Labor formally embraces China kowtowing

Good grief, via the AFR:

Labor is urging the Turnbull government to tone down its anti-China rhetoric, warning that it is flirting with a “dangerous exercise” by politicising the bilateral relationship between Canberra and Beijing.

Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong will tell the Australia China Business Council’s showcase annual networking day in Federal Parliament on Tuesday that it is possible for Australia to assert its national interests and safeguard sovereignty without being “offensive and inflammatory”.

“A more sophisticated approach, based on both respect and a firm articulation of our convictions, will do more to ensure our national interests are maintained than will the disjointed megaphone diplomacy the government seems to have preferred of late,” Senator Wong will say, according to speech notes.

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen, who will also address the event, lamented the recent damage that had been done to the relationship with Australia’s major trading partner. “When the bilateral relationship with China gets dragged into the domestic political debate for the purposes of one political party, it is a dangerous exercise,” he said.

The Chinese Communist Party is engaged in a pincer movement to manipulate Australian democracy out of its alliance with the US liberal empire. On the one hand the CCP funds, corrupts and amplifies all pro-China voices, including buying support in the national parliament. On the other hand, it sues the pants of critics to suppress their views in a strategy known as “lawfare”.

This strategy has already corrupted influential segments of the Australia Labor Party. The NSW Right has lapped it up. And an unfortunate number of the party’s grey beards are now not only on the China gravy train but in the explicit business of disseminating Chinese propaganda, including Bob Carr, John Brumby and, arguably, Paul Keating who all want more Chinese investment.

Where that leads Peter Hartcher sums up nicely:

The Chinese Communist Party built a road into Tibet and the Tibetans were excited – it was their first highway: “We were promised peace and prosperity with the highway, and our parents and grandparents joined in building the road,” as the president of Tibet’s government in exile, Lobsang Sangay, tells the story.

…”Then they built the road. Once the road reached Lhasa – the capital city of Tibet – first trucks came, then guns came, then tanks came. Soon, Tibet was occupied. So it started with the road.”

…The Chinese Communist Party built roads into Xinjiang, the Muslim-majority lands just to the north of Tibet. “When the Chinese people first went to Xinjiang, we all thought, what nice people,” says the voice of the ethnic Uighur people’s independence movement in the region, Rebiya Kadeer.

“We treated them nicely, we expected some investment and development,” she tells me. “Initially they said ‘we will help you with development but you will rule over the land,” says Kadeer, once one of the richest women in China and a member of China’s National People’s Congress, now living in exile in the US.

“Only three per cent of the people in Xinjiang were Chinese,” ethnic Han speaking Mandarin Chinese, distinct from the Turkic-speaking Uighur who make up the biggest ethnic group in what is now a province of China.

The Beijing government operates a transmigration policy in Tibet and Xinjiang, relocating Han people from the south to change the ethnic and political composition. The percentage of Han Chinese is now about 40 per cent in Xinjiang.

“They increased and and increased and now they are killing us,” says Kadeer. The Chinese Communist Party has built a network of re-education camps for the Uighurs. Kadeer calls them concentration camps where people are detained indefinitely without due process.

…These are cases of China consolidating power on its periphery. They are not stories of the Chinese Communist Party conquering foreign nation states.

But they are, nonetheless, instructive tales of how Beijing has used infrastructure as the friendly forerunner of political power.

At least the Coalition can see the local parallels, at Domainfax:

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop says the Turnbull government will compete with China’s infrastructure development spree in Australia’s neighbourhood to help ensure small nations are not saddled with debt that threatens their sovereignty.

Making some of the frankest remarks by an Australian politician about the swift expansion of Chinese construction of roads, bridges, ports, airports and buildings in the Pacific region, Ms Bishop said Australia needed to ensure countries in the region had choices and were not stuck with opaque development offers.

Ms Bishop, in an interview with Fairfax Media about China’s signature infrastructure-building Belt and Road Initiative, said Australia was concerned about the economic viability of small Pacific nations and did not want unsustainable debt burdens imposed on them.

It will only take one Chinese military base in the South Pacific and Australian democracy is dead. It will be like parking an aircraft carrier off Canberra. Behind the scenes, Beijing will determine who rules, who prospers and who goes to the Pilbara labour camps.

