagshaw have been cooling their heels for 10 and eight months respectively, awaiting their visas.
The ABC told Crikey last night that it was continuing to pursue a visa for Ferguson but would not comment on how many local Chinese it has working in its Beijing bureau or whether they were still being paid or on leave.
Throwing some mud in the water, the Chinese Communist Party’s hyperbolic, nationalist tabloid Global Times ran an unsourced story claiming that Australian security operatives had raided the offices of Chinese journalists in Australia.
Get Crikey FREE to your inbox every weekday morning with the Crikey Worm.

“Staff from the Australian intelligence agency recently raided the residences of Chinese journalists in Australia, and questioned them, seized their computers and smartphones, and asked them not to report the incident, the Global Times wrote, citing an unnamed source and describing it as a “serious political incident”.
Multiple Chinese media sources now claim the ASIO raided four Chinese journalists in Australia.
Given the focus on Chinese espionage in Australia at the moment this may be true — and could possibly tip the problem on its head — but the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade would not confirm or deny it.
Dozens of Chinese journalists are working in Australia
Australia is home to dozens of journalists and other staff working for China’s sprawling state-run news organisations, the subject of a multibillion-dollar global push for so-called soft power by Beijing.
No one seems to know exactly what the numbers are, and if DFAT does know — and that’s unlikely — it’s not saying. But the state-owned news wire Xinhua and the Communist Party-controlled publications like China Daily, People’s Daily and Global Times all have well-staffed offices around Australia.
One Canberra insider said they could count at least 30 frontline journalists, a number than would at least double if editors, translators, production and support staff were added.
Reciprocal action would be to put pressure on some journalists, or even demand that Australia be able to send to China as many Chinese journalists are in Australia.
The long-held problem with reciprocity is ceding the moral high ground — in Australia there is a free and open press that’s not restricted or required to register for.
And that was pretty much Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne’s response yesterday: “That is not how Australia operates. Australia operates according to law and in our national interests. And unless individuals are breaching laws in Australia, then that would not be an approach we would take. At this point that is our consistent view.”
This in sharp contrast to China where only a handful of private news media companies operate outside social media, most notably in the business and finance sector. All media is heavily policed and Chinese journalists are regularly detained, disappeared or imprisoned.
The number of international media representatives is heavily restricted to about 600, almost exclusively in Beijing and Shanghai but with a few outlying bureaus in Guangzhou and some second-tier cities for Hong Kong, Japanese and Korean publications.
The US has done what Australia will not
The United States has recently done what Payne will not (for now). After China expelled three US journalists in February, Washington designated four Chinese media agencies as foreign missions and has since designated three more. The new designation affects all the major Chinese outlets in Australia.
But the focus of Chinese authorities remains unclear: Australian citizens who are journalists or Australian news outlets? The detention of Australian-Chinese CGTN news anchor Cheng Lei a week ago adds some confusion.
Smith and Birtles have said they were questioned about her — despite only a passing or casual acquaintance — rather than much about their own reporting. Other Australian journalists in Beijing who know Cheng are understood to have not been visited by police so far.
Chinese authorities confirmed last night that Cheng was being held for “criminal activity endangering national security”.
There is a broader crackdown on foreign media under way: the Foreign Correspondents Club of Beijing said 17 foreign journalists had been expelled or not had their work permits renewed this year. China ranks 177 out of 180 countries on the Reporters Without Borders press freedom index.
There are some prominent Australian journalists in the mainland, including former ABC bureau chief Stephen McDonnell, now with the BBC, and a number of other Australians who work for Chinese state-run media — including at CGTN — have been warned by Payne to tread carefully.
There are also a handful or two Australians working for international news wires and the South China Morning Post, and a smattering of freelancers in Hong Kong. Already some Hong Kong journalists have run into trouble renewing their visas and Birtles said he was questioned about Hong Kong sources.
It is unlikely this will be the end of Beijing’s foreign media purge. Reports are circulating that US nationals for major outlets have had early problems renewing their visas.
From Australia’s point of view, with security and defence forces now paramount in Canberra, it remains to be seen how long Payne can maintain the moral high ground on reciprocity — or indeed if she should.
Leave a comment
The worlds media has been weaponised, no sympathy from me.
Reciprocity should be the basis of dealings with all countries. If an Australian citizen cannot purchase property in country B , then citizens of country B should not be able to purchase property in Australia.Variations of this theme can apply where it is of benefit to Australia.
Bill W took the words out of my mouth. If Australia has zero journalists in China, time to pack your bags for the Chinese journalists over here. It is very sad because both countries have much to gain from friendship and cooperation, but whilst the current regime practises aggression, then we must do likewise.
Great idea, let’s be a bunch of petty thugs too. Who needs self respect, anyway?
I’ve read your article twice, Michael, and there isn’t a trace of the Chinese persspective there at all. What is there is a armchair assessment of “gee they are turning nasty so we had better look out”.
The remarks that were made by Australia (i.e. the government) are taken seriously by Asians; that is Asian governmens and companies and to this end it is rather imporant to “mean what we say” and NOT change it a year or two hence with the assumption that the past was “yesterday”. It is on this basis that Trump has lost all creditability and the lacky-ism that Australai has displayed has palced Australia into the same boat – along with similar contradictory comments. An enquiry, motivated entirely by ego, into Covid-19 : Geesus!
I met only a few western journalists during my decade in the PRC and it was only those from Europe that had any idea at all. With the excepton of one, the English speaking journos were (as Kingsley Amis would put it) utter f. fools. Perhaps I didn’t have the opportunity to meet any that did have a clue but there it is. However, I conjecture that the expulsions with NOT be noticed in Australia; i.e. the same drivel will serve as news. It could have been different. ho hum.
So what is the “Chinese Perspective” of which you speak? Which particular Chinese did you get it from?
In my experience you will learn much more about what people really think from what they do not what they say. What Chinese people outside of the party elites say about anything is quite irrelevant. They don’t know what the elites are up to and they simply speak the propaganda that they have been taught and promuilgated to them through their state owned media. This is no different from the liberal democracies like ours where the corporate media provide exactly the same service to their own governments, but it is payed for by advertising.
The Chinese elites have been doing the following over the past forty years:
The notion that Chinese elites want to be our friends is just naive.
China for all of it’s history has been isolationist. In the heyday of its empires the lesser satellite powers like Vietnam, Japan et al had to kowtow to the the Chinese Emperors and that is exactly what the Chinese elites want now. They have always thought they were the superior race in Asia and are determined now to prove it. They are not going to let the US, Australia or any other country stop them.
I don’t feel anger or disappointment or any other emotion about it. They are a large country of 9,444,292 square km. Larger than the US and Australia and they have 1.4 Billion people. No one should get sentimental or friendly with a 1.4 Billion pound gorilla. Its just silly.
Our interest does not intersect with theirs. If a 1.4 Billion pound gorilla exists then you have to treat it with caution and realism, not wooly minded stuff like being friends with it. The Chinese don’t want friends: At the moment they aren’t quite ready to ditch the ones they nominally have, but in the long term they don’t want to need any friends and as such they are doing everything they can to make friendships irrelevant to them. And by long term I’m talking five to ten years.
And once they ditch all their friends and they become the hegemonic empire of Asia that they are aiming for they won’t ask for something from a country like Australia. They will will simply take it.
That’s how hegemonic powers operate, particularly ones that are run by nasty, totalitarian dictatorships, with lots of nuclear missiles and a very large army.
Remember, Hitler didn’t ask. he just invaded Czechoslovakia!
