International Australia's Position in Asia-Pacific Geopolitics, as Beijing's Rising Shadow Casts Over Canberra.

Closer to the US than it is to Canada? I don't think so.

Some very few individual countries within the Commonwealth? Yes, we may be arguably closer. However more broadly are we closer to the Commonwealth countries than the US? Absolutely not. Check out the list:


Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
Bahamas
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belize
Botswana
Brunei
Cameroon
Canada
Cyprus
Dominica
Fiji
The Gambia
Ghana
Grenada
Guyana
India
Jamaica
Kenya
Kiribati
Lesotho
Malawi
Malaysia
Malta
Mauritius
Mozambique
Namibia
Nauru
New Zealand
Nigeria
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Solomon Islands
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Swaziland
Tanzania
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tuvalu
Uganda
United Kingdom
Vanuatu
Zambia
 
Honestly....I wonder what will happen, if America said no to the debt..........I mean we are the top dawg, we do have the best military....Could we simply say no and fuck everyone else up, including banks up?......I really doubt the banks or anybody else will come asking us for money or anything.....including china...unless we became weaker, and then they could tell us what to do.

You need to start to fathom how much economic value rests on the idea that western countries, most importantly the USA will honor its future commitments.
 
That's racist!!!

Interesting how there isnt one east Asian in Trudeaus cabinet.

Maybe Trudeo is already paid for the Chinese no need to put Chinese in his cabinet.

Sooner or later the Chinese will own everything its like no one can resist their charm you will buy and sell to them no matter what.

Time will tell.. Sooner or later time will tell
 
Some very few individual countries within the Commonwealth? Yes, we may be arguably closer. However more broadly are we closer to the Commonwealth countries than the US? Absolutely not. Check out the list:


Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
Bahamas
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belize
Botswana
Brunei
Cameroon
Canada
Cyprus
Dominica
Fiji
The Gambia
Ghana
Grenada
Guyana
India
Jamaica
Kenya
Kiribati
Lesotho
Malawi
Malaysia
Malta
Mauritius
Mozambique
Namibia
Nauru
New Zealand
Nigeria
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Solomon Islands
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Swaziland
Tanzania
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tuvalu
Uganda
United Kingdom
Vanuatu
Zambia
Haha fair enough. Caught me. I posted on impulse, knowing afterward it was logically flawed.
 
Maybe Trudeo is already paid for the Chinese no need to put Chinese in his cabinet.

Sooner or later the Chinese will own everything its like no one can resist their charm you will buy and sell to them no matter what.

Time will tell.. Sooner or later time will tell
There is already growing pushback. I think there's a better than even chance things will improve by the end of the decade.
 
That's racist!!!

Interesting how there isnt one east Asian in Trudeaus cabinet.

Uh, no. It's not racist in the slightest (had to be said although you're obviously being facetious, edit: because it's an important point of logic). The issue is with the political and business habits of the country, not on the basis of Chinese as an ethnic distinction.

It's similar to the way people can be against what Israel is doing without being anti-Semitic. Dontcha think?
 
Australia has liberalized just in time for China to strategically flood the country with immigrants for political influence lol.

Aaaah liberals......

we do not have the jobs/housing/industries for any extreme immigration unless they just want to add more tax payers.
 
Australia has liberalized just in time for China to strategically flood the country with immigrants for political influence lol.

Aaaah liberals......

Actually it was under our conservative, centre-right Liberal party that our immigration was opened up. Howard was very much in favour of "Big Australia", despite all his dog whistling about "boat people". Rudd continued that idea, and it was actually under Gillard (centre-left Labor party) that things tightened up.
Turnbull (also Liberal party, but more of the more classically Liberal/libertarian branch) is also a "Big Australia" proponent, but hasn't actually made any large changes to immigration policy.
 
@Ruprecht

What do you see as the solution to largely Mainland Chinese investors, families, and so on buying up a large amount of good real-estate in Sydney and Melbourne? I have a lot of fair minded colleagues from Melbourne who see it as a big problem, and have been priced out of a lot of places in the market.

Do you see an ethical and legal solution to limit the influx of money and influence?

All economics aside, this is perhaps an even bigger problem culturally.

In all honesty, Beijing creates a quasi-fascist mindset among a lot of citizens about Chinese politics, and then uses their migrants to raise loud voices in a republic that must be heard, and stifles dissent abroad.

As well, especially stifles dissent among Chinese living abroad, Taiwanese, Hong Kongers, and often with very blunt and ugly means, and in the States at least they do it with what amount to spies for lack of a better word. "Workers," Chinese Nationals on retainer who serve Beijing, who in mafia terms have no show jobs in the U.S. and will show up on people's doorsteps to intimidate them. That should be wholly unacceptable, but is common practice.

Further, the conditions are not really the Mainlanders fault, but they are fed hand to mouth propaganda, collectivization, and fearsome Nationalism since they can read and write, and Beijing is accelerating those efforts.