If that base comes, will Australia and the US go to war to prevent it? Or, like the South China Sea, will the US surmise that Australia took the Chinese bribe as a grown-up nation, chose to betray ANZUS and, really, it doesn’t deserve the sacrifice of American lives to protect it? The US could just draw a line through Hawaii instead and let China have the west of it.

Australian democracy is a much more fragile thing than we imagine. It is only protected by the willingness to declare and act in its favour.

And Labor wants silence.

Comments

  1. We seriously need to get the AEC to fund political parties.

    They should not have to depend on funds from Rene Rivkin or Alan Bond.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        This is a recipe for further entrenching the status quo. How will representatives who aren’t prepared to toe the line of established parties enter the system if they cannot get a campaign funded outside of the system ?

      • @smithy,

        How about an online system where every enrolled voter is allocated a small amount of money ($1-$5) to donate to any political party of their choosing? Any money remaining returned to Treasury.

        Perhaps also allow minor parties with no current parliamentary representation to receive additional donations to help them get going.

    • One necesary change Jacob but to reset democracy ‘for our times’ I think there are a great many changes required and changes at the very foundation such as more direct democracy Swiss style. limited terms and allowed to keep your govt job to return to, are some examples.

      But the opportunity is time limited so need to hurry.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Not as difficult as most think,…the state candidate in my electorate was decided by less than 200 eligible rank and file members (eligible meaning, being a party member for more than 2 years and attendance at a certain number of monthly branch meetings).
        During my few short years in the party, I have noticed a reticence amongst the leadership and Party Apparatchiks in relation to expanding Party membership numbers.
        Though rarely uttered, there seems to be resistance to having to manage a “Rabble” with few branches ever managing to muster more than double the minimum required to achieve a quorum (7 is the minimum).
        Branches that do easily exceed a double quorum all the time seem to have many people with the same surname or be of the same interest groups.
        It is here at the Coal face of the political parties that our democracy is being so eroded, but to just repeatedly blame the leadership, for doing what the leadership of all instutions do (consolidate power) is naive.
        There are structures in place to demand this more direct democracy, but people have to Join, turn up and demand it.
        There are no “Great Leaders” out their waiting to save us all,…its F#cking up to us all,…its just a Numbers game this democracy stuff, but just turning up at your local public school every so many years is not good enough, esp when all the Candidates are corrupted by the lack of genuine oversight, by a large, active and representative Rank and file.
        It is the rank and file of the parties that have the power (if they choose to take it) to put their representatives on a leash when required and expell corrupt ones when found out.
        This is why little effort is dedicated to recruiting new members,…because a larger membership will limit their power.
        The ALP has only 53,000 members and yet has the largest membership base of any party,….this is shameful,…in a country of 25million, youd think the major “Peoples party” could pull at least a Million members!
        The membership fees and regular fundraising pi$$ ups could easily displace all this other large instutional coporate and foreign power monies.
        But it would mean less power for the Leadership,…they don’t want that,…that’s why you must join,…if only to give them the $hits.
        https://www.alp.org.au/joinlabor

      • Direct democracy is nothing like social democracy, a better term would be market democracy. You know the libertarian kind.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Not sure who your Question is directed at Smithy,…but if me, I say the rank and file of the parties should have the final say on party policies.
        If the leadership disagree with the rank and file on policy matters, then they would need to better explain their position and lobby the rank and file for support,…this would be a more “Real democracy” where all members/people contribute to the agenda setting and decision making process, instead of just being offered a yes/no leaver to Ratify the decisions already made behind closed doors, by Others.
        I agree with Chomsky on what a “Meaningful” democracy would look like.
        https://youtu.be/ljaXy1t0I44

      • EP

        There is no such thing as – real – democracy, like some tend to describe – real – money.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Ha Ha,….love ya stuff Skip.
        “Real and Meaningful” are clearly a little to subjective for your liking Brother,…how about just “Better”?

      • Might help if people refrained from using dog whistle words and then crafting narratives out of them without regard to the scope required to think or discuss a topic.

        Such as neoliberalism is not a very democratic concept, roots of are quite anti democratic, think its what keeps say America from being great again and all other perceived social ills. Austrians [economic libertarians] are the worst of the lot and were funded by oligarchs to forward that agenda. Neoclassical [basically AET with maths and physics envy] comes a close second. Hayek et al said it himself – always leads to totalitarianism…

        Again social democracy is wet ink, hand counted votes in an open [public] and transparent [!!!!] system after a sufficient discovery – deliberation period. Things like e-democracy and direct democracy are not anything of the kind.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Not sure who your Question is directed at Smithy […]

        Both of you.