And no I’m not anti-Chinese. The ordinary people of China are just like the ordinary people here. They wouldn’t deram of doing anything nasty. But it’s not those people who run China.
It’s not the people of countries that cause wars, it’s always their despotic and ambitious leaders.
Thanks indeed for the questions Robert and for the format – which make a reply easier and more effective. You may have picked up from elsewhere that I have lived and worked in both the USA and the PRC (China) plus other countries; bit of a nomad actually but I have had a number of careers.
> So what is the “Chinese Perspective” of which you
> speak? Which particular Chinese did you get it from?
I have recommended to the Crikey readership (more than once) BOTH volumes of Xi Jinping “The Governance of China”. The volumes are available in a number of languages and may be obtained in Australia. I have given copies to people etc. Another good book is Cabestan, “China Tomorrow”. The book begins well but it is a tad Fukuyama-ish towards the end. However, the book is informative;
conclusions aside. I am able to offer specific titles on specific matters.
I spent a decade in the PRC, mostly in education (STEM) but also IT. I gave countless seminars to business and was invited to (equally) countless banquets. I met, and remain friends with, party members of quite a high rank. I have numerous friends in education and all manner of questions appear on my WeChat during weekends. Two antidotes to follow.
If the first three letters of a surname correspond to the foreigner being pursued by the police one may expect a tap on the door 27/7. Such events occurred many times but the following saga occurred only once. A cop (one of three) decided to make himself at home in my apartment having satisfied himself that I was not the guy they were looking for. Having learned something of the culture I took it softly-softly and when the opportunity presented itself I phoned a friend and a major Party member and explained the situation.
I then passed the phone to the cop dozing on the couch. Overhearing the conversation, slightly, my friend had not issued six words (Mandarin obviously) before this guy was off the couch (it occurred so rapidly I didn’t actually see it) and was replying to her at attention. Leaving the apartment, he saw a sponge in the kitchen and gave the bench a quick sponge down on his way out.
The second antidote refers to a spot of pancreatitis. In a sentence, I was moved from #4 hospital (quite ok) to #1 hospital within an hour of a Chinese colleague phoning another major Party member (with whom I am also friends). As for contacts (there are more) I hope that overview satisfies you Robert.
> They don’t know what the elites are up to
With all due respect the remark is just silly (and a betrayal of ignorance). The day after Xi declared himself president for some time I took a taxi to somewhere. I forget the place but I do recall the taxi driver being ecstatic. The ‘average’ Russian does NOT need a lesson in media control anymore than the average Chinese national. Please read de Tocqueville as to ‘democracy’; no less relevant today!
> Suppressing domestic demand and wages to make
> China a cheap place to manufacture.
Absolutely not. You are quite incorrect there. There is more plastic in Asia (PRC + HK in particular) than anywhere. It is a feature for Chinese girls to buy stuff from Taobao or AliBaba or whatever during their lunch breaks and have the stuff delivered by the following morning.
When tourism returns, Robert, take a look at the place but also engage a guide or you will miss a good deal of what is just below the surface. The CBD of Beijing and Shanghai compare with any Australian capital city. Shenzhen is coming close.
As an aside prices increased five fold over a decade – which is actually quite rapid.
I pointed out (did you see it) that the domestic economy is quite strong and becoming stronger. The basic stuff is ‘farmed out’ to Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and Cambodia in that order.
“Buying US government bonds to the tune of around $1 trillion US Dollars so that they can and for all intents and purposes have destroyed US manufacturing”.
Are you really serious? Manufacturing in the USA fell over for the same reasons that it did in Australia. ALL 1st world countries have the ‘Tertiary’ or Service sector as the major sector nowadays. Look at any basic economic text. Similarly, it won’t recover even at the minimum wage – whatever Trump does.
However a major sell-off could destroy the world economy. Frankly, it is a topic in itself.
> Keeping their currency pegged to the $US so they
> remain artificially competitive.
True!
> Using selective enforcement of draconian laws to control
> the behavior of domestic and international companies.
Asians are quite law-abiding (ask an Australian taxi driver) and even in Vietnam (where I am now) the international companies follow the rules. There is nothing ‘draconian’ about it at all.
> Developing their manufacturing technology using the
> profits gained from the low wages of their workforce.
THAT differs from the WEST does it? I think the mode of production might be called capitalism even by someone such as your good self.
> Cosying up to japan and South Korea to get as much
> technology transfer as they can.
Just read the bio of (e.g.) Huawei. Then take a course in international technological innovation. Murdoch University (WA) had such a course; dunno now but you could look. Then you will have occasion to rewrite that sentence. I have mentioned major fields of LEADING Chinese research elsewhere that is common knowledge within the scientific community.
> Japan taught 124,436 Chinese student in 2019 not as
> high as ours
Similar (more actually) went to the USA. More stayed home. Over one million engineers graduated this year. Compare THAT with Australia! By 2025 the plan is for 3 million engineers. The top schools are well above (I do know) ANYTHING in Australia.
“Modernizing and expanding their military capability, particularly coastal defense and naval vessels that can be used to project power.”
Recruitment for the military occurs via video on subway trains. The Chinese navy controls everything from North Korea to the Middle East so, true, I suppose.
> Enhancing their surveillance (spying) on their own
> population
Ask Manning and Snowden about that activity for the USA. Been to any large UK city recently? The cameras are more common than birds.
> The notion that Chinese elites want to be our friends is just
> naive.
The friends of ‘Chinese elites’ are typically Harvard, Yale and Oxbridge graduates and Chinese at that. Diplomatic cooperation is possible.
> China for all of it’s history has been isolationist.
True – and a major point. China won’t fire the fist shot but it will finish the job if it ever starts. Vietnam and surrounds doesn’t count as aggression 1979, 1987-89.
> They have always thought they were the superior race in
> Asia and are determined now to prove it.
The last 40 years has ‘proved’ it! They don’t need to prove it. PRC influence is as obvious as hell in any 3rd world country (and the majority of 1st world countries for that matter).
> They are not going to let the US, Australia or any other
> country stop them.
True. The NEW order is that of the PRC – irrespective of how much Kissinger (World Order 2014) tried to talk the game up.
Please pass that (i.e your) point to Bernie and Michael because they are not listening to me.
> I don’t feel anger or disappointment or any other emotion
> about it.
Neither do I Robert. I take it as I take the weather.
> Our interest does not intersect with theirs.
Our interests VERY MUCH intersect with their interests but it seems that we will have to disagree.
> not wooly minded stuff like being friends with it.
Who said anything about friends? As you say : realism – very much so – I could not agree more. Small fish that hang around sharks ‘know’ what they are doing. The ‘art’ is to develop our (technological) interests in tandem with a major player.
> The Chinese don’t want friends
Depending upon the President (tearing up any number of [trade] treaties) neither do the USA. We ought to keep that in mind.
> That’s how hegemonic powers operate
The letters (and essays) of Lord Acton would be of interest to you among others. I mentioned Sir Percy Spender recently
> it’s not those people who run China.
All countries have their Duttons.
> It’s not the people of countries that cause wars, it’s always their despotic and ambitious leaders.
The best example being the disaffected grand kids of Queen Victoria.
Just a point Robert. The life of EVERY person (1.4 billion) is materially better each 12 months; some more than others (agreed) but as Cabestan (noted above) puts it “In general, Chinese people support the PRC political system and recognise the legitimacy of the established institutions (the Party, NPC and PLA)”. That is quite a call. The nationalism is quite genuine.
More could be said. Happy to clarify any of the above. I particularly appreciate you taking the effort to try to refute me because I have not the least doubt that your perspective accords with the perspective of the ‘average’ Oz and possibly Keane and Sainsbury.