How do you stop that rising tide, should the tide be stopped? It seems woefully unfair, and is to dissidents in the States, and to some in the States economically in certain regional schools and neighborhoods. (Although not as much as in Australia due to the distance.)
 
In terms of direct military strategy that's no doubt true, but it's foreign policy which creates the environment which that strategy has to contend with.
In the case of the "pivot to asia" the idea was that the American focus on the Middle East and comparative lack of engagement in East Asia was behind China's increasingly aggressive actions. Hence the idea (although this was denied) that China could be "contained" with increased American military presence and engagement in the region.
That has demonstrably been shown not to be true, as China only increased it's actions in response.

The problem with Australian foreign policy is that we've always relied on having a powerful ally with a big stick standing behind us. First the UK, then the US. Our geographic location was treated simply as an unfortunate impediment to our anglo-american political identity. We've held off from joining ASEAN or indeed forging any independent political identity and strong regional relationships.
With the relative decline of the US power into a new multipolar global order, that may no longer even be an option. What's more, if there's anything signified by Trump's election, it's American dissatisfaction with the current political order. Trump's mixed signals are hard to interpret, but that makes them an unreliable ally at best.

The only effective strategy to counter a major power like China in the region without a "big brother", is further economic, cultural, military and political integration with our neighbours. More complex to negotiate sure, but also more independent and resilient. In terms of China locking down the shipping lanes for example, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia and Malaysia (/Singapore) all have major interest in that not happening. As well as the smaller/less developed nations. In a multipolar world where we have major interests with all the major powers, negotiating with those regional allies is the only independent option.

you actually think indonesia could be a potential ally akin to america or one that could be depended on. fact is if chinas rise continues south korea, malaysia and maybe even japan just do not have the capabilities to fight china. do you really think its worth cutting off america and forging relationships with countries whos allegiance would be dubious at best. take one look at the phillipines for example.

As pax america wanes and that cycle ends certain allegiance/economies and attitudes change. im sure theres many polish who arent all that enthusiastic when it comes to antagonising russia. we are different, we are apart of americas sphere of influence not chinas.

im all for negotiating with other countires in the neighbourhood but i just cannot see the logic in pissing off merica so we can forge happy friend relationships with nations of dubious alllegiance. how many of those countires even have an aircraft carrier....
 
Last edited:
@Ruprecht

What do you see as the solution to largely Mainland Chinese investors, families, and so on buying up a large amount of good real-estate in Sydney and Melbourne? I have a lot of fair minded colleagues from Melbourne who see it as a big problem, and have been priced out of a lot of places in the market.

Do you see an ethical and legal solution to limit the influx of money and influence?

All economics aside, this is perhaps an even bigger problem culturally.

In all honesty, Beijing creates a quasi-fascist mindset among a lot of citizens about Chinese politics, and then uses their migrants to raise loud voices in a republic that must be heard, and stifles dissent abroad.

As well, especially stifles dissent among Chinese living abroad, Taiwanese, Hong Kongers, and often with very blunt and ugly means, and in the States at least they do it with what amount to spies for lack of a better word. "Workers," Chinese Nationals on retainer who serve Beijing, who in mafia terms have no show jobs in the U.S. and will show up on people's doorsteps to intimidate them. That should be wholly unacceptable, but is common practice.

Further, the conditions are not really the Mainlanders fault, but they are fed hand to mouth propaganda, collectivization, and fearsome Nationalism since they can read and write, and Beijing is accelerating those efforts.

How do you stop that rising tide, should the tide be stopped? It seems woefully unfair, and is to dissidents in the States, and to some in the States economically in certain regional schools and neighborhoods. (Although not as much as in Australia due to the distance.)

although you didnt ask me i believe the only solution is to confiscate all foreign owned property, especially chinese. the investors dont loose their money (well not all of it) as those properties will be auctioned off and they can collect whatever they sell for.
 
@Ruprecht

What do you see as the solution to largely Mainland Chinese investors, families, and so on buying up a large amount of good real-estate in Sydney and Melbourne? I have a lot of fair minded colleagues from Melbourne who see it as a big problem, and have been priced out of a lot of places in the market.

Do you see an ethical and legal solution to limit the influx of money and influence?

All economics aside, this is perhaps an even bigger problem culturally.

In all honesty, Beijing creates a quasi-fascist mindset among a lot of citizens about Chinese politics, and then uses their migrants to raise loud voices in a republic that must be heard, and stifles dissent abroad.

As well, especially stifles dissent among Chinese living abroad, Taiwanese, Hong Kongers, and often with very blunt and ugly means, and in the States at least they do it with what amount to spies for lack of a better word. "Workers," Chinese Nationals on retainer who serve Beijing, who in mafia terms have no show jobs in the U.S. and will show up on people's doorsteps to intimidate them. That should be wholly unacceptable, but is common practice.

Further, the conditions are not really the Mainlanders fault, but they are fed hand to mouth propaganda, collectivization, and fearsome Nationalism since they can read and write, and Beijing is accelerating those efforts.

