The lead article the Chinese Communist Party newspaper Global Times on Tuesday contained an alarming call for a declaration of war against Vietnam and Philippines, two nations that in recent weeks launched the loudest protests against China’s sweeping maritime sovereignty claims over the South China Sea.
The fiery rhetoric of the article states that “the South China Sea is the best place for China to wage wars” because “of the more than 1,000 oil rigs there, none belongs to China; of the four airfields in the Spratly Islands, none belongs to China; once a war is declared, the South China Sea will be a sea of fire [with burning oil rigs]. Who will suffer the most from a war? Once a war starts there, the Western oil companies will flee the area, who will suffer the most?”
The article further calculates that “the wars should be focused on striking the Philippines and Vietnam, the two noisiest troublemakers, to achieve the effect of killing one chicken to scare the monkeys.”
In other news, the current Australian leadership is trying to do a white paper on 'The Asian Century and the changing structure of Australia's economy'. This is a good idea if it is realistic.
However, consider this thinking:
"But we are far from pessimistic too. Because there is nothing in our Alliance relationship with the United States which seeks to contain China, because a growing, successful China is in the interest of every country in the region, including our own and because our national strength, and that of our ally, is respected in the region and the world."
My theory is that what this government sees as the definition of a growing and successful China may be significantly different than how communist China sees it.
It will not be an equal playing field. Expect loss of intellectual property. Expect power-plays for our natural resources.
The current Australian government--where some of the politicians hold what can only be described as neo-Marxist ideals--are unable to see the real threat of communism.
Not containing communism is a bad idea. I fear that this new white paper will be weak on security to the point of putting Australia and our Pacific allies at risk.
8 comments:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/ken-henry-to-oversee-blueprint-for-building-asian-ties/story-fn59nm2j-1226151266214
Eric you can not be correct. Hugh thinks differently?
“China won't buy iron ore from us if it sees Australia as an enemy and that's what's at stake here.”
Interesting theory he has. However when China starts getting natural resources from other places cheaper, I wonder what he will say?
I wonder if he has a photo of Neville Chamberlain near his desk?
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/China-trade-relations-Australia-US-export-import-m-pd20110929-M6B4H?OpenDocument&src=spb
Hugh is talking nonsense
As long as oil prices are low, we can probably be assured that any PRC HQ panic w/ respect to oil supplies and pricing will have the opportunity to step back and take a well deserved breath.
So in fact; this is the pivotal opportunity right now, for members such as US, Japan, Australia, Korea and even others in the region (Vietnam, Philippines, etc) to cease the moment and seek out, access and engage the ongoing reform movement in China today. Yes, even more so today, while the tension has great potential to be reduced - if anything else, by the momentary decreased death-struggle to compete for limited oil supply.
This is the time which must be capitalized on - opportunities for joint energy research and bi/multi-lateral initiatives to develop strategically necessary energy diversification for the future; when we know oil will go back through the roof and supplies will vanish!
So yes, 'Reformers' are a dime a dozen and always waiting in the wings. No concern there, it's the nature of things.
Best to promote a strategic long-term vision though, push hard and get to work on it today, while the sun is still up. IMHO.
The term "putting a cat (a tiger?)among the canaries" comes immediately to mind on reading this.
I know there's a very long stretch between writing about it in the Party newspaper and actually doing it, but if push ever did come to shove, with the current state of the ADF, what could Australia do apart from hoping earnestly (really, really earnestly) that they choose to stop their roll south at Mindanao?
With Europe in financial crisis and the US overcommitted (at least financially) elsewhere, this might be seen by some of the more aggressive members of the Politburo as a good time to make a move that would be deemed extremely unwise in more normal times.
Given how much Australia's continuing (relative) prosperity is tied to our exports to China, the nation would find itself in a rather uncomfortable place if China made even a small-scale military move into either of the countries threatened in the article. 'Pig Iron Julia' doesn't have quite the same ring to it as 'Pig Iron Bob', but if this gets beyond verbal threats, Canberra would have to make some very unpalatable decisions - decisions that would be unpalatable not just to the Labor Left.
Here we go againt with the typical leftist tactics of diplomatic appeasment (heads in sand) with a realistic potential enemy.
The rise of China has benefited Australia greatly, however, when China finally stands up in the very near future it will be the pacifics & Australias greatest military threat. Not recognising & preparing for this eventuality, for fear of "p&#@ing them off" is downright foolish.
“China won't buy iron ore from us if it sees Australia as an enemy and that's what's at stake here.”
This comment is pointless as China will remain on good terms only whilst they need our resources. Once the need is no longer there expect attitudes to change.
There is only so far diplomacy will reach, from that point the use of or threat to use force is the only deterant to an aggressive neighbour.
Whilst China may claim its military build up is for self protection only, many of the weapons systems being devoloped & purchased are to project power & provide a 1st strike capability. The defensive systems such as the extensive & capable IADS deployed on their eastern coastline simply provide a defensive barrier to a retalitory response once China decides it has the ability to make aggressive moves in the South China Sea, against Taiwan, the Spratly Islands & wider Pacific region.
Albatross. The difference between Jian Julia and pig Iron Bob, was that Menzies knew what he was doing. In conjunction with Essington Lewis of BHP, he was aware of Japan's rearmament and type of steel being produced.
Therefore the decision was made to sell the scrap iron and steel to Japan in the knowledge of its future use.
The reason was that the funds from the sale and similar were used to re-equip the RAAF as quickly as possible, with purchases such as the Hudson bomber.
Unfortunately Jian Julia does not have the same sage advice, or any other particular skills that would allow her to assess the situation.
Would be nice if some of the profits from the resource sales were used in the same way.
Correction,a lot of the funds were spent by BHP,who invested in the establishment of the Australian Aircraft Industry.
Where is it now?
Maybe the DMO can help us?
Post a Comment