Thankyou for your comprehensive reply.
Just to tidy up one issue I am not comparing China on a less favourable basis than the West.
Your comment:
“THAT differs from the WEST does it? I think the mode of production might be called capitalism even by someone such as your good self. “
I didn’t compare China with the West anywhere in my reply.
I am not trying to make out China to be the bad guys, I lost all of my illusions about the US when I started reading about their appalling record in South American, their genocide of their native population an all of the other atrocities they have committed during their short history. Likewise I don’t have any illusions about Australia. As I said and I stand by this, it is the elites of countries who start wars and carry out the atrocities not the people.
In my view the US is probably worse than China in most respects. At least the Chinese don’t invade countries every couple of weeks and they are improving the lives of most Chinese, whereas the median income of the US worker has declined in real terms since the mid seventies.
In fact I am not a capitalist and I don’t believe that China is capitalist either. They followed an economic model more aligned with Japan. To explain it a comparison with the Laissez-faire US and the soviet union:
Economic Planning (ie what is to be done)
Execution of Plans: (Who does the work)
Now I’m sure you will find anecdotes which don’t meet these categories, but since WWII that’s how it has happened.
I will try and get a copy of the books you recommended, but I will also point out that just because a leader writes a book it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are being completely or even slightly candid about their intentions and intentions change over time with changing circumstances.
You might be able to help me out with Xi here.
WHAT THE CHINESE ELITES ARE UP TO
You may have a lot of high ranking party member friends, but, somehow I doubt that you have party friends who are at the very top level of government who are responsible for the development of the strategic plans for the Chinese Economy, Foreign Affairs and Military. These plans are always developed under high levels of secrecy by all countries. The American people of the US knew nothing of the Grand Area Doctrine developed by George Kennan et al until the documents were released under the thirty year rule. The Grand Area Doctrine affected virtually every country in the Wold (apart from China who threw the Yanks out when they Yanks tried to invade at the end of WWII) There are 91 million Chinese Communist Party members and only a few hundred would have the details of those plans and they would be under pain of death if they spoke about them.
I don’t understand what point you were trying to make about the police. So I can’t comment on that.
SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT
If you were arguing against the notion of selective enforcement then I would ask you to refer to Eamonn Fingleton who explains the process quite well. The fact that 99.9% of prosecutions in China result in convictions is another interesting aspect of the selective enforcement approach. You will find that Japan has the same conviction rate. The high rates of conviction in both of these jurisdictions can possibly be explained by prosecutors only going forward with cases that are “water tight.”
This is particularly the case in Japan and it is difficult to know whether it’s the same in China. The separation of powers is somewhat of an anathema to single party government. As a consequence of this if the party wants to clamp down on someone then they are pretty well guaranteed of a conviction and everyone knows this.
In fact your anecdotes about you being able to influence the police through party members suggest that in China the separation of powers is something more honored in the breach than the observance. In Australian if the police turn up you would be phoning your lawyer not the local Liberal Party branch secretary.
If one looks at the death penalty, China puts to death thousands, but keeps the exact number secret. This would fulfill my proposition that Chinese law is quite draconian.
I can’t quite see how your taxi driver provides evidence contrary to my view that the Chinese people don’t know what the elites are up to. What’s your point. Taxi drivers often think they know lots about everything and are prepared to share their views with anyone captive in their taxi. Are you trying to tell me that this demonstrates that the detailed plans, policies and strategies of the Chinese Government are common knowledge held by the Chinese people?
I haven’t read Tocqueville but I have read Chomsky’s the Manufacturing of Consent so I do have an understanding that the major media is always in the service of the Government and the elites whichever country you wish to pick. Are you saying that the Chinese media is more transparent and candid than the media in the West?
What is the point about Russia?
Suppression of Demand
This I got from Eamon Fingleton. Now you haven’t provided any evidence that is beyond anecdotal on this. Your work appears to be in the rich “westernised” cities of China where in fact there is a burgeoning middle class.
But even though I don’t have a lot of time for economists particularly those from the Samuelson / Chicago School I still understand statistics.
Chinese spending on household consumption is about 37% of GDP. Australia’s is about 55%, the US its about 67%. Whether the Chinese have deliberately done this or not and I believe they have, their spending on consumption is about half that of the US. The trend in the China started in the high 50’s in the 1960’s and has been going down ever since. The US over the same period rose from around 60% to 68%.
Now this is quite counter intuitive. The Chinese have developed state of the art production facilities to produce more stuff more cheaply, but the consumption of this stuff by the Chinese people has gone down in proportion to the GDP. Yes people in the big cities are consuming more, but the rest of the Chinese on whose backs the middle class rest aren’t doing so well.
You talk about the “plastic” that the Chinese Girls are using, but how much of it is debit and how much is credit. Consumption in the US is underpinned by a huge private debt. Not the same in China where private debt is strictly controlled.
Chinese household debt statistics start in 1960 at around 10% of GDP,. The US at the time was 40%. The US debt now stands around 77% of GDP with the Chinese debt running at about 52 % with the average over the period being around 30%. The average debt of the US over the period from 2006 to 2018 is about 80%.
The increasing household debt in China is partly the Chinese Government’s response to the GFC and the reduction in demand from the US. I rest my case.
You say that prices have increased five-fold over the decade, but have Foxconn employees’ wages increased commensurately? Have they removed the nets from the dormitories yet?
Buying US Government Bonds.
You ask me whether I’m serious. I will tell you now that I don’t say such things flippantly about important issues. The reason American Manufacturing “fell over” as you put it, is not as most people like to think a natural inevitable act of nature like gravity or quantum mechanics. It was executed through by the choice of the US elites who hate the American working class, unions and Government regulation. I wont bang on about it, but I would refer you to a number of interesting documents on the topic:
The abandonment of manufacturing in America was a choice made by the people who owned America. The Chinese saw the opportunity and pounced. The Chinese have done everything they can to maintain this situation. The didn’t start it, but they have sustained it. The decimation of the working and middle class of the US as a consequence has given us Trump and the Christian Fascist (Pence) who are an important part of his base. I think that since Trump, the Chinese elites may well be asking themselves the question of whether getting all that you wish for is a such good thing.
The tertiary industry argument is one of the bromides given by the neo-liberal shills to mitigate the loss of working and middle class jobs in manufacturing. It’s bullshit. Software can be written anywhere. In fact I use software from a Company called Anywhere Software. The idea that China has underpinned our prosperity through mining coal and iron ore is another bromide. Mining employs about 2.9% of the Australian workforce, manufacturing accounts for twice that at 7%. The median income of Australian workers has been stagnant since the 80’s. In fact even the RBA keeps banging on about it. Tertiary industry such as universities have been artificially propped up by international students $9 billion per year, but how many people does it employ?
Where’s the value added? Digging up dirt or making something?
CURRENCY PEGGING
I’m pleased you recognize the Chinese strategy of pegging their currency to the US dollar as an “agreed” point
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
Looking at the history of the development of modern sophisticated economies is a good place to start here. Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations proposed the idea of free trade and the notion of comparative advantage where a country should only do the things that it has a competitive advantage in. Smith’s Advice is another one of those things more honored in the breach than the observance. If the US had have taken Smith’s advice then they would now be the farm of the world, producing cotton, maize, animal products and the like. Instead they ignored Smith as virtually all countries and capitalists have and behind a wall of terrifs they built what was a manufacturing juggernaut. Technology over this period of 150 years before WWII was much less complex and ubiquitous compared to now. So catching up with the UK which was the leader at the time wasn’t the task it would be today. But the US “stole” technology from wherever they could get it. Japan did the same. For example British sent a mission of aero-naval personnel to Japan with the result that Japan was able to build planes and ships the equal to or better than the allies.