How do you stop that rising tide, should the tide be stopped? It seems woefully unfair, and is to dissidents in the States, and to some in the States economically in certain regional schools and neighborhoods. (Although not as much as in Australia due to the distance.)

I'm in Adelaide, and although I worked in "China Town" for well over a decade never really saw it. Plenty of anti-beijing protests from falun gong practitioners all the time (in the heart of China Town).
Although there has been a bit of a change amongst the younger Chinese students and migrants in comparison to the older migrants who were more likely to be staunchly anti-beijing. That's a generational change bred from their rising urban middle class.
Overall (although I know there's areas in Melbourne and Sydney that are massively effected by Chinese investment) the housing market (and "housing crisis") in Australia isn't really a product of foreign investment so much as the huge number of "mom and pop" investors in Australian real estate in comparison to other countries. Our system is actually set up to encourage that with negative gearing.
 
you actually think indonesia could be a potential ally akin to america or one that could be depended on. fact is if chinas rise continues south korea, malaysia and maybe even japan just do not have the capabilities to fight china. do you really think its worth cutting off america and forging relationships with countries whos allegiance would be dubious at best. take one look at the phillipines for example.

As pax america wanes and that cycle ends certain allegiance/economies and attitudes change. im sure theres many polish who arent all that enthusiastic when it comes to antagonising russia. we are different, we are apart of americas sphere of influence not chinas.

im all for negotiating with other countires in the neighbourhood but i just cannot see the logic in pissing off merica so we can forge happy friend relationships with nations of dubious alllegiance. how many of those countires even have an aircraft carrier....
Solid!!
 
you actually think indonesia could be a potential ally akin to america or one that could be depended on. fact is if chinas rise continues south korea, malaysia and maybe even japan just do not have the capabilities to fight china. do you really think its worth cutting off america and forging relationships with countries whos allegiance would be dubious at best. take one look at the phillipines for example.

As pax america wanes and that cycle ends certain allegiance/economies and attitudes change. im sure theres many polish who arent all that enthusiastic when it comes to antagonising russia. we are different, we are apart of americas sphere of influence not chinas.

im all for negotiating with other countires in the neighbourhood but i just cannot see the logic in pissing off merica so we can forge happy friend relationships with nations of dubious alllegiance. how many of those countires even have an aircraft carrier....

Indonesia replace America? No, that's not remotely close to anything I've said.
Little has changed in Australian foreign policy in terms of balancing American foreign policy alignment and Chinese economic reality, despite America being an increasingly unreliable ally in the region. That's why we need to get off their coattails, rather than just hope for the best.
Japan absolutely has begun ramping up their own military spending as a result, as has South Korea.
 
China to Australia: Remove 'colored glasses' to get ties back on track
May 21, 2018

r

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi

BEIJING/SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia should remove its “colored glasses” to get relations back on track with major trading partner China, the Chinese government’s top diplomat Wang Yi has told his Australian counterpart on the sidelines of a G20 meeting in Argentina.

Relations between the two countries have cooled since late 2017 when Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s government proposed a bill to limit foreign influence in Australia, including political donations. Beijing saw the move as “anti-China”.

The diplomatic rift spilled into the trade arena last week when a major Australian wine maker said it was facing new Chinese customs delays, raising fears among other Australian exporters that depend on access to China.

Wang told Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop on Monday some difficulties had affected contact and cooperation between the two countries, China’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement on its website on Tuesday.

The pair met on the sidelines of the G20 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Buenos Aires.

“What I want to emphasize is, if the Australian side wishes the bilateral relationship to return to the right track and realize sustained healthy development, then it must abandon traditional thinking and take off its colored glasses,” Wang was quoted as saying in the statement.

Wang said he had noted an improvement in tone from Bishop and the Australian government.



In an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corp. on Tuesday, Bishop said she had a “very warm and candid and constructive discussion” with Wang.

“While we stand up for our values and our interests and our policies and we can disagree with friends from time-to-time, most certainly the relationship is strong and we discussed ways on how we could cooperate further,” she said.

A visit to Shanghai last week by Australian Trade Minister Steven Ciobo was seen as a bid to mend a relationship that included A$170 billion ($128 billion)in two-way trade last year.

But Ciobo’s visit was overshadowed by delays at Chinese customs that held up exports by Australia’s Treasury Wine Estates Ltd.

An Australian source familiar with the meeting between Bishop and Wang said it had focused on regional security and trade, and the Treasury Wine issue was not specifically discussed.

Several unidentified Australian business owners who operate in China told Fairfax Media on the weekend that Chinese authorities had been unfairly targeting Australian products with delays and extra scrutiny at customs and distribution.

Turnbull, who in December cited “disturbing reports about Chinese influence” and promised to stand up to Beijing, will travel to China later this year to smooth over bumpy diplomatic ties, Fairfax Media reported.

Wang, who is a state councillor as well as China’s foreign minister, said on Monday China “never interferes with the internal politics of other countries, let alone carry out the so-called infiltration of other countries”.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-transform-britain-after-brexit-idUSKCN1IL0V3
 
Back
Top