        Can’t have a productive discussion about something if people are using the same words but mean different things by it (example du jour: “multiculturalism”).

        Your definition doesn’t entirely match up with mine, but at least I know what you mean when you say it.

        I still don’t know what skippy means when he says “direct democracy”, but it doesn’t seem to align with any of the common definitions I’ve bumped into (or my own).

      • drsmithy – the short take/

        Democratic theorists have identified a trilemma due to the presence of three desirable characteristics of an ideal system of direct democracy, which are challenging to deliver all at once. These three characteristics are participation – widespread participation in the decision making process by the people affected; deliberation – a rational discussion where all major points of view are weighted according to evidence; and equality – all members of the population on whose behalf decisions are taken have an equal chance of having their views taken into account. Empirical evidence from dozens of studies suggests deliberation leads to better decision making.[39][40][41] The most popularly disputed form of direct popular participation is the referendum on constitutional matters.[42]

        For the system to respect the principle of political equality, either everyone needs to be involved or there needs to be a representative random sample of people chosen to take part in the discussion. In the definition used by scholars such as James Fishkin, deliberative democracy is a form of direct democracy which satisfies the requirement for deliberation and equality but does not make provision to involve everyone who wants to be included in the discussion. Participatory democracy, by Fishkin’s definition, allows inclusive participation and deliberation, but at a cost of sacrificing equality, because if widespread participation is allowed, sufficient resources rarely will be available to compensate people who sacrifice their time to participate in the deliberation. Therefore, participants tend to be those with a strong interest in the issue to be decided and often will not therefore be representative of the overall population.[43] Fishkin instead argues that random sampling should be used to select a small, but still representative, number of people from the general public.[7][39]

        Direct democracy

        A direct democratic system is a system in which votes are directly counted by the people and action is taken according to such. This method is mostly found only in small countries and communities, for two reasons. First, a few people can take less time to decide than a lot of people, and it takes time to count all the votes.

        This sort of democracy has been continuously practiced in some Swiss cantons, in the form of a meeting called the Landsgemeinde, since medieval times.
        Ballot initiatives and referenda

        One form of limited direct democracy which exists in conjunction with representative democracy is the ability of citizens to propose new laws, and collect enough signatures to put them on the ballot as a referendum to be voted on by the people. This exists in some states in the United States, although not at the federal level. Attempts by a few such as former Senator Mike Gravel to enact the right to initiatives and referenda at the federal level have found little support.

        At the state level, this form of direct democracy has become controversial in recent years due to the passage of such ballot measures as California Proposition 8 in California, the presence on the ballot every election of initiatives proposed by libertarian activist Tim Eyman in Washington state,[note 3] and the use of ballot initiatives in several states to legalize medical marijuana. This can be seen two ways, either as a positive thing in which citizens can make an end run around a legislature which does not represent the actual majority view, or in a negative way as either giving too much power to one unelected person (e.g. Eyman) or as enabling a majority vote to run roughshod over the rights of a minority as with Prop 8. Which view one takes often varies state by state and issue by issue; the same people who might praise the initiative process when it is used to legalize medical marijuana might be critical of the process when it is used to ban same-sex marriage, and vice-versa.

        Because ballot initiatives give any group the ability to pass a law quickly and without the likelihood of it being debated and amended to death in the legislature, there seems to be little desire to end or limit the practice even among those who dislike some of the outcomes; after all, if their political opponents can use the initiative process, they can too. Fortunately there has been little success by cranks proposing fringe causes using ballot initiatives, as those few crank initiatives that manage to collect the necessary signatures to appear on the ballot end up failing at the polls by a wide margin. In any case, this limited experiment in direct democracy points to both the possibilities, and limitations, of direct democracy, and while there is little desire to end the practice, attempts to expand it to the federal level or to expand its use at the state level (for example having the people give their final approval at the ballot to all laws passed by the state legislature) have little to no support.

        To that I would add the Marxist or Anarchist variants suffer the same as the right wings due to atomistic individualism concerns. At the end of the day it boils down to information that is reasonably grounded and not just rank ideology or environmental biases e.g. you can’t eat either at the end of the day i.e. see Brexist – a power play within the Tory party that spiraled out of control. UK had a very favorable deal with the EU, and the whinging about the EU was a way to shift blame for Tory and Blairite neoliberal policies. Now those neoliberal policies will be more than likely increased aka austerity for the poor whilst the oligarchs won’t feel a thing.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Don’t really see any inherent problem.