I took your advice about the Huwayei Bio
Here is an excerpt:
Ren Zhengfei, a former deputy director of the People’s Liberation Army engineering corps, founded Huawei in 1987 in Shenzhen. The company reports that it had RMB 21,000 in registered capital at the time of its founding (about $5,000 at the time).[35]
Ren sought to reverse engineer foreign technologies with local researchers. At a time when all of China’s telecommunications technology was imported from abroad, Ren hoped to build a domestic Chinese telecommunication company that could compete with, and ultimately replace, foreign competitors.[36]
I put the paragraph in about the cosying up to Japan and South Korea not with the objective of denigrating China’s adoption of technology, but to point out that the East Asians contrary to what the US and Australian press likes to portray are cooperating in spades when it comes to technology. There is friction, but the relationships are basically cooperative.
Japan ultimately wants to get rid of the US from it’s shores. They hate the bases of which number over a dozen and they understand that China will be the hegemony of Asia. Culturally they have much more in common with China than the US. I don’t blame the Japanese for this as anyone who has read Chalmers Johnston’s writings on the egregious behaviours of the people stationed on these bases would agree that US bases aren’t a great idea.
China is sending its students all over the world to absorb every bit of knowledge they can. I see nothing wrong with this. It’s what every country should try to do. The reason to do it is to obvious and in the case of China which is geographically large and has a large number of people this is producing a country capable of if not world domination then, Asian domination, an Asia of which we are a part.
MILITARY MODERNIZATION AND POWER ROJECTION
You “suppose.”
Well I don’t suppose I know. China now has the second largest military budget after the US. $US250 billion compared to the US at $US990 Billion. (The US military spending is not $650 Billion as they like to promote because it doesn’t count nuclear weapons, the surveillance state or vetrans affairs.)
Chinese military spending has from 50 billion in 2007 to 250 billion now. Why? Has there been any huge increase in threats to China aver this period? Not that I can see. The money is being spent to put them on the same footing as the US, particularly in their sphere of influence. A case can be made that some of it is being used to control the South China Sea as this is a critical trade route for them. However using the duck analogy if it quacks like a duck… etc.
Another aspect of their military build-up is they want to get Taiwan back. At the moment the US military stands in their way. It won’t for much longer.
In the case of Honk Kong Deng Xiaoping threatened “China could seize Hong Kong in a day,” as former British prime minister Lady Thatcher has revealed in her memoirs.
The threat by the Chinese patriarch was contained in his famous warning that Beijing might take back the territory before 1997 at their September 1982 meeting in the Great Hall of the People…
.. The threat is being used to try to block Governor Chris Patten’s moves towards greater democracy in Hong Kong.
”He said that the Chinese could walk in and take Hong Kong back later today if they wanted to,” says Lady Thatcher. ”I retorted that they could indeed do so; I could not stop them. But this would bring about Hong Kong’s collapse.
Taiwan being an island is not as easy to take as Hong Kong would have been, but there is no doubt in my mind that they will take back Taiwan in my lifetime. And it won’t be peaceful.
There are those that would propose that Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” brought about the increases in military expenditure, however the increase started in the early part of this century, whereas Obama’s pivot commenced in 2012.
SURVEILLANCE
The fact that other states have surveillance equal to or better than China is interesting, but not relevant to the point. I am fully aware of what Snowdon and Manning contributed. You did forget William Binney and of course our own hero Julian Assange. In fact I would propose on a per capita basis China is way behind the US and UK.
However, revolution and dissent that threatens the states invariably comes from diaffected people of the upper middle class. it doesn’t arise in peasants unless theya are organised by elites from the middle class. Its the surveillance of the middle class that is critical to internal security. What is important is that it is happening. The rapidity with which the Chinese Communist Party disposed of Fallon Gong can be partly explained by surveillance.
And yes when the revolution happens in the US the surveillance apparatus will be used to persecute the dissidents as it was with the Occupy Movement. This exercise in anti-dmocracy was intitated by the Man of Hope and Change, Barack Obama.
THE FIRST SHOT
That China won’t fire the fire the first shot is not born out by history. Important examples are the Battle of Chamdo where China invaded and annexed the whole of Tibet. The First Taiwan Strait Crisis, The Second Taiwan Strait Crisis, China Burma Border campaign, the Sino Indian War and the Vietnam War where China Invaded Vietnam.
In all of these cases China initiated these conflicts in its own self interest, no different from the “Tyrants on the Potomac”
Your statement that Vietnam and surrounds doesn’t count as aggression 1979, 1987-89. is an interesting one. I wonder whether the Vietnamese are as sanguine about the Chinese invasion as you are as you are, and in fact the Vietnamese won that particular skirmish so your proposal that the Chinese always “finish the job” is also shown to be false.
SUPERIOR RACE
The last forty years of Chinese history, economic development and their changing place in world affairs only demonstrates superiority if you believe that national/racial superiority is meaningful or that it is in some way quantifiable.
I said “they have always thought they were the superior race..”
I didn’t say I thought they had achieved superiority as I think the whole concept of superiority is just jingoism, racism and hubris. But the elites of all countries are in the thrall of this kind of thinking and I have no doubt that Xi and his immediate underlings are not any different from the Madelaine Albrights of this world who think they are the elites of “indispensable” nations.
In this I was stating what I believe to be their view of themselves not reality. I was attempting to explain how the Chinese elites at the top of the hierarchy see themselves and how this influences their policies and behaviors.
You appear so enamored with the Chinese that you believe they have proved to be the superior country/race of Asia. To admire achievements is one thing, to claim that a country and people are proven to be superior is another. It is reminiscent of a lot of the thinking of the depots of last century who killed millions of people.
Rather than say that China has or has not demonstrated it’s superiority as a country, I would point out that they still have a long list of things to do: in front of them:
There are many more. And Yes! Other countries have these problems to, but lets keep focused.
I wont bang on about their achievements they speak for themselves.
I won’t take on the issue of our interests and theirs, this is the subject of a much wider debate on free trade globalization and neo-liberal economics.
It is interesting that on a number of topics where you can’t find evidence contrary to my thinking you resort to:
Example:
I say:
“It’s not the people of countries that cause wars, it’s always their despotic and ambitious leaders.”
“The best example being the disaffected grand kids of Queen Victoria”.
So in other words you seem to concede the point, but rather than gracefully acknowledge this you turn to an irrelevant comparison to deflect the argument in order to somehow excuse the Chinese of the behavior I am writing about.
It may interest you to know that Queen Victoria and her disaffected grand children are all dead, The US took over the European Empires after the second world war. The only thing that your statement does, is confirm what I am saying to be correct. It’s the elites that cause wars not ordinary people.
Hegemons don’t want or care about friends. This is true of all hegemons in the past, and sadly will be the norm in the future. I never said that China is alone in this, so why the reference to the Americans tearing up agreements. The bad behavior of the US doesn’t excuse other countries of imperialist behavior. Someone once said of the US that
“Americans always end up doing the right thing, after they have tried everything else”
The trouble is they don’t.
I don’t intend to visit China, my health isn’t great and spending hours in planes doesn’t float my boat.
Looking at what you have written I think that maybe during your time in China you have failed to see the wood for the trees. Anecdotes of experience are not data. They do not represent consistent patterns of behavior and are not quantified.
