
China is an authoritarian state, which appears bent on creating a system of steady totalitarian control lasting decades, if not longer. It is bent on consolidating the country that was fractured by colonialism and politics, with the eventual reincorporation of Taiwan and Hong Kong.
There is no possibility that Tibet will re-emerge as a fully independent polity. In order to stymie the least possibility of secession in Muslim Uyghur Xinjiang, it is filling the province with Han Chinese and running a system of concentration camps of unknown extent (unknown since there is so much propaganda about it).
Twenty years ago, it began extending its economic heft around the world, with loans and direct infrastructure assistance to the developing world. These have had the same effect, of extended economic dependence by said world, with the exception that the Chinese actually built roads, ports, etc, rather than simply draining such countries dry.
It is vital to try and understand the moral and political character of a state that combines elements of German “transition” Marxism, neo-Stalinist cultural control, and the corporatist dimension of Mussolini’s fascism.
But in any of this, is there any evidence that China has global military ambitions beyond regaining control of its region, from the remnant presence of the last Western empire, the United States? There is none, none at all.
Yet daily we are being marched to war by the same crowd who always march us to war, the ruling elite, the self-appointed military experts, compliant dictaphone editors and journalists, sock-puppet military thinktanks, Spenglerite ideologues, the whole gang.
Overpowering propaganda
There’s a whole range of tricks that go into this, and the first task is simply to identify them in one’s own mind. Because the propaganda is so overpowering that there are times when the boundary of it falls within your mind, and you really can’t tell what’s real and what’s not.
If there’s a master technique to what’s going on at the moment, it’s Western presumption and privilege presented as a commitment to a liberal world order, and presented back to its own public as a casus belli. This starts with the misconstruction of Taiwan and Hong Kong as independent entities, rather than still-internal creations — as if China was threatening to invade the UK for the cause of Scottish independence, or involve itself in the removal of self-government of Norfolk Island.
The absurdity of those propositions shows you what a fun-house mirror you’re looking into when you draw the line of struggle through a sea between China and one of its islands.
The second trick is to presume that the global extension of Western empires is a “natural” condition, rather than encirclement. Mainland China has, on its doorstep, a US-funded and armed Taiwan, a pro-US Japan being encouraged to drop the neutrality provisions of its constitution, a historical ally in the Philippines, and so on. It’s as if Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and Tasmania were Chinese vassals, and we were required to say nothing about it. Such hypocrisy extends to trade treaties.
The Belt and Road is treated as war by proxy. The now-defunct Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty was a far more explicit form of encirclement — in which US financial interest was sacrificed for strategic gain — yet was treated in the compliant press as a purely commercial venture.
The third element is a wider mischaracterisation of all trade moves as a form of war. That is a particularly crafty and hypocritical move, given that every Western power has built its wealth on sharp practice. China breaks copyright and IP law, against agreements it has signed; but since the agreements are iniquitous IP rents on technology, why not? It may be duplicitous, but it’s not war.
Yet it is constructed as a precursor of such. And in a gesture of unbelievable hypocrisy, China is reproved for charging interest on developing country loans! The horror! The very worst of this, at the root, is racist orientalism, still popping up in the military academies, journals and think tanks — garbage about the “Asian mind”. Global trade, military projection, state-building — these are held to be Western things. Asians doing them are taken as “mimic men”, less than real.
That’s another building block of the push to war — to encourage fear and suspicion of China based on their surprising surge to economic dominance over the last three decades, and the possibility that we are now the dependent ones.
The West was betrayed by its elites — an alliance of nihilist transnational capitalists and neoliberal ideologues — to give away decades of accumulated physical, social and intellectual “plant”, which was then shipped — often literally — to China, who had never drunk the Kool Aid.
The transnationals were making a buck, the neolibs were giddy with the paradox of bourgeois economics — that a steel mill and 100 wedding planners could generate the same amount of GDP — and the more absurd and counter to common sense, the better. Now, this corrupted, gullible belief in some post-national world is turned around to be yet more evidence of Sino-inscrutability.
No one put a gun to our head and told us to sell our northernmost port, the entry point our geopolitical enemies will use, if it comes to that. Those who sold us this cracked version of the 21st century are now trying to cover their tracks, rather rapidly.
We have to talk back to this sleazy and desperate tactic, by a cross-party, cross-politics elite who have made us economically dependent on someone they are now constructing as an identity-defining enemy.
They can’t decide whether to make chest-beating Periclean statements of principle, or whine when they won’t buy our cheese anymore. We need a plain old-fashioned anti-war movement, led by Green parties, left parties, community groups, just a simple “no” at this stage. We need to, prior and simultaneously, fight this fight in our own heads, as the powerful propaganda machine turns us, once again, towards death rather than life.
Save this EOFY while you make a difference
Australia has spoken. We want more from the people in power and deserve a media that keeps them on their toes. And thank you, because it’s been made abundantly clear that at Crikey we’re on the right track.
We’ve pushed our journalism as far as we could go. And that’s only been possible with reader support. Thank you. And if you haven’t yet subscribed, this is your time to join tens of thousands of Crikey members to take the plunge.

Editor-in-chief
Leave a comment
I understand and share your concern, Guy, and value your skeptical eye, but at the same time I don’t think you actually framed a fair discussion in the first place.
Here’s what you need to say clearly:
To be fair, I haven’t settled on all these thoughts yet myself. But I don’t advocate what policy Australia should hold, while you do.
If you’re going to advocate, you need to be accountable for the framework under which you do so. If that’s a framework of purely ideological opposition rather than one amenable to changing evidence, you need to disclose that to your readers — or else you’re guilty of the very kind of propagandism you’ve complained about.
Or if you have set your minimum evidentiary threshold then readers need to examine that too to see if it’s reasonable.
Good points Ruv- my own thinking does not extend far past “whatever the ASPI recommends, do the opposite..”
However following US foreign policy directly gives more or less the same result.
It’s well beyond my experience too, Fairmind and like you I tend to resist the advice of some politicians just because of how they use their pulpit.
I think Guy’s line of critique is both timely legitimate, but it needs to be made more robust and constructive than it presently is — else we’ll just stay ignorant and reacting.
The notion of any war with China is ridiculous. There is no “minimum behaviour” that would constitute a “sufficient cause” because the framework Guy is operating on is one of peace. We buy our military equipment from China for godsake.
Your search for a just cause to go to war with China is precisely what Mr Rundle is trying to warn us against. Why is war our the solution to our “troubles”?
If China is putting its foot down in its own sovereign territory then what the hell are we on about. Yes we can whinge about the South China Sea, but at least they are a super power trying to control territory on their side of the Pacific Ocran. What is America doing over here? Any issues with China would only hold steady in a world where we do not already accept American imperialism as the default state of things.
Freddy wrote: There is no “minimum behaviour” that would constitute a “sufficient cause” because the framework Guy is operating on is one of peace.
That may be so Freddy, but we can’t tell from Guy’s article whether it is so, which is why I asked for more information
And if it were so then the reasons Guy nominated are not the real reasons. Which would make the article disingenuous, as the goal-posts for evidence would simply move whatever reasons were offered.
And this is why the article requires clarification.
I ought to let Ruv speak for himself but I’d have to say that (it seems to me) that Ruv is attempting to remove the ideological content from the discussion and THEN see what remains. No one is advocating a scrap. Besides with Sydney and Melbourne taken out within hours the remainder of the story would be a reenactment of Cook during August 1770.
As it stands, we have a global power with a quite different culture and political system attached to a political agenda no less intent that that of the USA. As you point out it is the West that is rattling its saber. See my substantive post on the matter.
Freddy your soo wrong it’s funny.. You need to learn some history.. Start with WW2 and the Japanese invasion throughout Asia and you will learn that the USA was asked to help stop that said invasion.. Then after the USA won the Asia Pacific war they where asked to stay and help rebuild.. If you want to go back to the early to mid 1500’s, Southern ASIA (Asia Pacifica)
was predominantly Spanish and Portuguese not Chinese. Before the Colonial invasion most of Southern Asia was inhabited by Melanesians not Chinese. So they have no claim at all..
War with China? There goes looking for a new house or car on a Sunday morning but we will demand our football while missiles fly overhead, I guess its possible it will be very short, say three weeks before we run out of fuel. But don’t let me stop you from from guarding the front lines.
Tony wrote: don’t let me stop you from guarding the front lines.
I don’t believe I’ve advocated for any casus belli, Tony. Instead I asked whether Guy could nominate one, or whether his arguments as stated are disingenuous.
Guy’s article seemed quite balanced to me. Your point 1: none of our business, the CCP has a 96% approval rating in China so the Chinese themselves are happy. (Oh the poll was undertaken by a US university) Point 2: irrelevant because it hasn’t happened and the same applies for point 3.
Tony wrote: Guy’s article seemed quite balanced to me
I didn’t say it was an unbalanced argument, Tony; I said that as presented, the question is unfairly constructed.
What does it mean for a question to be fairly constructed? What should persuade us that a question has not been fairly put?
The problem, Ruv, resides (as at always does) with the woke. If your pin-stripe suit looks better on me and however much I enjoy wearing it and looking after it the garment will never be mine. Such is the issue with HK (only ever leased) and the the two “T”s None have ever had an independence (as opposed to quisi self administration) from the PRC.
