Pundits that offer weak solutions to Pacific Rim communist aggression are a dead weight on Australia's defence posture road map.
ANZUS works.
The communist threat has to know that Australia, the U.S., Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, and yes, even Indonesia see anyone offering verbal and written threats in regard to territory not theirs as unacceptable.
This article from today is a collection of nonsense that quotes some who, at he end of the day, are just communist appeasers.
Or, weak, wishful-thinkers.
Solid trade with China and a solid military deterrence against their aggressive behaviour can co-exist. Like the Soviets before them, Chinese communists only respect strength and despise weakness.
As for Australian military capability, well, authors of the above mentioned article don't seem to have a clue. When they can have a better grasp of these issues, then, they might be able to offer something resembling useful reporting.
10 comments:
Very key point you brought up about the validity and benefit with pursuing co-existing policies: including being 'firm' in defending basic principles such as sovereignty, international maritime law, Freedom of Navigation and equal footing with bi-lateral/multi-lateral deal making... while also pursuing and advocating strengthened economic opportunities and regional development.
These are not mutually exclusive interests and are both perfectly legitimate and compatible policies to rightly foster.
Yet the arrogance and offense to unilaterally impress any potential image that the greater 'Sea' in question is actually PRC-owned and controlled, in which other regional parties are invited to participate and cooperate... or face consequences... is uncalled for.
It's the hegemonic and Imperialist 'do as China says, not as China does' attitude (so you can benefit from positive relations with China, etc) which must be firmly challenged. Beijing will listen to and respect firm protests, but will bluff very well and very hard too, to avoid such firmness if at all possible.
The provocation and humiliation as show of strength is simply not necessary and should be discouraged, not rewarded.
However, I personally feel most of the resources in most of the disputed waters should in fact be jointly exploited in a collaborative deal, equal share.
That could be a win-win economically and also promote stability and demilitarization of the regional waters. Procedures and norms on international water fishing regulations need to be agreed to as well and be binding.
So absolutely, the right to be firm in negotiations is fully justified, while simultaneously seeking to replace gunboats with more coordination, joint-opportunities too.
China and Equal share, one big oxymoron.
Funny, but the loudest voices calling for a reduced focus on our relationship with the Americans and appeasement of China are the usual rent-seekers in industry - Clive Palmer and Gina Reinhardt chief among them.
What do Clive and Gina have to do with this subject, and if anyone would listen?
Err, you havent been reading the papers lately have you?
What "communists"? I know that China is still run by the oligarchic entity nominally titled the Communist Party, but China is no more "communist" today than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is 'democratic'...
JRL
Tell that to the Chinese communist military.
Reds under the bed!
"Err, you havent been reading the papers lately have you?"
Since when do Gina,Clive etc have any say.
Last time I looked we had an elected Govt, and bipartisan agreement regarding the relationship.
As to being rent seekers,I believe you will find that they actually create wealth and pay taxes.They are not asking anytjing from you anon.
Eric,
There is in truth a distinguishable difference (or split if you will) between the hard-line military leadership voice and the current liberal and calculating Communist Govt.
That is, I'm a critic in US's particular foreign policy vis-a-vis PRC in that US tends to counter China as a whole... based more on a reaction towards the more hawkish and anti-development elements of PRC's overall voice.
Perhaps consider identifying fist who one is speaking to... and then make the most accurate communication towards one element or another, accordingly?
Instead of grouping in which case the hawks always win out?
Just my view.
Post a Comment