The whole thrust of my writing is that China is exhibiting behaviors that are imperial in nature, that their hegemonic ambitions are underpinned by definitive policy objectives. We need to respond rationally and dispassionately about this. Chinese civilization extends back continuously for five thousand years. They have had their highs and lows, but in the past they didn’t have nuclear weapons, satellites, surveillance and other sophisticated technology.
They also haven’t had a dangerous armed to the teeth, belligerent, empire like the US to contend with in similar circumstances to now. In my view they are nowhere near as dangerous as the US, but let’s not have any illusions about them.
The societies of China, Japan and Korea are healthier societies than our own. As a colonial settler society which has been heavily influenced by the US as the 53rd state we have placed the rights of individuals far above the common good.
In fact in line with the US we have adopted the bankrupt, Utopian philosophy of neo-liberal economics. A philosophy that the promotes the market as the only social construct that will bring, peace, equality and happiness.
The East Asians have exploited this, but never embraced it. Unlike Australian politicians who tell us it doesn’t matter who owns our businesses, the East Asians haven’t been fooled. They understand that the prosperity and security of their countries depends on the control of their capital and the ownership of it. He who pays the piper so to speak.
I worked at Loy Yang B Power Station in the Latrobe Valley. It’s owned by Chow Tai Fook, a company that started as a Jewelry store in Honkers. How many Australian Jewelers own critical Chines Assets. None.
The adoption of this neo liberal economics by the US has rendered democracy in the US to a single party system called the corporate party. It has two factions the Democrats and the Republicans. Thus democracy in the US is pretty much like the one party system of the Chinese.
The East Asians value the collective, firstly the family and then other institutions important to them. As a consequence of this their health outcomes are better, they have less mental health problems, addictions and the other ills of the Western Individualistic societies. I think that this culture has far more likelihood of surviving another 5000 years than the US empire has of lasting more than another two decades.
Apologies for the delay, Robert, but except for a few light comments on Crikey I have had my attention directed elsewhere. our I will try to answer your questions but they are treated in a number of rather good books.
To begin with, your remark “just because a leader writes a book it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are being completely or even slightly candid…” is a remark from a Western perspective. The point of a statement, in the West, is to get re-elected and very little more.
The book (by Xi) “Governance of China” stipulates SPECIFICALLY how China is and WILL be governed. It addresses everything from the history from 1949 to current legitimacy. What has pissed the Asians off, in terms of diplomacy, *is* Rudd, Abbott, Turnbull and now Morrison saying one thing and doing (or meaning) another thing.
> Has he [Xi] made himself leader of the Party
> for life?
More or less
> If he has what reasons does he give?
They are listed in Governance (vols 1 & 2). I’d be here all day typing but, in brief, a western perspective would be something like “on his record”. The reforms under Xi are impressive to say nothing of reducing the corruption considerably. The latter is the #1 thing for the Chinese people.
> What reasons do the Chinese people
> understand about this?
For (almost) every person over six years old their life improves, materially, each 12 months.
“Has he caused the Chinese Military to pledge allegiance to the Communist Party rather than the people?”
The Military *is* an instrument of the CPP
> Why has he done this?
There has been no change since Chiang Kai-shek
> What does the average Chinese understand
> about this?
They understand it completely. The principals are taught at primary school.
> WHAT THE CHINESE ELITES ARE UP TO
The answer to this question comprises an hour-long seminar (possibly 2x 1r seminars). A basic text on International Relations provides some scaffolding but, ultimately, policy is delegated. That is, the decisions of the major committees are delegated to the Provinces.
The Provinces, in large measure, get to decide HOW (not WHAT) to implement given timelines etc. The left had DOES know what the right hand is doing. That aspect is a major explanation for the growth of the economy.
Ask any cop in Australia how Aboriginal people behave when confronted with the evidence. I lived in the north of Australia for 15 years. If the evidence of a break-in or an assault or whatever is clear than the aboriginal person concerned will tend to admit their actions. Asians have a similar disposition. Our ‘adversarial’ legal system encourages Westerners to lie through their teeth during a trial.
“As a consequence of this if the party wants to clamp down on someone then they are pretty well guaranteed of a conviction and everyone knows this”.
If you mean : stick your neck out and the axe will fall then I agree entirely. However, the police in the PRC do not pull people over for the hell of it as they do in the West. I recall my 20s in both NZ, Oz and the USA.
“If one looks at the death penalty, China puts to death thousands, but keeps the exact number secret. This would fulfill my proposition that Chinese law is quite draconian.”
,
There are a good number of statistics that are not reported but ARE available on a “need to know – e.g. scholarship – basis”. However, the people have a high regard for the government. Such was NEVER the case under Mao – despite his face being imprinted onto the currency.
As I say, if one keeps one’s toes on the “correct” side of the white line one will never have a problem. Similarly for Singapore or Asia generally.
“I can’t quite see how your taxi driver provides evidence contrary to my view that the Chinese people don’t know what the elites are up to. What’s your point.”
I will try to answer this question with a question. Just how informed is the “average” subscriber to Crikey – would you say? Would they pass an academic exam on the Constitution? Could they compare and contrast Rousseau with (e.g.) Franklin or Adams or Jefferson or compare Adams with Jefferson or Monroe?
Just how informed (by writing a 3,500 world history of the top of their scones) are the subscribers as to the
history of the English Civil War to the advent of Boris? The POINT *was* that the taxi driver mentioned the topic first; I had only just closed the cab door when he introduced the topic?
> What is the point about Russia?
That, contrary to your assessment, Russians and Chinese people (I have lived in both countries) know more about how their system ticks than, respectively the average, Pom, Yanks Aussie or Kiwi in regard to their systems. Cooke and HL Mencken refer; Pilger for that matter.
> Suppression of Demands (economic
> aggregate demand perhaps ?)
Take a look at the difference between HK, Taiwan and the PRC. For the latter there is a huge difference in affluence but it is improving. At the risk of offering an absurd generalisation Chinese women are excellent (natural?) budget managers. Ask any white guy!
There is some luxury spending but most consumption has a point to it.
People in the West (re the lock-downs) are realising that they can get by with less and credit card debt is declining materially for the first time. It is a pity that, when the dust settles you won’t be able undertake a circuit of South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, HK and the PRC (in no particular order) because it really is what you need to do.
> Now this is quite counter intuitive.
It is only counter intuitive because you do not realise that there are three distinct commercial (retail?) markets in the PRC. There is the international (Louis Vuitton and similar), export (stuff for target etc) and the domestic market. As I say, they are distinct and it is a mistake to conflate the value in one market with the proceedings in another market. This topic also deserves
a seminar.
> You talk about the “plastic” that the Chinese Girls
> are using, but how much of it is debit
Almost all of it is debit; i.e. they are spending their money and not borrowed money. See my replies to household expenditure above.
> Buying US Government Bonds.
I am familiar with Saul and Harvey but the 1st world trend to a significantly increasing Tertiary (i.e. service – not academic) sector has its own economic explanation.
If you can cope with another antidote ALL the foreigners in Hangzhou received an email (just relax : it happens)
advising a promotional event at a major 5 star hotel. There were to be free tickets at the door which, after the speeches (2.5 hrs) there would be free booze (i.e. everything from circa 21:45 to 02:00 (the next morning). One had to reply to the email and thus receive
a voucher to be printed submitted at the door – to be seated by 19:00.
The first speaker was a rep. from Deutsche Grammophon who informed the audience (English with an obvious German accent) that the “old” ways of producing CDs/DVDs are gone. The recordings would be made in Deutsche Grammophon studios and transmitted electronically (digitally) to the factory in China where the CDs would be “pressed”. The factory would have information as to the quantity, pricing, transport details and bar-coding as to the destination of the CDs.