        IME, the Swiss model is what most people mean when they say direct democracy.

      • Are you fobbing off the trilemma drsmithy, not to mention, just saying the Swiss does not invalidate any critique. Then you have the whole problem of sociology, where the Swiss [small country] evolved its system over a long period where society is born into it. Just because it suits some ideological preferences does not mean it can just be transported half way around the world and implemented near term. Hell you would need to have a referendum on it just like with the republican moment – see what I mean.

        Look there is a lot of stuff that can be done in the near term, like getting money as a vote sorta thing sorted, w/o big grand pie in the sky theoretical complete overhauls that some think will fix everything.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Are you fobbing off the trilemma drsmithy, […]

        The “trilemma” appears to be equally present in other systems – to say nothing of being easily mitigated anyway – so it’s not really significant.

        […] not to mention, just saying the Swiss does not invalidate any critique.

        No “critique” has been offered, just handwaving and fallacies.

        Just because it suits some ideological preferences does not mean it can just be transported half way around the world and implemented near term. Hell you would need to have a referendum on it just like with the republican moment – see what I mean.

        Who’s suggesting “near term” ? Nothing meaningful can be fixed “near term”, *generations* of social conditioning need to be addressed.

        If we started today I’d only just expect to see significant positive changes before I die, and I’m only 40. And we ain’t starting today.

        Look there is a lot of stuff that can be done in the near term, like getting money as a vote sorta thing sorted, w/o big grand pie in the sky theoretical complete overhauls that some think will fix everything.

        No it can’t, because the only people who could meaningfully progress change in the current system demonstrably have no interest in doing so. Precisely the kind of situation direct democracy can work around by forcing it into prominence.

      • drsmithy….

        Scale is the biggest impediment if you thoroughly read past the boiled down version I posted. I disagree that direct democracy would do as you suggest, because like with the money cranks, social baselines set the tone in advance. The whole history of Bernays and social PR make any atomistic individualism approach wishful thinking.

        Per se the movie idiocracy with direct democracy.

    • FiftiesFibroShack

      We need to change the amount of money it costs to run a campaign too. Perhaps cut political advertising and just give the leaders a weekly TV spot during the campaign to spruik their policies. Kill those focus group tested propaganda ‘ads’. They’re making the country stupid.

  2. proofreadersMEMBER

    “It will only take one Chinese military base in the South Pacific and Australian democracy is dead.”

    QED – the Port of Darwin?

  3. St JacquesMEMBER

    Is anybody surprised? China’s aim was to reduce Australia to the level of a dependent commodity supplying colony, and this goal has been achieved in record time. The CF*EU knew this as much as the big end of town. They don’t care because of the thirty year mining boom, and they *knew* they would get to lord it over all the high paying jobs building for the miners and the endless, population ponzi. Who cares! It works in other commodity-ponzi countries, like in Latin America and Africa….oh wait…

    • Generalised public anger has not found a single issue or a concrete target to solidify around.

      Recent history suggests that the issue will be found, but it will likely be the wrong one, thanks to misdirection from powerful interests.

      Boat people, children overboard, dole bludgers, government debt…. what will it be this time?

      • J BauerMEMBER

        What about Optus’ coverage of the World Cup? People are asking “what do they need to do to get proper coverage, protest in the street?”

    • Yep. A well known African dictator who was put in power by the Chinese was recently removed at their behest because in his opinion the country belonged to the indigenous people. He was objecting to foreign ownership of national assets.

    • @Jack

      Amasing switch you made there.

      We took our pants down, bend over a chair and put the sign welcome on the aft area… and Cheenks are to be blamed for passing by with a morning glory?

      • I prefer to have my tea waist down naked, siting on a tripod stool.

        But taht does not make me incorrect in above statement.
        What,s yur point¿

      • St JacquesMEMBER

        Maybe didn’t make myself clear enough. In the world, it’s not about morality, it’s about survival and control. The Chinese saw us for what we are, cheap sluts, and are taking full advantage “in record time”. Given our initial advantages, of course the blame is our. Now we’re rooted.

  4. I get a sense that turning point in relations between China and West was when Xi was declared president for life. Maybe many assumed they might be modernising politically due to their economy and then this happened suggesting completely the opposite.