Uncle Sam has form ignoring decisions from the ICJ so however, much uncle Sam bangs on about Rule-based Orders there will be no joy there.
Oz seems to be ok to act as a Bloc with the “Eyes” but, along with the Quad, such was never the intention (to act act as a block) but to share information and to act independently. To a very large extent NZ has resisted the ideology of the both sides of USA politics whereas Oz has gone over completely. A so called Chamberlain moment (to answer your questions) will not be attained.
To panic those who deem Hardaker’s peice of today approximates responsible reporting the USA may say “sign up or leave home”. In a nutshell that is what Hugh White is about. After 75 years on the tit it might be time to leave home.
You’re either with us or against up.
Erasmus wrote: The problem, Ruv, resides (as at always does) with the woke.
Erasmus, I think that if we went searching, we could find plenty of lucid commentators who strongly support social justice for African Americans and first nations peoples while opposing Chinese hegemonism. 🙂
After 75 years on the tit it might be time to leave home.
That’s an interesting and related question, Erasmus. As a G20 economy, middle-order military power and demographic minnow rife with unreconstructed colonial traditions in proximity to two burgeoning postcolonial juggernauts, what do you suggest instead?
There are a legion of uninformed assumptions Ruv. The 19 Congress is clear as to Chinese territory but the statements are not synonymous to aspirations of hegemony. Such is uncle Sam’s problem. Just consider Obama’s “Pivot”.
Social justice is one thing and “rent a crowd” is quite another. BLM : 1 Recent deaths in custody : 0. Different huh?
Pity that the electorate, indeed the Cky lists, are governed by reaction (headline-ism) but that is how it is.
The only reaction (no rational objection) to Thompson are down-votes. The punch line is that (e.g. – one of many) the PM is ridiculed for happy Chappie-ism.
Erasmus offered: the statements are not synonymous to aspirations of hegemony.
You doubt China’s aspirations of hegemonism, Erasmus? I don’t think even Guy would argue that. 🙂
But in the developed world, hegemonism hasn’t been a pretext for a shooting war since the collapse of Europe’s empires. Instead, we’ve historically run cold war over competing hegemonic ambitions, played espionage and fought in proxy nations.
That’s not ‘war with China’ territory, but it might be something else and for all I know that could be what Mssrs Pezzulo and Dutton were hinting at.
And if so, then after Australia’s history in cold war proxy fights, I imagine that most Crikey readers would strongly resist Australia warring in proxy nations.
So does Australia want to support Chinese hegemonism instead? Against the US maybe? To potential economic benefit, and with what security implications?
Or should Australia resist it, but only diplomatically, and at continuing cost to trade?
I honestly don’t know, but would like to have these positions spelled out before they’re debated. 😀
The PRC, as I conveyed in my post, has done very well under the present system and hence has no reason to change it.
Secondly, the PRC is committed to being the manufacturing hub of the world. Even General Electric have assembly factories for everything
from jet engines to white goods. Similarly for Apple and a host of other USA companies. Xi is a foreign direct investment, globalisationist devotee. The Central Committee loves capitalism(!) but in a Chinese context.
Your point regarding the Cold War does not compute Mr Spock. The USSR made no pretence as to intending to change the world
and make it Marxist or some variant. There is no trace of ideology (other than capitalism) in Sino diplomatic dialogue. Business in the context of “Chinese Socialism” is a mantra in the PRC and is taught to school kids.
As to your fifth paragraph both Oz and NZ (NZ cannot be separated for this discussion) ARE liberal democracies so we WILL line up with the USA but in an (hopefully) independent manner. There is no question of “going over the wall”.
That said, the advantages (trade and research) are legion. Banning (e.g.) Huawei suggests that the yanks would NOT place back doors on
their equipment. The point being that both have the capability of doing so. Such a decision to ban an Asian comms innovator is plain idiotic.
As White points out : it is about time that the country stood on its own two feet as to security or anything else.
Also keep in mind, during these enlightened times, that sensitive information has a half life of about six months and over sufficient time
ANYTHING is crackable. As you know, after 5 time constants the “use” is close to zero (or 30 months in this example) and at zero, or sufficiently close to zero at 10 time constants or 60 months; 5 years.
Your 2nd to last paragraph : Oz can do both. Oz and have a constructive relationship with China but it does require an attitude of little brother having reached adulthood; at least to the yanks. Oz is a liberal democracy (warts ‘n all) but as the fellow quipped in the film “what have the Romans ever done for us” (other than to have guaranteed peace)
The first swing of the axe is to get matriculation standards to those in France, Germany and the UK. From my experience (admittedly a bit
dated) that is about 20% max of a typical yr12 class to have any hope at all and about 10% of a typical yr12 class would be able to matriculate into a decent British or French university. Such is the experience of Singapore. It is that simple but there will be any number of losers from the current system.
Thank you for an interesting prediction, Erasmus. If I can paraphrase: you think that China has not and will not adopt a hegemonistic strategy because it will more profitable and secure without.
So what minimum evidence would persuade you that either China had already adopted a hegemonistic approach to geopolitics, or would find it beneficial to do so?
Here’s one that would persuade me pretty quickly into the future: if Chinese food security were substantially threatened due to climate change.
Ruv, food is definitely one as can be seen by China’s increasing encroachment into the traditional fishing waters of Vietnam & the Philippines. Water will be another as China continues to build massive dams on the upper Mekong.
I don’t believe there will be a sudden major clash and this will be a long silent struggle between dictatorship and democracy. I’m not sure which way it will turn out.
Oldie wrote: Ruv, food is definitely one. […] Water will be another
I think so too, Oldie. Though these are not specifically Chinese issues, it’s hard to think of a place more exposed than a highly populous country with authoritarian regime that has just transformed a subsistance agricultural sector into globalised urban manufacturing.
Less clear to me also are the pinch points in modern (post-fossil) manufacturing. Rare earth metals appear to be one. Construction sand apparently is another. Either might eventually justify a sufficiently powerful economy with a strong military to extend its influence beyond bilateral trade and diplomacy.
The issue then is time-frames. Someone could try and argue that such pinches are decades away and well beyond current Chinese planning horizons, but that argument requires a lot more data than I’ve presently seen.
Again, I’m not advocating for a position here: I just want the people claiming a firm position to spell out clearly what minimum data would refute it.
Firstly, famine is not a new phenomenon in China; albeit it not for 60 years. However, in the 21st century, any country that has a food problem has do due entirety to its own incompetence.
As to climate change the PRC has this aspect marked as a priority and Australia ought (similar size) to be teaming-up.
As to changes, from my apartment in Shenzhen in 2015 I could see Futian Tower (15km line of sight) perhaps twenty days per year. From about mid 2018 I could see it every day.
Your first paragraph captures my assessment as to the PRC. The PRC could not be happier with the status quo including the IMF, WTO, UN etc. As to your second paragraph my substantive post answers that question.
The emphasis is on mulit-lateralism and NOT hegemony. EVERY statement by the PRC since 2014 has made this aspect clear; subject to the content of the 19th Congress; which is not new.
The major corporates (Boeing 2,000 aeroplanes over the last decade when 18 per year is really good going; 12 per year is not too shabby),
American retail (Best Buy etc.) along with GM and Ford have done handsomely. The (domestic) yanks were buying Japanese and European cars.
The “big is beautiful” Chevs, Cadillacs etc. were a god-send to the respective American car manufacturers because literally millions of American cars were sold to Chinese drivers (with their new licences : damned amusing stories available on request!). The market ain’t satiated yet.
The Silk and Belt makes no sense without multi-lateralism. Similarly for the Eurasian Economic Union. The two initiatives will likely to become integrated with the bulk of the worlds population and GDP participating. The “old order” is over. This is precisely the source of the knee-jerking. For the sake of an illustration, I’d say that the USA is where the Brits were circa 1930; hanging on but only just. Thirty five years later it was over for the Brits; probably 15-20 years for the yanks.
If I learned anything during my time in the PRC is is that the top echelons are brilliant planners. They have plans B..to Z. By comparison the planning in Oz and NZ doesn’t deserve the word. As to the possibility of food shortages via climate change I can’t say and neither can anyone else. In another post to this topic I have remarked on supermarkets in general. Anything that is available in an Australian supermarket (wholemeal bread, peanut butter, Oz plonk (often dumped) cereal, cuts of meat… whatever) is obtainable in any major supermarket (e.g. Ole) in any Chinese city. Similarly for Vietnam at about 2/3 the price.
Keep in mind, Ruv, that the only veneer from civilised behaviour to outright barbarism is the absence of about 25-50 consecutive meals.
Well we saw how thin the veneer of “civilisation” was here in Oz when the toilet paper wars erupted as lockdowns were announced!! And the shops were staying open!
Erasmus, thank you for your reply.
You’ve made many disparate points in your last post, and I’d like to try and summarise again. I hope I do so accurately, and will include a short response indicating my current thinking.
So far I think you’ve argued that:
Contextually, my purpose here does not revolve around some win/lose debating context. My engagement of Guy was to explore a question he raised in a way I thought was superficial and rhetorical and risked being disingenuous. I don’t myself have a position I want to advocate and don’t feel that I can yet form one.