The recipient, in any given country, (1) scans the box received, (2) opens the box and scans the product. The total product and the contents of the box ought to match. Tracing is possible in the case of mis-matches. Then the contents are placed directly into stock with ALL stock/inventory updated for the store in question.
The commercial justifications were covered in detail. FOB (free on board) for the PRC does not compare with FOB Hamburg. There were about eight more similar speeches with product at discounted rates (e.g. Ludwig’s Violin Concerto for about A$1.50 – where even as a Xmas gift one could not go wrong.)
There was no malt and the scotch didn’t go above Chivas (and equivalents for other top shelf) but it was a great night.
> Where’s the value added? Digging up dirt or
> making something?
I agree with most of your comments prior to your question : stated in the line above. However, the matter of a service sector is very real and your example with software is a classic example of globalisation. I don’t doubt for a second that the factors of production are controlled but the issue of flat wages is another globally universal topic altogether.
A note on free trade. It was David Ricardo who identified comparative advantage but, mathematically, it falls over when there is more than guns and butter to consider. Free trade almost screwed Britain. Its exports in 1895 were a fraction of those in 1865; comparatively
with world trade as a whole. The US was given technology during WW2; it didn’t have to nick very much at all. However, the approach adopted by the USA had an emphasis on productivity; compare the time required to build a destroyer in early 1945 in the UK and the USA.
The Tibet thing was more about India. Tibet was just in the way. I was in Yunan when the Lama last visited China. In fact I was in a bus as the guy was coming from the other direction. The security stuff was impressive. The bus came to a halt 1km from the lama’s
party and everyone in the bus had to walk, in open file, to the extremes of the road.
We seem to be disagreeing on the detail, Robert, but not on the nature of the ‘big picture’. The South China Sea is a given. Hegemony over India, Tibet, Vietnam etc. is a given – in the same way that USA hegemony existed from circa 1945 to 2005. Learn to love it Robert because, as with the virus, it is here to stay.
I agree (more or less) with your “long list of things to do” and this list is a topic for essays at primary school in the PRC. However, advances (see my references) are being made. Administratively, the “middle” remains quite soft (inexperienced) but this aspect will change over the next 15 years when the current teenagers move into managerial roles.
As to your remarks as to a ‘superior race’ it is quite a strong Asian thing. You will find Thais and Cambodians with similar sentiments. As to the “r” world take a look at Japan. However, in the case of the PRC, please keep in mind “Han” verses others when discussing the topic.
As to Taiwan the region will (let me conjecture) be one
happy family, with HK as mother hen, by circa 2045; say 25 years; certainly by 2050. The South China Sea stuff is NOT for the current generation in China but those who are commencing school this September (2020). THAT is an example of just how long-term
the thinking is.
I have thought about writing a book on Asia and the PRC in particular but the region is in too great a state of flux at the moment. The book, except for general principles, would be out of date within three to five years. Similarly for the Middle East. Bloody odd sleeping arrangements having been established of late there.
Concluding the above :
(1) in my view, Australians are much more the dupes of their system than the Chinese people are of their system. Many of your remarks are topics in schools in the PRC (you may be surprised to learn).
(2) Confucianism is a big deal and is encouraged by Xi and was discouraged by Mao.
(3) The latent productive and military capacity of the USA is very great. One MIGHT have thought that there would have been opportunities for cooperation (indeed from Australia) but history repeats itself (alas).
I anticipate control of the South China Sea without a shot being fired. I doubt if the millennials and Gen Z have the guts for a war.
(4) your “to do” list for the PRC is referred to in “Governance” vol. 1 (pp.110-250) and are social studies topics at primary school.
(5) Permitting myself a conjecture : the 21st century will be come to be known as the ‘Asian Century’
Another poorly argued anecdotal diatribe which doesn’t knock down any of my major points and one which continually uses the tricks of the politicians to undermine the discussion and to avoid direct answers to valid questions.
“in my view, Australians are much more the dupes of their system than the Chinese people are of their system. Many of your remarks are topics in schools in the PRC (you may be surprised to learn).”
What is the relevance to the discussion of Australian’s understanding their own system of government? Australians are historically, economically and socially illiterate. Nothing new about that. The vast majority of Australians that I have come into contact with, are interested in sport, sport, more sport, stuff and overtime. Australia doesn’t have 1.4 billion people, it doesn’t have nuclear weapons, it isn’t spending $250 billion per annum on defense, it doesn’t see itself as a hegemonic power. Australia is sadly irrelevant, so why mention it?
And why would I “be surprised to learn this”
On another point I ask:
“What reasons do the Chinese people
understand about this? ” (His leader for life policy)
You answer:
For (almost) every person over six years old their life improves, materially, each 12 months.
That isn’t answering, what I asked as a genuine question of inquiry. It’s simply deflecting it away from the topic. Another tired old politicians trick of avoiding an honest concise answer to a valid question in order to belittle the person asking the question.
It would seem from your answer, although this is only conjecture on my part that the answer is:
Most Chinese don’t care about why Xi Jinping has made himself leader for life. The don’t know or care because as long as things are improving like most populations they just get on with their lives.
So in other words they know FA about it.
“If you can cope with another antidote ALL the foreigners in Hangzhou received an email (just relax : it happens)”
I surmise here that the spell checker got you and you meant anecdote rather than antidote, but why did you have to prefix the long and obtuse account of this anecdote with “If you can cope…”
I said I don’t have a lot of time for anecdotes as I believe in the scientific method of gathering comprehensive, objective data before drawing conclusions. Even the social sciences such as economics, anthropology and the study of history try to avoid using anecdotes as the basis of their science so why the smart arse “If you can cope with another antidote” comment.
What’s “just relax : it happens” supposed to be about. Another contemptuous or mocking remark to belittle me?
It seems I have wasted my time trying to engage with you. I was hoping for an objective focused discussion where I might learn something useful about China, but it seems that this is something you are unable to do.
I have the perception from your writings of someone with a highly inflated ego where discussion and argument are a sport; a sport in which if your rational arguments aren’t up to the task of knocking someone else down you will use sarcasm and personal attack.
You remind me of Peter Hitchens a particularly, toxic debater and human being. I certainly hope you aren’t like this him as I wouldn’t wish such a thing on anyone.
And as I’ve had to put up with the personal stuff:
If you DID have Australian Police break into your property, if you did feel the need for assistance who would you call?
The local secretary of the Liberal Party, Labour Party, Barnaby Joyce or a solicitor?
Don’t bother answering, it’s smart arse rhetorical question of which you seem to be all too familiar.
I look forward to your book, with the only problem being I don’t know who your really are. You will notice I have the guts to use my real name and not hide behind a fictitious one.
“in my view, Australians are much more the dupes of their system than the Chinese people are of their system. Many of your remarks are topics in schools in the PRC (you may be surprised to learn).”
“What is the relevance to the discussion of Australian’s understanding their own system of government?”
YOU made the claim that Asians (and those in the PRC) are being duped by their governments). My point was that, if anything they are better informed that the an elector who needs a “how to vote card” at a polling booth each three years (for all the good it actually does)!
> Australia is sadly irrelevant
Australia – “sadly” – your word – hasn’t a clue as to the main game in the Pacific; we seem to agree entirely on this point. Yeah; you are entirely correct. The PRC is not monkeying about with the South China Sea or the Silk and Belt (see India). These strategies and subsequent initiatives are intended to promote the PRC into the 21st century as THE major player.
Anyone who wants a war will get one. I’m NOT taking a side but merely explaining the situation; less so to you but to others who have an interest in the subject.