    • At its party conference last year China announced that it was going to take over the world. that announcement shattered the China fantasy for many.

      Some in the ALP, however, chose to live in their fantasy world.

      • One Belt, One Road, One Empire. The CCP seriously see themselves as exceptional. For all the moaners about American imperialism, the CCP harbour the same desires but are much, much worse. Have a look at the extermination of Tibetans and Uighers. Slowly, painfully – it is ethnic cleansing by a thousand cuts.

      • “it is ethnic cleansing by a thousand cuts”
        Damn straight it is. The US showed us how to do it properly, they simply wiped out the buffalo herds and starved the native Americans into submission. That’s a much better deal all round.

      • There you go. Not long before someone (bjw) gave us the America has sinned thus presumably by inference China can do no worse comment.
        If the makers of such comments could get back to us when you are allowed to have a mass rally against Xi in Tiananmen as is permitted on the Mall in Washington against Trump I will be all ears.

      • @ Andrew

        Her is the perfect moment to inject that scene from Matrix: mr Anderson, what good is a phone call if you are unable to speak?
        Invisible enemy is harder to fight. Cheenks oppress transparently. A paradox.

    • That could have been your Princip moment but it ain’t no turn and great war woild have started even without Franz blood splatter

  5. michael francis

    Unlike Tibet, China won’t have to build roads in Australia to let their Tanks roll, our Government will build it for them under a job creation program.

    • Whats wrong with bombing into submission?

      You knoe, like what ohter power did successfully for the last century?

      • You cant be that obliviius to the good life this created in its homeland since the interventionalism was reinvented?

      • Yes but bombing desert just spreads the dust, bombing Australia would be wasteful for a Superpower like China, they want agriculture land and our resources, Americans wanted oil, and they got it. China still hasn’t done anything except business as usual bribing of countries that accept bribes openly, what these nations do when they no longer want to pay back the Commie regime will just leave One Belt Half completed Road with debt that can’t and won’t be paid back.
        Then what? Invade? Who Africa, Cambodia, PNG? Wow
        Global Currency? Yawn, US way out in front
        It’s a slave economy, need more slaves, I give them 5 years before they crumble back to road to nowhere
        Chinese people are much like Arabic women, limited rights and no voice

      • @ Mark

        slavery has multiple faces.

        @ Kodiak

        not sure what troubles you.
        Can’t be that bad. Phone typed. Any particualr word?
        Unless you need “proper english” only on the comments you do not like…

  6. TailorTrashMEMBER

    “But they are, nonetheless, instructive tales of how Beijing has used infrastructure as the friendly forerunner of political power.”
    …..it’s just as well that Straya doesn’t consider it’s universities or it’s childrens homes as infrastructure then ……….thank fcuk for that!

  7. Wong has always been a worry, her colours were nailed to the mast when she accused Australian being racist by not selling its farmland… to say what she said above (assuming it has been correctly copied) – just adds to the narrative.

    I know people think me different about my concern with a future Indonesia, but I have reasons, and a couple of people giving me various insights.

    This next bit is mine alone, gut feel, if I was a strategist and a game theory nutter (which I am), it would be in China’s interests to be close allies with Indonesia in the future. To keep a future naval India at bay, with part of Australia as its asking price.

    Its a good deal, and if their shoes, one I would push for!

  8. tripsterMEMBER

    Read Sun Tzu’s Art of Work and it’ll be evident to you that China has been employing the strategies in that book for the past 20 years – with the goal of world domination.

  9. I have been saying it agin and again and again, the ALP has been infiltrated to its core by the Chinese Communist Party. They are no longer able to act in Australia’s national interests.

    Period.

    • Indeed.
      Cant have freedom and and house prices up for as long as one can remember.
      A deal.proposed by us, not the cheenks

  10. Ronin8317MEMBER

    Peter Hartcher story about how the CCP invaded Tibet and Xinjiang makes for a nice story, however it is a few thousand miles from the what actually happened, and CCP building a road had nothing to do with it.

    Xinjiang in 1949 was ruled by the Kuomintang (KMT). When the Chinese civil war ended and Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan, the remaining KMT leaders surrendered to the CCP, so Xinjiang become part of China. What happened with Tibet is similar as well.

    The occupation of Tibet is no longer being done with guns or tanks : it’s done with people. A huge number of Chinese have settled in Lhasa, and it’s cultural genocide via immigration over many decades. If Australia continues with the current rate of immigration, the same will happen here as well.