I feel that you may have a position though, Erasmus — or may be at the point of exploring whether you can establish one.
My problem is: so far as I understand it, your argument seems more rhetorical than constructive too.
I think we might agree that prolonged hegemonism, if it occurred, would expose China to heightened risk of military conflict with some party or parties: China has land borders with some 14 countries and I’ve lost track of the number of seas, straits and seaports in which it holds interests that may be contestable or contested — at times aggressively.
As a huge manufacturer the PRC is also a monster consumer of resources — much of which pass through the strait of Malacca, and so are exposed to the same sorts of geopolitical forces in which we’ve seen the UK and Suez, or the US and Panama, say.
For this branch of the exploration then: from hegemonism to outright risk of military conflict, I’d pose the following question…
Hegemonism can sometimes be hard to see with confidence, since a lot of it takes place in diplomatic secrecy. Also those involved in hegemonistic behaviours will routinely deny doing so.
And when nations allied, neutral and opposed have confronted the US (say) over its hegemonism — or the former USSR, the hardest place to recognise it from was often the place actually perpetrating it. (I don’t know if you’ve ever tried talking to an American about US hegemonism, but in my experience the term is either unrecognised, or redefined in terms of diplomatic sovereignty.)
Erasmus, where would you say would be the best place to look for any sign of Chinese hegemonism, and what would be the best evidence by which it might be independently recognised?
We are agreement with R.’s (less than analytical) approach to the issue; a sardonic view would be that the article contains something for everyone.
I am indebted to your questions, Ruv, and they do improve my answers. Yet, appealing to days gone by, we tend to agree on facts (as we acknowledge them) but seldom on policy that might be developed from those facts. In my own defence I’m inclined to insist that the points that I have made are uniform rather than disparate but let’s proceed.
In summary, the PRC is quite ok with the current globalist (qua WTO) system and, moreover, has done well from global capitalism (as it were).
Manufacturing has disappeared, in general, from the 1st world but having made that point many American business have done very well from trading with China (cars to jets). China has become the manufacturing hub of the world. There is nothing “idealistic” as to these balance sheet observations.
Speculation as to food etc. does not take us very far because any number of plausible scenarios could be constructed and the risk of “fitting a model of convenience” would be all too tempting. We might begin with a particular scenario but the conclusions would be tentative however compelling the scenario. Thus : no joy there. As an aside, I did not assert that food security was not a (chief) concern of the PRC.
However, it is instructive to note that since 1967 water from Shenzhen has been obtained by HK. Until circa 1970 HK encountered major water shortages.
The basis for my position are recent texts; White, “How to Defend Australia”, Mahbubani, “Has China Won” and Raby “China’s Grand Strategy”. There are countless other texts but they are the main. However, consider Kissinger “World Order”, “On China” and Xi’s “Governance of China”.
The authors are acknowledged “heads” in international relations, politics and diplomacy. Raby is a former ambassador to China (2007-11).
Thus, appealing to my sources, you would have to identify where I have been “rhetorical”. The alternative is for Cky to provide me with 3,000
words (min.) for me to spell it out. I’d throw in Fukuyama whose “End of History” is looking rather anaemic over the last two decades.
As a rough rule of thumb, as countries expand via economic growth the risk of conflict does increase. Such has been the case since Edward III. The intentions contained as presented at the 19th Congress amount to a 20 year plan which is already under way. As I say, the planning within the top echelons of the PRC is rather good.
Wilson presented is 14 objectives at Versailles (only two being accepted; kinda). One objective was to remove the secrecy in diplomacy. With increased communications this century, the diplomatic process has become much more open. Moreover, new forms of diplomacy such as ‘public diplomacy’ or ‘military diplomacy’ have been in existence for some time and have become an art in themselves. Secrecy, per se, is becoming unnecessary. A good example were the tweets of Trump.
Indeed I have discussed American hegemony with Americans to significant variations of reaction and, in general, independent of race.
There is more than a strand of Archie Bunker-ism but the same could be said of Australia. Similarly for British novels at the end of the 19th century. “Around the World in 80 Days” afforded the consideration that a Frenchman could do just as well. By comparison, the Englishman was unsure of the day when arriving in England once again.
If the PRC expands in a territorial sense beyond what is stated at the 19th Congress then hegemonism could be said to be in existence.
Alternatively, just relying upon economic growth and increasing the GDP per capita WILL create a condition (by simple arithmetic)
whereby the economy of the PRC becomes dominant. Ditto for Asia in general in regard to Australia and NZ.
It is not for nothing that the Pacific Islands are engaging diplomatically with Asia. The major test would be a rejection of bi or multi-lateralism by the PRC. However it is the USA that is rejecting bi-lateralism and NOT the PRC.
As I say, the knee-jerking is about the change of world order which is occurring beneath our noses. The economy and military capacity of the PRC are close to those of USA and further developments, within the PRC, in both the economy and the military can be expected.
Time will tell Ruv but I think what I have asserted is (1) consistent, (2), tangible, and (3) verifiable if a-priori if the principal texts are ignored; i.e we will have to wait and see how matters turn out.
Erasmus, thank you for providing your own summary. I agree that we tend to concur on history, but often differ on policy (though that has never seemed to bother either of us. :D)
It’s informative that the key points I drew to summarise are different from those you offered. You emphasised some matters that I don’t think are important while dismissing some matters that I think will become critical.
Perhaps the biggest difference though is around your interpretation of hegemonism. Like Guy you seem to have viewed the key issue as territorial expansionism, and yet we are approaching 80 years of postcolonial hegemonism that has been about everything else: virtually none of Australia’s military engagements since WWII have been about territory; they’ve all been about governance and trade.
In particular, I think one measure of hegemonic activity is the role of minor nations in multilateral organisations. When they repeatedly support multilateral policy against their national interests, we know that some other influence is being applied. (Australia has done this, and so has many other nations.)
The vectors for that influence frequently revolve around arrangements of trade, aid and security — and those arrangements are typically put in place for precisely that influence.
I think that while your minimum evidence for hegemonism is set so high — at ‘territorial expansion’ (is it possible to set it any higher?) — we are not actually having the same discussion.
While China’s dispute with Taiwan could (and well may) easily devolve into overt military occupation, it’s less apparent to me that China’s use of North Korea as a political and economic buffer zone, its territorial sea disputes with Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Phillipines and Vietnam, or its need to strategically control the Strait of Malacca would go that way.
Nevertheless, any of these matters could be addressed through building a hegemony — and it’s not hard to find analysis claiming that this is already occurring.
Which takes me back to my original question: would or should Australia ever oppose Chinese hegemonism by supporting a multilateral military action — even one in a proxy territory?
If not, should Australia consider supporting Chinese hegemonism as it has often supported US hegemonism, and if so, to what prospective benefits and costs?
Or should Australia oppose Chinese hegemonism diplomatically while doing essentially nothing on the military front? What costs are avoided? What benefits are sacrificed from this approach?
It’s a can of worms with plenty of unknowns but unless the detail is unpacked, I think the arguments are largely rhetorical.
Ok, Ruv, I take your point with regard to there being alternative applications of hegemony. Considering the matter comprehensively I can see what you mean and to a large extent such cheque-book diplomacy (providing infrastructure etc). is the means of 21st century diplomacy.
> your minimum evidence for hegemonism is set so high — at ‘territorial expansion’ (is it possible to set it any higher?)
It is set at the level of Chamberlain in 1939. A higher might include something that looked liked Stalinist purges or Maoist Cultural Revolution.
Frankly, I would be very surprised if the PRC even needed to resort to overt military occupation and I agree with your remarks as to the South China Sea etc.
As for Taiwan there is an entrenched upper middle class that would lose everything in the event of a military altercation. The posturing notwithstanding a revised but acceptable “two systems” will be placed into effect.
While China’s dispute with Taiwan could (and well may) easily devolve into overt military occupation, it’s less apparent to me that China’s use of North Korea as a political and economic buffer zone, its territorial sea disputes with Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Phillipines and Vietnam, or its need to strategically control the Strait of Malacca would go that way.
> Which takes me back to my
> original question
Which resides in the negative
> If not, should Australia consider
> supporting Chinese hegemonism
See my reply you via a question from Penny. The short answer is that the question does not arise if (as per White) Australia acts independently.
We COULD begin tomorrow! The alliance, such as it is, is now AUS whereas it was previously ANZUS (which doesn’t guarantee a damned thing BTW).
The unilateral flicking of the TPP by the USA could be followed with a “thanks but no thanks; end of contract” in regard to AUS tomorrow
(Friday) to the USA ambassador (or are such things expressed on FB these days?). This is more or less Hugh White’s message. Sufficiently “unpacked” for you Ruv 🙂
Ruv don’t know why there’s a “minus 4” reaction to your comment – it’s a very reasonable, balanced and genuine one.
THAT is the reason for the down-voting. Factual statements mitigate against one on Cky forums. You will come to see. There are exceptions but woke and idiocy tends to be up-voted.
Thank you for your comment, Glenn.
I think there’s a practical difference between a ‘reaction’ and an ‘objection’: Reactions vent feelings; objections disagree with ideas. Obviously both matter, but a reaction without a constructive objection tells us something instructive.