> And why would I “be surprised to learn this”
BECAUSE you have yet to identity ONE authoritative reference (from a possible score or more) that addresses the Nixon-Mao discussions
of the 70s to the (literal) events of today; including previous recommendations. Your information sources seem to be those of NewsCorp.
“What reasons do the Chinese people understand about this? ” (His leader for life policy)
I have replied to the question AND I provided an extended answer which you reject out of ignorance because you have not lived in the place for a year or so.
The life histories from Pu Yi (last emperor to Mao to Xi are known by all school children AND to a much greater standard than corresponding social studies (Whitlam, Hawke, Howard, Morrison etc) in Australia; to say nothing of Kings and Queens.
When I was at school, by the age of 11, any kid who could not recite the major monarchs from the Plantagenets to the Hanovians could expect a few wacks with a strap and tested again at the end of the week. The monarchs post the House of
Hanover was expected as general knowledge.
If you can’t travel on account of your health then strike up a conversation with some students here in Oz; but obtain a large sample; could take a year.
> Most Chinese don’t care about why Xi Jinping has made himself leader for life. The don’t know or care because as long as things are improving like most populations they just get on with their lives.
Not too different from anywhere on the planet. You have pointed out, yourself, that the sport-loving Oz just wants matters to improve.
> So in other words they know FA about it.
NOT the same thing at all; as their lessons in social studies will confirm if you make an effort to meet some students from the region. Such seems to be your “hobby horse”.
> “If you can cope…”
I’m at the point of giving up. Are you really that sensitive? The remark was intended to be humorous.
“What’s “just relax : it happens” supposed to be about. Another contemptuous or mocking remark to belittle me?”
The previous rejoinder applies.
” It seems I have wasted my time trying to engage with you.”
It is clear (not that it ‘seems’) that you have a VERY fixated view of how the PRC conducts itself internally and externally. I have listed some references with more to follow. As to the ‘scientific method’ try (1) collecting the information (2)
apply Popper and Ayre and locate that result in the context of USA foreign policy. That, really, is the best I can do for you.
“If you DID have Australian Police break into your property, if you did feel the need for assistance who would you call?”
The incident in China to which I referred concerned a cop with an attitude to foreigners. Generally, Chinese people in the PRC are ok with foreigners but one encounters an attitude or two here and there. Same with any place.
“You will notice I have the guts to use my real name and not hide behind a fictitious one.”
That remark is truly amusing. Over a number of staggered subscriptions to Crikey I did use my name. There is a contributor by the tag of ‘Olide’ who recognised my prose after the 1st post of a renewed subscription and confirmed his suspicion with me; to which I concurred.
Desiderius Erasmus would be amused (I suggest) to learn that someone who (I presume) has barely travelled would adjudicate him “fictional” five hundred years hence. I seem to recall providing an explanation to Oldie. You may care to read that.
Wishing to leave you with something useful, I will recap some references:
Joseph, W. “Politics in China” (there is a similar book by MacFarquhar – and probably a tad more introductory)
Kissenger, H. “On China” (ok but a tad ‘true blue’)
Rouolph & Szonyi “The China Questions” (a collection of essays)
Cabsetan, J. “China Tomorrow” (quite good if a tad Fukuyama-ish)
Wo-Lap Lam, W. “The Fight for China’s Future” (really Fukuyama-ish and probably nearer ‘your street’)
Xi, J. “The Governance of China” vols. 1 & 2
I believe these books are available on Amazon; I know that they are obtainable in Australia. After that lot perhaps we can address some counter-point.
So,
“Desiderius Erasmus would be amused (I suggest) to learn that someone who (I presume) has barely travelled would adjudicate him “fictional” five hundred years hence. I seem to recall providing an explanation to Oldie. You may care to read that.”
So twist my words to belittle me, have a swipe at me for not spending my life traveling, obfuscate about Oldie, and bang! You’ve done another Hitchens. Thanks for that.
Erasmus is just a name and Desiderius Erasmus is but one Erasmus. You may have taken the name of St Elmo who was also an Erasmus rather than Desiderious. Where the name came from is of course beside the point.
In your case the name is “ficticious” because it is not your actual name. The word ficticious in this context is quite in the vernacular. It is formally used in corporate law, but also in common speech where it is referring to a name that is an alias in place of the persons real name.
I don’t believe that people should use aliases on the internet unless they have very good reasons to fear persecution, or worse, by evil doers. I don’t fear such persecution and I would ignore it anyway, or fight back. That’s why I use my real name.
The use of internet aliases is one of the worst features of the internet and it promotes a wide variety of abuses and dysfunctions, cyber-bullying, fraud, etc etc.. Now I’m not accusing you of any of this, however I wonder why so many people resort to aliases when we live in a free, pluralistic and non-violent society.
In the the case of the Crikey blog the use of real names and disclosures of interests are important to verify the bon-fides of writers. You might be a paid propagandist of the Chinese Government for all I know. Perish the thought.
Now something that really did hurt was your reference to News Corp. I never read, watch or listen to anything that the Ugly Aussie and his henchmen put about. Not only is he an egregious, greedy, right wing fascist, interested only in personal power and wealth, he even married a Chinese to further his business interests.
The Chinese of course are a lot smarter than him and weren’t fooled, neither was anyone else for that matter. I felt really sorry for Wendi Deng (or is it Deng Wendi) to have to put up with him. People say she was a Chinese spy, I doubt that, as being married to him is a bit too high profile, but what was she thinking?
In fact I did provide some references in my writings, Eammon Fingleton and Chalmers Johnston. The military spending figures I got from a number of sources. I have also read a couple of other books on Asia, but it was a while ago so I can’t remember the names. The numbers of executions are as you say are not publicly available so I used estimates from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty.
Lets cut to the chase:
In broad parameters and practical terms how should Australia engage with China to facilitate on-going positive relationships to maximize, economic security, cultural and other related outcomes?
And to do this in a way that respects and enhances each countries unique culture and values.
Specifically with regards to:
I understand these are broad and complex topics, but it’s not quantum physics or string theory.
For instance with regards to defense as an example:
Should Australia set aside the ANZUS treaty and enter into a treaty with China or some other instruments? Or should we retain ANZUS but also become more capable of our own defense. Should we contemplate a nuclear deterrent. Hugh White et al have produced quite a lot of useful thought on this topic.
I think I know what will happen with regards to Australia’s defense we will stay with the US and ANZUS, not something I would do, but I am interested in what you think and why.
You seem to have read a lot of material on China and you know a lot about it so I would appreciate your candid assessment and views on these matters.
I’m not after a detailed analysis just general, clear principles and examples of practical policies and actions.
I’m quite happy to give my opinions, but it seems that in your view I simply do not know enough about China to make anything I might propose useful to the discussion. You are probably correct.
We do live in a reasonably free country so I don’t think you will need to worry about persecution or any other nasty consequences if you express your views.
Best regards
Rob
First off : the stuff that you accuse me of I don’t actually engage but I can do nothing as to your interpretation(s).
“In broad parameters and practical terms how should Australia engage with China to facilitate on-going positive relationships to maximize, economic security, cultural and other related outcomes?”
Frankly, THAT is the only question worth considering for the next decade as least. Let’s consider your last point first.
“I don’t think you will need to worry about persecution or any other nasty consequences if you express your views.”
The same could be said of Singapore. As to the three “T”s there is considerably more than human rights or whatever your reductionist perspective is. A transformation is being undertaken from Kashmir to the South China Sea; some will call it annexation but five or six decades from now it won’t matter.
The ‘hash’ job occurred in the Middle East in 1948 but this project will be (and is being) conducted with rather more periapt.