    • No that is not correct. China invaded Tibet in 1950 and the Dali-Lama fled to India.
      China under the KMT did not control Tibet.

    • Ethnic cleansing by a thousand cuts. They flood the regions with ethnic Chinese and slowly take over society. It’s like an oil spill that keeps spreading killing all wild life in its wake. Only now you are that wild life. A million Chinese have migrated over the last ~20 years in a country of 25 million. The same is happening in Oz with the same purpose in mind. Genocidal control.

      • Seems fair enough, they are just a few centuries late to the party.
        How do you think Europeans spread throughout the world?

      • bjw678 – there’s a big difference, the Europeans took over occupied lands by force as they were superior, the Chinese and other Asians are taking over occupied lands because treacherous governments allow them to flood in

  11. HadronCollision

    This is an election winner for the LNP, unless I am wrong and most Australian’s don’t care/aren’t engaged.

    The Fairfax piece on the BRI yesterday should cause the bleeding heart virtue signallers a non-ephemeral near cardiac arrest, alas, no

  12. FiftiesFibroShack

    There’s nothing unreasonable about what Wong or Bowen is reported to have said. Settle down.

    • its what they haven’t said, actually what bowen is quoted to have said is just straight out pathetic

  13. China is expanding its spheres of influence, not much more that one can say about it.
    As for Australia, what exactly are we expanding, things that come immediately to mind are our indebtedness, our dependence, our hypocrisy, oh and our mines.
    Now which side has a winning game plan and the skills / determination to make it happen, long term that’s where we need to be placing our bets, that’s where we need to nurture alliances….Like you I don’t like this outcome but last I checked no one with any influence was even asking for my opinion ., all they were requesting was my submission, the payment for which was lots of shiny things hopefully enough to distract me.

  14. Australia doesn’t deserve the life of a single US serviceman to protect it. You’ve made your bed.

    • Indeed.
      Same for Afghanis, Syrians, Libyans, Iraqis, Vietnamese…
      Btu the servicemen lives will be spent as the amercan citizen overlords wish.

    • bolstroodMEMBER

      Kodiak, If you are right about US isolationist move,and all indications are that you are right, then that leaves the field open to China .
      I agree with your assessment that the US will not spend 1 of it’s citizens lives defending us in Australia, we were a convienient bolt hole during WW2,when the US had to leave the Phillipines.
      We have deluded ourselves for 70 years, that we could inveigle the US into protecting us from Red perils , yellow hordes,
      fallling dominoes etc. The reds are well and truly under the beds.
      We are now exposed . we have a 200 year habit of clutching at Imperial overlords to protect and finance us, I doubt we will change that habit, so it looks like a Cow Tow to China will occur.

      What in the above is reason for moderation? Please explain.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        If we were to go alone,…I think Nuclear weapons, remotely positioned within our vast inland, launched from Russian style mobile launchers, spread across 100s of locations, with a small at sea capability as well, to be the most cost effective deterrent to protect our sovereignty in the absence of the US “Nuclear umbrella”.

        China is increasingly behaving like 1936 Germany, with a similar disregard for Democracy, the sovereignty of other nations and minority peoples within their own boarders.
        To deny this, is delusional.

      • EP,

        so we should have nukes to deter nukes aiming at us (which aim at us because we do have nukes)?

        It was never better time to sit not on the fence but on the fringe of the theatre.
        Geo-position allows Australia to be on the fringe and all we need is to keep every power at arms length by not aligning to anyone and not threatening anyone.
        Swiss did it (remained neutral) in the heat of the first effort of making the European Union
        We need to revise our banking sector looking at Swiss model

  15. jkambahMEMBER

    We have the Great Australian Helmsman to thank for what has happened to the ALP’s views on China – Gough Whitlam worked for this over many years and his son Nick has had many business connection with China for a very long time. The old ALP (pre-Gough) always rightly feared China for the potential it had to overwhelm us.

    The ALP is so self-deluded about the greatness of Whitlam, the need to purge any views of dissent from the ALP about China having expansionist plans (which they have clearly had for decades), and the move for a big Oz so that its pretty impossible to redirect them into a path that would enable them to steer Australia as an independent nation.

    We basically need lots of nukes, which is not too hard or expensive for us to get, plus a proper delivery system to reach all of China if we want their respect and to maintain our freedom.