I sometimes think of it this way: the measure to which reactions are out of step with debate might be the measure to which Crikey’s readership prefers consumerism and mob conformity to acting as a self-responsible citizen.
This might also be a proxy measure for the degree to which democracy can be swayed by rhetoric instead of evidence.
Pay no attention to Ras, to whom everything is “woke” these days.
Audioio wrote: Pay no attention to Ras, to whom everything is “woke” these days.
‘Woke’ is becoming synecdoche for fashionable but shallow liberal identitarianism, and I’m not sure that’s a linguistic trend anyone can stop.
I understood that to be Erasmus’ intended meaning, but think there may be deeper geopolitical questions at play on this issue in any case.
Regardless, I think we’re getting to the meat, whatever language is used. 😀
Well how about looking at Western “individual freedom” ideology, for a start? It’s based on a delusion of individual sovereignty which is impossible in a world with more than one individual, because each individual is motivated by self-interested, competitive survival instincts. Therefore rule of law is required, whether ‘liberal’ or Marxist.
Further, article 23 of the UN UDHR requires universal above poverty participation in a nation’s economic development, not achievable in Western “invisible hand”, free markets with their winner-take-all ethos. [China’s 2030 goal of a “moderately prosperous socialist society in all respects” includes the eradication of entrenched poverty, even if billionaires are tolerated; unlike the Western neoliberal system which tolerates homelessness and entrenched disadvantage amidst plenty; so much for the West’s hypocritical stance on “human rights”].
Meanwhile we see disgraceful ideologically-based nonsense re “national security” from the likes of Peter Jennings – trotted out daily on national TV – urging us to go the war with China because like-minded “democracy” ideologues in Taiwan want us to go to war; while in Xinjiang, China is countering a backward, terrorist- infested Islamic culture – again seized on as an excuse to go to war with a country destined to surpass the US in economic strength within the decade.
As for the problem of global hegemony (and the West’s paranoia about Chinese accession of it): it should reside in the UNSC alone (subject to an ICJ) , as envisioned in Doc Evatt’s original design for the security council (ie without veto) .
Is that sufficient for a “minimum evidentiary threshold” to establish the reasons for peace, not war with China?
(i won’t hold my breathe…..)
Neil Halliday wrote: Is that sufficient for a “minimum evidentiary threshold” to establish the reasons for peace, not war with China?
Neil, I’m sorry but you misread my original challenge to Guy.
I didn’t ask for the minimum evidentiary threshold for peace. There are always numerous reasons not to rush to war and like Guy I neither welcome nor entirely credit Mr Pazzulo’s and Dutton’s recent chest-beating on this topic: I view such pronouncements as cynical, alarmist and unconstructive.
What I asked for was the minimum evidentiary threshold under which Guy would support Australia’s participation in some multilateral military opposition to a Chinese activity.
If he can’t supply it, then his key objection isn’t evidentiary: it’s ideological, and one should not argue that some weight of evidence lies behind it because an ideological argument will move the goalposts on evidence indefinitely.
So I can ask the same of you: what minimum evidence would persuade you to support Australia’s participation in a military conflict with China?
Ruv, thanks for your astute contributions to this crucial debate we have to have. Your questions and responses are, unlike many other commentators not to mention politicians, are highly relevant. As you have noted, many of the arguments are purely rhetorical.
I wonder if the following thought experiment would help: what if, we were to consider China as an empire built on the former Qing dynasty’s colonisation of Tibet, Xinjiang and Mongolia, and hiding behind the verbal smokescreen of “Peoples’ Republic”? Then the declaration that Taiwan, in which China, and for that matter the USA, showed no interest until after WW2, “belongs” to China, is purely a statement of aggressive expansionist imperialism, rather than a self-righteous statement of reclaiming their rightful territory.
Oldie thank you for your comments and for participating in an interesting conversation.
You wrote that under one construction: the declaration that Taiwan, in which China, and for that matter the USA, showed no interest until after WW2, “belongs” to China, is purely a statement of aggressive expansionist imperialism
I often suspect that historical arguments of rightness follow post-hoc from more contextual concerns about security and economic benefits. 🙂
So in that context, Taiwan is a major exporter of the electronics on which Australia depends.
In that context, would you support Chinese (re)possession of Taiwan if:
Alternatively, would you advocate opposing Chinese possession of Taiwan with military force if the loss of life in Taiwan were low, and provoking war would damage the supply of smartphones, computers, vehicle electronics and electronic cameras to Australia?
If Chinese (re)possession of Taiwan occurred, would you support Japan’s possible repositioning from self-defence forces to remilitarisation?
Always refreshing to read your contributions, Ruv. I can answer your question fairly quickly if we (for now) skip the question of defining ‘democracy’ and ‘dictatorship’. I am totally pro-democracy, however imperfect it may be, and am opposed to dictatorship. From that perspective you can see that I would be totally opposed to any takeover by the PRC of Taiwan, under any circumstances.
The question remains, of course, how we can prevent this and Morrison, Dutton and Pezzullo, are clueless half-wits with zero knowledge of how to face the issue.
As to sending troops there, we would have to seriously consider what the consequences would be if we refused to commit even a token force.
First, how would east and south-east Asians interpret our actions.
Second, how would they react? I fear one consequence would be the nuclearisation of Japan, South Korea and others, leading eventually to our own nuclearisation.
By the way, I am not too worried (at the moment) about a China invasion of Taiwan. I believe a greater threat to democracy is brewing in the USA where a significant percentage of the population, ie the republican party, is displaying a total rejection of democracy. If you have access to the Washington Post, Greg Sargent’s recent contribution describes how this is happening: (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/05/liz-cheney-ouster-gop-leadership-future-stolen-election/)
Oldie, thank you for engaging such a difficult topic.
You wrote: I am totally pro-democracy, however imperfect it may be, and am opposed to dictatorship. From that perspective you can see that I would be totally opposed to any takeover by the PRC of Taiwan, under any circumstances.
You’d be willing to commit Australian blood and treasure to defending Taiwanese democracy? Presumably you would only do this as part of a multilateral force (the sort of thing that NATO has done in the past?)
If the US had no appetite for this conflict (with its strategic deterrence failed, it might seek appeasement for example), would you want Australia to take the diplomatic lead and agitate other parties? If so, which major military powers do you think would have a strong interest in the democratic independence of Taiwan if the US didn’t, and would they suffice?
Also, are there any trade or regional security conditions under which you would be willing to abandon opposition to China annexing/reintegrating Taiwan?
You added: I believe a greater threat to democracy is brewing in the USA
It’s not on-topic but I agree that we can find ‘conservative’ elements in the US and elsewhere that don’t actually want to conserve: they are simply opportunistic wreckers exploiting reactionary sentiments.
On the other hand, the countries where this is most evident all have unsustainable postcolonial histories, so perhaps there is a common theme here?
Ruv, thanks again for continuing the discussion.If you ever decide to start a substack, let me know and I’ll subscribe.
In reply to your questions, first I don’t like to commit other Australians for my beliefs, but I would willingly participate in any activity (even physically, for what it would be worth!!) which I thought could defend democracy, in Taiwan and elsewhere.
I believe that Japan, South Korea, India and Vietnam would have a strong interest in maintaining Taiwan’s independence (democratic or not) from China.
No, I don’t believe any trade or regional security conditions would justify abandoning Taiwan.
Oldie, I thought I’d replied to this response but it got lost.
You wrote: I believe that Japan, South Korea, India and Vietnam would have a strong interest in maintaining Taiwan’s independence (democratic or not) from China.
Yes — that was my list too.To me it looks like a list that cares more about an independent Taiwan than its form of governance, so perhaps less willing to sacrifice for Taiwanese democracy than project force to keep it secure.
I’ve read that Taiwan’s own sentiments toward China are ambivalent: there’s a sense that it’s not opposed to re-integrating under the right terms (and presumably with the right assurances though I can’t imagine what they are.)
So here’s another question for you then:
If Taiwan democratically voted to re-integrate — even accepting some limits on its own democratic freedoms in exchange for security and economic benefits — would you support that?
And here’s another fairly abstract question…
Would you in general support (say) a constitutional monarchy with a robust bill of rights over a democratic republic without one, or vice versa?
These questions aren’t meant to be vexatious. I’m digging to try to find where you think the core value of democracy is: the part worth sacrificing blood and treasure for. Put another way: is it in the process itself, or key values we hope the process will protect?
Ruv, it is one of the paradoxes of democracy that it has to accept internal anti-democratic movements even if they appear to risk destroying democracy itself. It’s like the issue of tolerance having to tolerate intolerance. If Taiwan voted to join China, we would have to accept that.
As for monarchy versus democratic republic I would again have to go with the democratic republic, although it is difficult to see how long a democracy could last without a strong constitution. We can see how democracy is struggling in the USA with an antiquated constitution and democracy in India, which seems to have a good constitution, is dying under its current leader.
Oldie wrote: If Taiwan voted to join China, we would have to accept that.
Thank you and that makes sense.
So now let me ask: how small can a group be to legitimately secede from a polity? Do you accept the concept of a sovereign citizen for example, Oldie? If not, what determines the cut-off?
Do you also accept the Tyranny of the Majority implicit in a democracy? The idea that, for example, a majority can disenfranchise a minority simply because of its weight of power?