Have you read the ANZUS document? It doesn’t actually guarantee a damned thing and it is all but ignored by NZ.
> Reciprocity of the ownership of land
For the PRC a ‘title’ is a licence to occupy for a fixed quantity of time. There is no equivalent of a Torrens System. Try buying real estate in Singapore even if one has a Singapore ID (i.e. registration). Much more could be said in regard to absentee ownership regarding investments in Oz and NZ.
To be candid (yet again) your perspectives are entirely “individualistic” which, in Asia are considered somewhat naive.
The only practice that exists in Australia and is recognised in Asia would be the Sale of Goods Act (as to merchantable quality). I don’t intend to be critical of (Western) individualism but it makes appearances in policy advocacy without thinking as it were.
> I think I know what will happen with regards to Australia’s defense
I doubt that Oz ought to engage with the PRC in anything else than Trade and Diplomatic relationships. For one thing the politics of Australia is deemed too eratic by the PRC for the PRC to take it seriously. What is the point (see Trump) of having a treaty if the next mob to be elected has the authority to change it?
As to some “clear principles” I suggest (and have suggested elsewhere) that Australia ought to
1 develop research relationships where Australia utilises product from the PRC and gets to participate in technology transfer. Obvious examples exist in terms of super computers and cell technology (5G). If the Chinese can install back doors than
so can CISCO (or the yanks). As an aside, Germany undertakes a lot of trade and nothing in their trade press has identified back-doors.
2 develop student exchanges extending to medical and dental training. A large number of medical students undertake their studies in the PRC. Generally they have to be fluent in Mandarin but that could change. A university about the size of UTS is commissioned about each eight months in a city the size of Shenzhen.
3 develop trade exchanges and infrastructure exchanges. Rapid rail links (c. 400km/hr links) could be designed for WA, SA, NT and QLD; or, indeed, anywhere. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of freight could be moved daily; rough on the truckies but hey the stage-coaches disappeared eventually too.
4 The upper economic group anywhere enjoys travel (even in the 19th century) and tourism is an obvious market.
5 Accept that civil society in the USA isn’t all that civil so its a bit rich to clamour towards one system while banging on against another system. In other words, the media needs to raise its game above that of click-bait but I’m not holding my breath there either.
You’re not anti-China? References back to kow-towing to Chinese emperors? So Chinese rulers will do what they have always done for thousands of years? Why is it that China stands out in this way, when Italy’s rulers, with the strange exception of Mussolini do not do what Roman rulers did for a thousand years? The frightening thing is that US influence Over Australia-ASIO often acts like a sub-branch of the CIA- and journalists like Sainsbury and Probyn will drive us into conflict with China like the policy of containment and isolation of China pushed by the US is driving the US, because the US seems to see China as threatening its global supremacy, when Australia has no similar stake in mucking up the Chinese economy. The US has dominated our foreign policy in the past and I fear it will do so again. We can hardly have good relationships with Chinese people if we whip up hysteria against their country, when they don’t by and large see their country as the US does. Of course, there are long-standing problems with China. First, China under Chiang Kai-Shek made claims over the South China Sea that did not respect their neighbours interests and this was ignored because the claim could not be enforced. The People’s Republic of China makes the same claim today. That is more of a nuisance now, because China is not entirely incapable of enforcing its claim, though it cannot really do it without provoking war. Second, the CCP has, since the suppression of the Tien-an-Men Square demonstrations thirty years ago, shown that it will suppress opposition by force and restricts various freedoms to minimise threats.
We value having greater freedoms than people in China have but we do not Get into conflict with every oppressively rules country. The rulers of Saudi Arabia exercise a more totalitarian rule over their country and foreign workers than China does but they are put friends, as they are friends of the US. Let us not go all the way with the USA, as we did in Iraq, which was spuriously demonised as China is being demonised today.
The topic was China. It’s China because they are big, they have nuclear weapons, they are authoritarian, ruthless, totalitarian dictatorship, we have a lot of trade with them and we are an ally of a country known as Planet America that is going to have big problems with them mostly of Planet America’s own making.
Are the modern Chinese any worse that the savage Europeans who have raped, pillaged and executed genocide in the American continent, Australian continent, the middle east et etc etc. No where near as bad. But the article I was replying to was about China, it wasn’t about a beauty contest between major nation states which are invariably demonic.
I’m sick of this rubbish that we have to treat China as a special case. I’ve worked with chinese, some from the PRC and some Australian or born in Honkers. I liked them, but I don’t like their government and I don’t like what they are doing, any more than I like what the US does.
The issue over what this or that journalist did is just horse-shit. If the Chinese really wanted to hurt us they could do a lot worse than chucking out some journalists.
You must remember that Mussolini, Hitler are dead.
Did I suggest that we should get into conflict with China. To what end?
What I was trying to do, without much success it would seem is bring a bit of reality to our relationship with China, devoid of illusions of their friendly intentions to us. The fact is we will have to pick sides and we will side with the US against China. Having to choose, is something we have been adroitly sidestepping over the past thirty years. In that time China is becoming a serious rival to the US in Asia so that the elites of the US have woken up and they don’t like what they see.
I don’t want to be a continual vassal of the US, but I don’t want to be vassal to China either. The problem is no one in Australia apart from one or two academics has the vision to take an independent path and our politicians are so anglo-centric the US alliance is the path we will take.
What we should do is what the UK and Frances did after WWII develop a nuclear, seaborne deterrent. Then we would have a decent bargaining position vis a vis the US, China and any other county that wanted to dominate us.
The only thing that the elites of any large “super-power” respect is power. Nothing else.
I couldn’t care less whether China takes back Taiwan, but I do care if we end up at war with them because we will be forced to side with the US if a war over Taiwan eventuates.
You say:
“We value having greater freedoms than people in China have but we do not Get into conflict with every oppressively rules country. The rulers of Saudi Arabia exercise a more totalitarian rule over their country and foreign workers than China does but they are put friends, as they are friends of the US. Let us not go all the way with the USA, as we did in Iraq, which was spuriously demonised as China is being demonised today.”
This is exactly the point. Every war that the US has been involved with outside of South America, “their little back yard” we have been with them. If the US gets into a war with the US over Taiwan or the navigation rights of the South China Sea we will be with them. Do you think it’s just coincidence that our relations have become strained with China just as the US is doing it’s pivot. You don’t really think Morrisson could do anything independent of the US, he even rang that dickhead Trump ostensibly to get tips from Trump on how to deal with covid. Really? Pull the other one. What they would be talking about is China and the next investor rights agreement between Australia and the US, not covid-19.
Let me put it this way, if the Chinese elites didn’t suppress every tiny bit of dissent or independent thought, if they weren’t arming themselves with offensive weapons at a rate of $250 billion per annum and rising and if they didn’t keep their domestic markets closed to foreign imports instead of copying the egregious mercantilist behaviour of the Japanese and South Koreans I wouldn’t be concerned, but these activities aren’t trivial and they don’t bode well for our future relations with them. Therefore I am pointing out these things because they worry me greatly. Is that OK with you?
Saudi Arabia are a nasty oppressive regime and the stupid US is giving them a nuclear capability. But the article was about China not the Saudi’s. Does the fact the Saudis are worse than China give China a license for bad behavior?
If the US suddenly had a change of heart about their tolerence of the Saudi regime and decided to do a bit of regime change we would be there with them just like Iraq. You answer your own question.
And if it were Italy was the size of China and doing the things China is doing I would be concerned about them. But they aren’t, they are a nice people, with egregious, incompetent ruling elites, but completely irrelevant to Australian security and our economic interests.