No, absolutely not! The Tyranny of the Majority (which can easily end up being the tyranny of a minority) must be safeguarded at all costs. It is essential to democracy to tolerate and respect minorities, even, as I said earlier, they threaten democracy itself.
The other issue of how small a minority can be to secede from a polity is almost impossible to answer.
One thing I can say that concerns me, is the cynical use of secession by irresponsible, if not criminal, opportunists to use secession for their own purposes. Although not identical, we are now seeing the disastrous consequences of this in Brexit.
Oldie wrote: It is essential to democracy to tolerate and respect minorities, even, as I said earlier, they threaten democracy itself.
Understandable, Oldie.
So… some charter of rights is critical?
(I’m not trying to trap you here. I’m still trying to discern democracy-as-means from democracy-as-end.)
Another Crikey reader Neil, recently took issue with something I neither wrote nor implied regarding ‘Western values’. I suspect he meant ‘Western preconceptions’, and am wondering if this is the sort of thing he was talking about: the assumption that processes arising from Western cultures and history will produce outcomes that don’t always arise from those processes, and may not always need those processes anyway.
That’s not a criticism of your position. It’s just that, given the collapse of Western-progressive beliefs that democracy and prosperity generate one another (the sort of belief that has seen repeated failed interventions in Africa and Asia), I sometimes wonder what it is we have yet to learn.
Ruv, for me democracy is not just a matter of majoritarianism, though that is commonly accepted. Majorities can and have made disastrous choices. The importance of democracy is that it has so far been the only system to control power to some extent. I completely accept the saying about “power corrupts etc.
Because of its flexibility and tolerance, democracy is constantly challenged from within, as shown by many of the comments here, few of which would be allowable under a dictatorship.
A major task of democracy is to maintain this flexibility which it has up to now done with the support of liberal principles such as a parliamentary system of representation, free fair and REGULAR elections, separation of powers, an independent judiciary etc.
In a way, it all comes down to the acceptance and toleration of differences and pluralism, something we here need to improve dramatically.
Oldie wrote: The importance of democracy is that it has so far been the only system to control power to some extent.
Yes. It’s known to be the only system allowing frequent, peaceful transitions of power, whether for better or worse. 😉
But as far as I can see, the system itself offers no guarantee that any power will be used well, that any power abused will be promptly neutralised, that any harms can be easily reversed, or that power cannot be used benignly and peacefully in other systems.
Regarding pluralism, I suspect that comes down to culture (i.e. what we teach to whom) rather than system of governance. As dismays us both, it’s not at all difficult for democracies to be nationalistic, nativistic, protectionist, reactionary and bigoted (for example.)
Moreover, that such culture can move a polity out of democracy (as it threatened to do in the US recently) is not evidence that democracy prevents such culture; rather it seems to show that democracy is especially vulnerable to such cultural shift (as some other forms of governance may not be.)
Ultimately, democracy works on trust, respect and truth: if those can be sufficiently damaged, democracy itself fails.
Which makes me wonder: is democracy worth defending in itself, or is it rather its underpinning values (perhaps plus those of Enlightenment Empiricism and secularism?)
Back in the decades where there was only one superpower, these questions weren’t asked much. US hegemonism was democracy was pluralistic freedom (even when the three never really coincided.)
But now we face a geopolitical rebalancing, the question of what Australia might stand for beyond short term national self-interest becomes a lot more nuanced (especially when aren’t really upholding domestically the values we profess.)
Don’t understand how the quotation marks and highlighted text got there.
I also think we’ve got plenty to chew on Oldie. Many thanks for your contributions! 😉
Your question, Ruv, “would you advocate opposing Chinese possession of Taiwan with military force if the loss of life in Taiwan were low” is a non-question because the consequences of a military undertaking against the PRC cannot be known in advance. Thus the conjecture as to loss of life has no meaning because it cannot be controlled.
One has NO alternative but to assume a worst-case scenario; certainly the occupation of WA, NT and QLD if only for resources and geography. Conjectures as to A-USA
arrangements, however favourable, would be just that.
There is a Chinese addage : “often it is necessary to kill a chicken to teach a monkey”.
Erasmus wrote: the consequences of a military undertaking against the PRC cannot be known in advance.
And yet Australia must set policy in times it cannot always choose, and might have to respond to an international invitation to participate within a short time-frame.
So an Australia government might not have the luxury of saying ‘this is a non-question’ — that’s simply what people say when they don’t want to accept a time-sensitive responsibility.
So do you insist on just trusting the government of the day as the only legitimate holders of that responsibility? If so, do you oppose citizens advocating on such a matter?
Let’s recap Ruv.
It makes no sense to advocate a policy of xyz given casualties of alpha percent a-priori because, a-priori, the casualties cannot be known in advance. In other words, in the context that you have presented the question, a policy of xyz has to be committed prior to the casualties (in this case) being known.
There is no reverse leaver on the policy or, for that matter, the casualties! Thus the policy of xyz has no meaning either if casualties are to be the criteria. As an aside, Eisenhower anticipated casualties up to 40% at Normandy but the actual was about 10%
As to uncertainty, I think I have a good understanding of the subject from Bayesian and Frequentest perspectives; indeed Monte Carlo methods. There is all the difference
between your questions and something like “what minimum sales volume needs to be attained to effect a 10% increase in pay for the employees”.
The question that you put in some circumstances is very useful but not when associated with the current matter; at last as it occurs to me.
Irrespective of the favourable odds of winning (horse race or stock market) the prudent investor invests money that he can afford to loose; not money that would place him in a situation of hopelessness in case of loss.
The bar that I identified, as I have said, was that for Chamberlain.
When the liberal democracy of Oz is threatened I will commence a regime of push-ups and extended exercise. In the case of the “T”s (for the nth time) China has a valid claim. To argue that point amounts to a separate topic.
Yet, reiterating, inasmuch as the PRC has benefited from globalisation so has Taiwan. My last visit to Taiwan was only a few years ago. Stronger intergeneration with the PRC economy was deemed favourable by some for the reasons that I have provided over many posts. Tourism in particular!
The Australian government (indeed any government) will always have the choice of adjudicating on questions being “real” or otherwise. The USA implied “with us or otherwise” is a non decision for Australia *if* Australia intends an independent role. Lining up with the USA as in LBJ arises from a desire for dependence.
Its not about “trusting” the gov. Ruv or anything like it. Unlike some, I don’t have an issue with free speech either. Short of a situation where the mode of life in Oz is physically threatened or a significant risk exists a 20 battalion assault on Shenzhen or Shanghai (assuming, by some miracle that the force gets beyond abeam Singapore) is just idiocy.
I hope I have made myself clear (or clearer).
Just had an innocent reply embargoed!
I get that too at times, Erasmus. Sometimes I believe it’s from length, links or a particular turn of phrase. I’ll look out for your response though. 🙂
Taiwan/Formosa was a Japanese colony from 21st October 1895 until the surrender of Japan in 1945. The original landings by Japanese troops was contested and sufficient resistance was made to delay the establishment by Japan of its then new colony. From August 1945 the island was administered by the Americans until the defeated KMT was evacuated to the island under US protection. There remains a lot of unfinished business in North Asia. The reconciliation that sees the closing of the Chinese Civil War, The reunification of Korea and a peace treaty between Japan and Russia to mark the end of WWII.
Totally agree, Johnb. Unfortunately I can’t see any of these happening, definitely not in my lifetime! It’s hard enough getting South Korea and Japan to reconcile about comfort women. It’s not a matter of saying “Why can’t you guys get over it?”
Japanese policy is focussed on preventing the reunification of Korea. A reunified Korea would be a formidable competitor for Japan and change the strategic dynamics of Japans immediate geography to Japans severe disadvantage.
You could be right on that one John. I will add that China would be even more strongly opposed to having a unified nuclear armed Korea on its doorstep. In other words, it ain’t gonna happen.
Your “Western values” ideology is flawed. Sovereignty of the individual ideology is delusional if there is more than one person in the world, because all individuals are motivated by self-interested competitive survival instincts. China’s unique combination of free markets and Marxism will very likely propel it to global leader status within a decade. That’s when the UN will regain its rightful role of managing an internal rules-based system via reforms inc. abolshing the UNSC veto.
“Western values” (based on individual sovereignty) are obsolete in a globally connected and inter-dependent world.
Neil wrote: Your “Western values” ideology is flawed.
Neil, I understand that you have declined to answer the question I asked you, and acknowledge that your previous response was a non-sequitur.
Instead, you’ve responded with a straw-man rebuttal to a point I haven’t made, but about which you presumably want to talk at length.
Unfortunately, that means your conversation isn’t actually with me. It’s with readers interested in your views on Marxism and Western values, about which I have neither asked a question nor offered an opinion, and which I view as only tangentially related to Guy’s original article.
I do not know what conversation you might find on that here, Neil, but I wish you well of it.
Reminds me of Ghandi’s response to a journalists question ” What is your opinion of Western civilization? “to which Ghandi replied ” It’s a good idea”.
Countries have to stop this sheriff nonsense. The USA violates human rights all the time but I can’t see politicians trying to drag us into a war against them.
Australia needs to ends this relationship with the USA & form closer relationships with the countries in our region. Repairing the relationship with NZ would be a good start.
Penny wrote: Countries have to stop this sheriff nonsense.
The military intervention of nations in the affairs of other nations predates the language coined by George W Bush, Penny. With the exception of WWII, all military excursions by Australia have been off-shore interventions in affairs not directly threatening Australian security.
So my question to you is one I asked Guy:
Under what circumstances would you support Australia’s participation in a military confrontation with China?
If the answer is ‘none’ then your issue is not the human-rights record of intervenors: it’s that you oppose military intervention itself.
So I’d ask you the question I asked Guy:
Assuming a growing Chinese hegemonism that might increasingly impact Australian security and trade interests, how would you respond to it? Would you:
I’m going to attempt an answer to that which you have asked Penny and R.
> Assuming a growing Chinese hegemonism
I’d agree on “influence” but not hegemonism (as the risk of appearing pedantic) but otherwise the assertion is NOT in dispute.
> that might increasingly impact Australian
> security and trade interests
Again “affect” rather then the over-applied noun (because I do have a literal sense of communication : sorry); again there is no question of the changing power relations having an effect from Vietnam down to the Antarctic; the Oz/NZ and the Pacific
in particular.
> Would you:
I would learn from history.
Your options are reasonable at face value but note regarding your questions
(1) the EU has established recent trade relationships with the PRC
(2 & 3) are options; see below
(4) entertaining a military altercation (just in terms of fire-power) is not feasible in terms of success of mission or long term interests.
By history, I mean :
19 OCTOBER 2020 : NZ announces a third P-3 deployment in support of UN sanctions
The Government has deployed a Royal New Zealand Air Force P-3K2 Orion (P-3) maritime patrol aircraft to support the implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions imposing sanctions against North Korea, announced Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters and Minister of Defence Ron Mark. …. snip … This will be the third such P-3 deployment, following previous deployments in October 2019 and September 2018.
END OF QUOTE
[search the beehive site]
It could have been that the PRC viewed such an initiative (which was entirely voluntary) as favourable. Supply ships were photographed transferring cargo to N.Korea vessels. However, NZ did not seek permission to enter PRC newly created air defence zones en-route to Korea. Thus,
one can behave “ethically” in regard to an international resolution and take the view that there has been no international ratification of the extended PRC air defence zones.
I appeal to the example (the IMF much have come good with a loan for the fuel) not because it is strictly analogous but because it is illustrative of a country that can retain specific memberships AND act independently. The difference is that ScoMo would be on the blower to Biden seeking an opinion.
The decision was also one of personalities. Peters is quite gutsy along with being in possession of functioning neurons; kind of a thinking man’s Fitzgibbon.
Erasmus, thank you for seeking to engage a knotty problem to which I don’t myself have a preferred approach. (Actually, there’s the approach I think Australia will take anyway, and a question-mark over what I’d like this country to do instead.)
Although you’ve quibbled over language I don’t think you’ve changed the sense of my question, however I didn’t see a clear, preferred answer, so I’ll condense the language and ask it again:
If burgeoning Chinese hegemonism begins to threaten Australia’s regional trade and security interests, under what circumstances would you advocate:
Here I’m inviting you unpack what lessons you believe history has taught us about how to deal with burgeoning hegemonic powers. 😀
A re-hash of my embargoed post.
Your question, Ruv, “would you advocate opposing Chinese possession of Taiwan with military force if the loss of life in Taiwan were low” is a non-question because the consequences of a military undertaking against the PRC cannot be known in advance. Thus the conjecture as to loss of life has no meaning because it cannot be controlled.
One has NO alternative but to assume a worst-case scenario; certainly the occupation of WA, NT and QLD if only for resources and geography. Conjectures as to A-USA
arrangements, however favourable, would be just that.
It’s people like you that give taurus excretus a bad name.
Gary, by posting constructively and on-topic, the worst I can be is wrong, and from ensuing discussion I might even learn something.
But what do you change by permanently recording an insult to someone who pays for exactly the same news service you do, perhaps for similar reasons?
Here’s an alternative idea:
Why not re-read Guy’s article above, try to find a perspective you haven’t seen discussed much, research it, and post about that.
Even if it were wrong, it would show that you cared about the topic and the community, and might fertilise further thought.
(And by the way, I think the correct grammar is ‘excreta tauri’.)
……………../´¯/)
………………..,/¯../
………………./…./
…………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`•¸
………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\
……..(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
………\……………..’…../
……….”…\………. _.•´
…………\…………..(
…………..\………….\…
That takes me back to the mid 1980s, when I first saw a version as part of an engineering joke… It doesn’t render very well in Crikey’s comments section unfortunately.
Anyway, here’s the original joke: https://www.dourish.com/goodies/see-figure-1.html
Who cares?
A good many, frankly, sport. Even allowing for the varying comprehension of the history the total number of posts is a reasonable proxy.
There is a good reason why that stubborn zero at the bottom of your postings rarely budges. The upside is your tedious, intellectually pretentious, mostly irrelevant and boring comments make everyone else’s more interesting.
PS Most of us like to feel we are relevant and seek approval. Based on the overwhelming negative responses from contributors all you have done is insult their intelligence – apart from the village idiot, for obvious reasons. Clearly, your pretentious, thinly veiled and insidious war mongering is not appreciated.
Gary wrote: based on the overwhelming negative responses from contributors all you have done is insult their intelligence – apart from the village idiot, for obvious reasons.
… in reply to himself.
More constructively, he added: your pretentious, thinly veiled and insidious war mongering is not appreciated.
Gary, could you quote even one sentence where I stated or even implied that a military action with China would be a great idea?
The idea frankly horrifies me, but my feelings don’t actually change reality.
What I did instead was point out it’s conceivable that whatever Australia decides to do or refrain from doing, might come at a steep cost.
What I seek here is not to change minds (in I don’t know what to think.) I’m seeking greater accountability and clarity from people whose minds are already made up — like Guy, for example.
Judging from your incoherent contempt, your mind already seems made up too. So I’m wondering: is that based on evidence, or ideology?
Which part of the definition of denial don’t you understand? There is a reason why that stubborn zero at the bottom of your comments – and that of your fellow village idiot – rarely budges.
Are you bothered by comment popularity, Gary?
I am not: for many Crikey articles the popularity of a comment is predicted by casual sentiment. Under this article for example, very few readers would welcome a military conflict with China, and some may want to hope that it can never occur.
My comments could be scary because I’m asking us to compare the prospective costs of conflict avoidance against the costs of military engagement.
Readers can react to the fear that good intentions alone might not produce good outcomes, and some may resent being forced to confront a possible situation where there are no good choices.
That doesn’t bother me: I knew it was a difficult question when I first put it. But I don’t think it serves the question or journalism itself to let a rhetorically-constructed, one-sided article like Guy’s stand unchallenged.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
You’re not a messenger, Gary, because your comments are not quotes: they have no other author.
You’ve simply been rock-chucking with no engagement in constructive discussion. I have offered plenty of polite invitation to do otherwise, and the time for my polite engagement has now ended.
IT’S a bit early isn’t it? I know the sun is over the yard arm some where – but you should try and understand the meaning of my sending you the message that the overwhelming negative responses to your postings are due to your lack of credibility.
(1) Define creditability in the context in which you intend
(2) then provide examples
(3) allowing, generously, for your assertion prove that only positive responses represent anything worthy at all. Similarly, explain the down-votes for clearly verified fact.
If you are happy were you are then there is nothing for me to do. Good luck with your endeavors with seeking approval (and thus following the herd were little if any innovation could be anticipated).
It is informed maverickism that changes the world as any nod to history will illustrate.
As an aside, identify the ‘war mongering’ or, let me suggest, seek a remedial reading class. Best of all, identify one authorative publication regarding this topic.
Your self delusion is exceeded only by your eloquence.
Whereas the opposite applies to you.
Boring.
Arr.. ASCII art. I can’t imagine the number of 132 column pages that were given over to the genre.
As for your correspondent, I envy anyone who has that quantity of time on their hands. Yet you advice was not so much ignored as repudiated. I wonder if one is able to extrapolate to the electorate.
Interesting as an insight into the social media mind, the validity of discourse is dependent on the number of thumbs up, thumbs down. The value of the author is reflected by the number of followers. There’s a clue in the noun, follower. Bodes ill for our collective futures.
The quintessential example is Ardern in NZ. Nothing changed from her predecessor’s (David Cunliffe) manifesto but the country went gaga over her.
JohnB wrote: There’s a clue in the noun, follower. Bodes ill for our collective futures.
I agree, John.
I think the main value of information is in the action it informs… I am not clear what action the +1/-1 system on Crikey is meant to inform, or who is meant to take it.
As a measure of sentiment, it’d be great if we were selling cola.
I don’t think the purpose of Crikey is to sell political cola, but I’m willing to be corrected. 🙂
In any case, it’s not hard to game the +1s if that’s an important aim in one’s life. 😀
Apologies for the Caps but that is how the source prints.
U.S. BROADBAND COMPANIES FUNDED CAMPAIGN TO GENERATE MILLIONS OF FAKE COMMENTS IN GOVERNMENT’S “NET NEUTRALITY” REVIEW — NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE
Indeed, John. When political decisions are sensitive to public sentiment, the power of social media can be terrifying.
On the other hand, Gary above seems to have conflated policy (‘what should we do?’) with politics (‘how to maintain popularity?’)
There are doubtless people who think that’s how a democracy should operate: politics dictates policy; the loudest bullies on the bully pulpit sway the mob.
I’m afraid I’m not among them though, and I’m glad you don’t share that view either.
Hi again Kyle, at the risk of being pedantic, the EU has recently decided to cancel its proposed new economic deal with China.
Merely suspended Oldie after China ticked off a few EU parliamentary members. We will see where the diplomacy goes. Point being that it’s about the egos of a few Europeans and zot to do with anything else.
You’re right, Kyle it has been suspended. What happens in future remains undetermined. I think Xi may be finding the limits of wolf warrior diplomacy, the question being “can he control it?”
Politics Oldie; it is seldom static but ebbs and flows. The deal was years in the making with all realistic contingencies considered.
The EU has the Silk ‘n Belt in conjunction with the Eurasian Economic Union breathing down its neck. Consider the percentage of the global population and global GDP that the projects entail.
Such to the annoyance of uncle Sam. We are on the threshold of a different world.
This is a strange requirement, asking what “minimum requirement” for globally justified military opposition to what China might do. None of us, including Guy, knows what the future holds. There are many possible acts of war from China that others might justifiably oppose, although “global opposition” is an ask too far. Clearly, most countries would oppose China if it used military force to claim the South China Sea as it’s own territory. I think that China would have no rational plan and no prospect of success if it tried to do this. There is no evidence that its current leadership is obsessed in the way Hitler was.
To build a new German Empire in the East with “lebensraum” for Germans is clearly a cause for war. Hitler pursued that goal obsessively, although it was a goal that was very likely beyond reach, although a lot had been done to increase the chances of German military success.
By contrast, the Chinese leadership would not imagine that it could be successful in a war over the South China Sea. It’s current strategy seems to be to extract whatever advantages it can get for its claims short of war by bullying neighbouring countries around the South China Sea.
Guy argued that taking Taiwan by force would not be a cause of war because both sides to the dispute over who should govern Taiwan agree that Taiwan is part of China. Other countries rightly argue that any resolution of that issue should be peaceful but none should go to war over the issue, unless it sets back their vital interests. Australia has no vital interest in opposing Taiwan becoming part of the People’s Republic of China, since we agreed with that outcome when we recognised The People’s Republic.
Will China try to take over any of its neighbours? It has engaged in military conflict with South Korea, Russia, India and Vietnam at certain points but, apart from the Korean War, which they entered only when threatened with invasion across the Yalu River, these have all fallen short of war between it and those countries.
I think the relevant question for Guy is whether he is right to suggest that the current Sabre rattling has more to do with the US trying trying to make sure it’s economic strength remains ahead of China’s than with anything China might feasibly be trying to do to provoke war. However deplorable it’s imposition of its rule over Hong Kong might be, none of us are going to do anything more about that than we did when we deplored “restoration of order” in Tien an Men square.
Ian Hunt wrote: This is a strange requirement, asking what “minimum requirement” for globally justified military opposition to what China might do.
It’s routine, Ian, that Australia must respond to foreign policy issues on very short notice. So anyone advocating in advance on what foreign policy should be can legitimately be challenged on the kinds of tolerances their advocacy has for different plausible scenarios.
Indeed, if we don’t explore the consequences of advocacy systematically against reasonable scenarios, then an opinion has no evidentiary validation: it’s purely rhetorical, and can be appraised only by how people feel about the words.
And this was the basis of my criticism of Guy’s article in the first place: a policy that isn’t evidence-based and responsive to real-world situations is purely ideological.
If it’s a purely ideological opinion then so be it. Ideology doesn’t have to be validated against evidence — but then the author should be honest and not pretend it’s anything else.
I fear this is a bit too abstract for me. It seems to me that the only likely outcomes of Chinese military action in present circumstances are some more skirmishes on the Himalayan border, which is unlikely to involve us, further skirmishes in the South China Sea, which will not lead to war, since China could not possibly win a war to control the South China in the foreseeable future -surrounded on three sides by opponents, with little possibility of sufficient air or naval power-and an armed takeover of Taiwan in fifteen years time, which we can’t go to war over, since we accept the outcome if not the methods and cannot stop what we dislike, the use of force by going to war. So, Guy’s position seems reasonable to me. But, my point is that our evidence on what might happen in the future is too limited to be sure of what might happen. However unlikely it might be, an outbreak of war is possible due to human failings or an unforeseen change in circumstances. In the meantime, we should stop beating the drums of war.
Ian, it actually isn’t complicated.
Guy didn’t argue ‘don’t go to war’ because that would be a straw-man: nobody has suggested that as a current policy.
He argued essentially, not to think about a war with China because, in a paraphrase of ScoMo, ‘now isn’t the time to be discussing it.’
In order for that argument to be honest, valid and accountable, there must be conditions under which the time would be right to discuss it.
I simply inquired what in Guy’s opinion, the minimum conditions are for such a policy discussion to be legitimate.
In response I’ve heard from other readers:
I believe the issue here isn’t that it’s too abstract. I think it’s that readers (and apparently some journalists) find comfortable ways to avoid thinking about difficult questions, and justifying this as an informed position when in fact it’s only a comfortable position.
More broadly, Ian, some problems put us in conflict with ourselves, and these sorts of excuses frequently turn up to delay, deflect and defer self-confrontation.
For example, the right uses analogs of the reasons above to avoid thinking about (say) climate change, but here we see the left using exactly the same excuses for different reasons.
I hope that may help.
There seems to be some confusion here Ruv.
For myself, I made it clear, but omitted in your report, that if the liberal-democratic lifestyle (to give it a catch-all description) of Oz or NZ were threatened or at “serious” risk then such would be an obvious case to effect a defence although, depending upondefence training and expenditure it might prove to be a bit late in the day.
A commitment to your initial options (2 & 3) must be undertaken prior to consequences being realised; whatever forecasting methods were applied.
Having regard to the consequences they must be anticipated as extreme and therefore the high-minded “missionary value” would appear to be misplaced. In ANY event such an engagement (which you overlook) WOULD amount to interfering in
China’s internal affairs; Westphalia Treaty and all of that. The 19th Congress (for the nth time) refers.
Further, the subscribers, along with R., seem to know little of the region. There is already in existence strong trade relationships between Tiawan and the PRC. The trade volumes may be ascertained easily. Secondly both locations have a commitment to the present (WTO) order; both benefit, greatly, from globalisation. Both have extensive interests in the Pacific.
Moreover, a good many Taiwanese
consider it no bad thing for the PRC to take care of foreign policy and defence. Ditto for HK although only the woke side is likely to be reported in the western press.
Had R. been familiar with the references that I have presented (White, Mahbubani etc) the article would have been very different with a lot LESS FUD. A scrap over the South China Sea is more likely (but not inevitable) because many more nations are affected along with some hegemony of the USA. The matter of the “T”s is minor to a fait accompli in comparison.
With all due respect, your questions are better served in the context of engineering (in the widest sense) or quantitative research modelling
rather than politics where contexts may change rapidly.
Erasmus wrote: subscribers, along with R., seem to know little of the region.
I agree. For example, regional experts have recently nominated four prospective flashpoints for Chinese military conflict, and think that none is imminent due to prospective benefits in China playing a longer strategic game.
None of that was mentioned in Guy’s article, though I have mentioned some of them in passing in my comments. [I would have also talked about this to you in detail earlier, except that our conversation had not (so far) met my minimum bar for falsifiability due to the line you took: I won’t argue evidence with people who have defined evidence out of the argument.]
Erasmus added: With all due respect, your questions are better served in the context of engineering (in the widest sense) or quantitative research modelling
rather than politics where contexts may change rapidly.
I believe you’ve conflated two methods here, Erasmus, both of which can relate to engineering though not only engineering:
Engineering at its broadest is the transparent and accountable transformation of a problem-statement into a pathway to solution, taking into account logistical context and uncertainties — whether or not that pathway is highly quantitative.
So of course policy can be engineered, and in fact if you don’t then often what you get instead is political religion: doctrinaire ideology that persists only by evading and cherry-picking fact and never admits its own systematic ignorance.
If climate policy were engineered (for example), rather than expressed as religious doctrine, it would no longer be possible to pretend responsibly that the risk is not imminent, significant and amenable to coordinated intervention by industrialised nations. But it would also no longer be possible to present effective human intervention as symbolic planetary worship: we’d get something more effective.
So foreign and military policy can be engineered too. (What is a threat assessment, for example? What function has the CIA World Factbook?)
So engineering foreign and military policy? It’s an emphatic ‘sorta’ from me.
Hope that may help. 😀
I think that you have a best seller with the title “Comfortable Ways to Avoid Thinking” – it’ll wipe every other book off the self obsessed help shelves, and bound to be a winner in the Hole-in-the-Hill.
Apologies for taking my time to say that, although your position filled out is no longer too abstract for me, I think you have misunderstood Guy. On my reading, Guy is saying that the loud campaign of promoting hostility to China over issues like its authoritarian government- it has one but so does our friend Saudi Arabia; human rights abuses in suppressing belief in Islam among Uighers -our friend Saudi Arabia has human rights abuses against women; aggression against neighbours-our friend Saudi Arabia is fighting a war in Yemen-could lead us into war with China for no good reason. My point is also that there is only a remote chance of our having a real cause for war with China, so the drums of war talk is misleading and dangerous.
Ian wrote: My point is also that there is only a remote chance of our having a real cause for war with China, so the drums of war talk is misleading and dangerous.
It’s certainly alarmist and cynical, Ian: Alarmist because there’s no clear action or timeframe — these comments were designed as headline-grabbers. Cynical because the choice of timing was all about the political power of Mssrs Pezullo and Dutton.
Such headlines might or might not affect trade, but ultimately Australia’s political pronouncements are unlikely to affect China’s regional security.
However, Guy knew all of that and still elected to treat this as a sort of policy announcement (though it wasn’t.)
Guy’s critique would have been fine if his underlying question was ‘how likely is an imminent war with China’, but Guy took it a step further, glossed the likelihood and advocated opposition to an announcement that he knew wasn’t a policy. In doing so, he risked being as politically cynical as those he was critiquing, and misleading his readers.
So my taking Guy to task is appropriate. If he wants to provide advocacy, he has to provide constructive analysis, which he didn’t.
Else he risks peddling his own propaganda in response to announcements that were probably more careerist than propaganda in the first place.
Spot on, as usual, Ruv. Another possible reason for this cynical bs is to cover up the government’s disgraceful refusal to tackle the issue of climate change. It’s not going to work.
Alarmist and cynical too-yes. I still think you are being unkind to Guy. I am concerned about a drift to war all too like the drift leading to WWI, where growing hostility made it possible for economic and imperial rivalry between Britain and Germany to lead to pretty senseless war. As I read him, Guy thinks there is a danger of rivalry between the US and China having the same result.
And ‘no one put a gun to our head’ to halve our level of foreign aid to our neighbours fr the last 50 years and then complain when they started to accept money from the Chinese Government. https://theconversation.com/factcheck-what-are-the-facts-on-australias-foreign-aid-spending-71146
Stand firm in the face of Chinese regional muscle-flexing sure, but middle-aged suits – safe behind their desks – talking up the disaster and degradation of war is momentarily absurd, then terrifying and obscene. They should be driven out of any form of public office for committing the greatest political sin there is: undermining your country’s peace and security.
Those disgusting suits won’t be safe anywhere in Australia if a war is declared.
Put the suits in the army on the front line!
I think you’re mostly on the money Guy, but your weird obsession about Hong Kong and Taiwan “belonging” to China is a surprising and somewhat batty appeal to a mythical national-ethnic essence of a kind very familiar in old (and current) Europe on the far right.
Huh? Hong Kong was only ever rented, and the landlord didn’t renew the lease. Taiwan thinks that China belongs to them, and neither side would consider it different, despite the on-going military/political dispute. No independence has been claimed. I don’t think that it’s a question of ethno-nationalism (although there’s probably some of that involved), so much as the history of how they arrived at this point. Perhaps you’re aware of declarations and ratification of independence that I’m not.
History is not destiny.
Justify that claim empirically!
Historically Erasmus has regularly threatened to leave us but it appears he is destined to stay! 😀
I have stated that my sub ends on 30 June.
To be candid, I expect a much moe comprehensive assessment of the current ills than what has been offered. See my substantive post.
Yes I’ve been wading through them. I think you’re on the money with time will tell! But conjecture is thought provoking.
Informed conjecture, with a basis in history : agreed. Otherwise, without a sense of means to disprove a conjecture, empirically, we reside in the land of wishful thinking.
Bruegel’s Land of Cockaynge or Homer’s Odysseus on Isle of the Lotus Eaters?
quite so!
She gotcha Kyle!! I would have put an emoji in here too there if I knew how! How do you do it dilettantebeth?
I don’t anticipate being here after the 30 June. I enjoy the informed discussions but, in general, I can’t move for the wheelbarrows.
A lot here push on rope and carry wheelbarrows.
Sorry, Paddy won’t be at work today.
Mid last century in Blighty, working with a bunch of navvies fresh from the bogs, I watched in awe as one of them hefted a pneumatic tarmac compactor (100k minimum) to carry it to a new part of the job – even after being shown to switch it on so it could be bounced along, he persisted.
Guy is quite correct. We are diving into a war that we can’t win and that will be the defining moment of the fall of the American Empire and hopefully not the rest of the planet. That moment almost came recently when Putin told the Yanks and NATO that he was now defining what constituted a red line and that if it were crossed then all hell would break loose in the Ukraine and by implication also within Europe. NATO and the Ukraine back peddled frantically when Russia assembled a full war ready army on the Ukraine border so quickly as to make ScoMos back peddling appear pedestrian. Those two countries are totally pissed off with the West and our (Western) foreign policy has effectively joined Russia and China at the hip, thus creating a force which economically and militarily could wipe us off the map. It’s time, as Guy said, to take off the rose coloured glasses and have a sober look at what we are creating.
I read an article where China is pushing for a military alliance with Russia, not sure if Russia is quite ready for that, Putin still extends a hand to the US and EU but keep slapping it and they likely will.
The don’t have a formal military alliance but conduct joint military exercises together already. China and Russia are increasingly close economically and militarily and “the West” is driving them ever closer together.
Crikey they seem strange bedfellows though… though no doubt a history lesson will be forthcoming to tell me why not so. I would welcome that though!
Less an alliance than a confluence of interests.
Specifically because of the war drum beaters surrounding them, from the Baltic to the Black Sea to the Pacific.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact tells us all we need to know about alliances between dictatorships.
Hong Kong has always been Chinese, as for Taiwan well its only the last battle for the CCP to win.
The authority that governs in Taipei is called the Republic of China. Its embassies in the few states that still recognise it are called Embassy of the Republic of China, with “Taiwan” in brackets so people don’t think it’s the PRC. The ROC, claiming to be the legitimate government of China, occupied the Chinese seat in the United Nations including the Security Council until 1971 when the seat was transferred to the PRC. The national airline of the ROC is China Airlines. Most of Taiwan’s trade is with the mainland, the offshore islands it administers within sight of the mainland get their power and water from the mainland and there is huge business investment across the Taiwan Strait in both directions. The separate government in Taipei is the result of the unfinished civil war, not of any declaration of independence. Its separate survival until now is dependent on the implied military support of the US. Taiwanese who value liberal democracy will dread reunification with the authoritarian mainland rule but it will happen, probably without military action because Beijing would not want to risk harming its own huge investments in the island.
Taiwan has painstakingly refused to call itself “independent” of China to forestall China’s hysterical reaction. Its survival will determine whether or not democracy will survive in East Asia (and consequently in South-East Asia)
Oldie their was a deal cut between the US and China with the Nixon visit all those years ago that the US would recognise the Govt in Beijing as the govt of China and China in return would allow the status quo to prevail in Taiwan, that is for the KMT, the defeated party in China’s civil war, to continue to function in Taiwan. For both sides Taiwan was and remained an irrevocable part of China. For the KMT it retained their legitimacy if they ever found themselves in a position to govern from Beijing and for the Beijing govt Taiwan remained a Chinese province u dear the KMT. There would be no US forces based in Taiwan or rotate through Taiwan or any of the myriad other options. That status quo has held until now and it is a whole series of actions that are threatening that status quo. Read up on the history of Formosa/Taiwan if you really want to understand the background to where we are today and the consequences of the Nixon deal breaking down.
As an aside my sister was one of the Canadian nurses whose visit preceded that by Nixon. Gough read the tea leaves correctly McMahon didn’t.
As always, Great Gough bestrode the world like the Colossus he was, first, foremost & prescient.
Pity that this country was not worthy.
Johnb, I have read quite a lot on Taiwan, although maybe not as much as yourself. My understanding is that the USA has stuck to its side of the agreement including, I believe, forcing Taiwan to stop its nuclear weapons program in the 1980s.
It is my, and many others belief, that it is Xi Jinping’s increasingly aggressive stance which is threatening the current balance.
Too true Bob. Maybe Guy should catch up on some post-modernist thinking.
Quite right Bob. Maybe time for Guy to catch up with some post-modernism.
That’s the weird thing, he knows all that stuff backwards. This argument of his just makes no sense.
It’s not like you can’t be completely against the anti-China war-mongering AND opposed to Chinese annexation of neighbours.
Now that you have had a reply, Oldie, I’m interested in what virtue(s) you might identify with post-modernism.
To R.’s credit there isn’t a lot of Derrida et al in his work because whatever their claims there is no obvious means to evaluate their veracity.
What began as a “promise” in the early 90s (keeping in mind that post moderism had its origins in the 60s) has (perhaps unintenentially) wafted into post truth and even bits into QAnon; soverign citizen-ism in particular.
Over to you to comment.
Virtues of post-modernism, though not only related to post-modernism are: anti-essentialism and anti-foundationalism.
I have asked before, who benefits from our continuous poking the panda? Not us, or our industries. So who?
Follow the money.
Some global industries, and the local scum who have sold their souls to them (e.g. ex defense ministers) or who are preparing to do so (e.g. current defense ministers, senior public servants, etc)
And assorted military top brass….
Failing to do that means following the bodies, so much easier to see.
Great stuff, as usual.