Australian Open divorces CCP in record time

Yesterday it was all the way with the CCP for AO. Not today:

Fans at the Australian Open can wear “Where is Peng Shuai?” shirts as long as they are peaceful, tournament chief Craig Tiley told AFP on Tuesday.

Video emerged on Sunday of security staff ordering spectators to remove shirts and a banner in support of the Chinese player at Melbourne Park. It prompted tennis legend Martina Navratilova to brand the move “pathetic”.

Peng, the former doubles world number one is absent from Melbourne and there are fears for her wellbeing after she alleged online in November that she had been “forced” into sex by a Chinese former vice-premier during a years-long on-and-off relationship.

Welcome to your new world order. Gideon Rachman:

America’s defeat in Afghanistan, symbolised by the chaotic withdrawal from Kabul in the summer of 2021, has given the Russians hope that the US-led world order is crumbling. Lukyanov argues that the fall of Kabul to the Taliban was “no less historical and symbolic than the fall of the Berlin Wall”.

Influential Chinese academics are thinking along similar lines. Yan Xuetong, dean of the school of international relations at Tsinghua University in Beijing (Xi’s alma mater), writes that “China believes that its rise to great-power status entitles it to a new role in world affairs — one that cannot be reconciled with unquestioned US dominance.”

Like Lukyanov, Yan believes that “the US-led world order is fading away . . . In its place will come a multipolar order”. President Xi himself has put it even more succinctly with his often repeated claim that “the east is rising and the west is declining”.

For Russia and China, the making of a new world order is not simply a matter of raw power. It is also a battle of ideas. While the western liberal tradition promotes the idea of universal human rights, Russian and Chinese thinkers make the argument that different cultural traditions and “civilisations” should be allowed to develop in different ways.

…Beijing and Moscow argue that the current world order is characterised by an American attempt to impose western ideas about democracy and human rights on other countries, if necessary through military intervention. The new world order that Russia and China are demanding would instead be based on distinct spheres of influence. The US would accept Russian and Chinese domination of their neighbourhoods and would abandon its support for democracy or the colour revolutions that might threaten the Putin or Xi regimes.

…Russia and China clearly have similar complaints about the current world order. There are also some important differences between the approaches of Moscow and Beijing. Russia is currently more willing to take military risks than China. But its ultimate goals may be more limited. For the Russians, the use of military force in Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere is a way of repudiating the claim made by former US president Barack Obama that Russia is now no more than a regional power. Dmitri Trenin of the Carnegie Center in Moscow argues that, “For the country’s leaders, Russia is nothing if it is not a great power.”

But while Russia aspires to be one of the world’s great powers, China seems to be contemplating displacing the US as the world’s pre-eminent power.

Will a very confused AO ban Daniil Medvedev next?

Houses and Holes


  1. reusachtigeMEMBER

    The wrong decision. This is not how you protect your profits. Bad for business. This is sovereign risk stuff. Sponsors need to be assured that their interests will always come first otherwise they won’t invest. And this is a very important sponsor with deep pockets.

  2. SnappedUpSavvyMEMBER

    Yan Xuetong, dean of the school of international relations at Tsinghua University in Beijing (Xi’s alma mater), writes that “China believes that its rise to great-power status entitles it to a new role in world affairs — one that cannot be reconciled with unquestioned US dominance.”

    but but we still want developing country concessions

    • Exactly. With our aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, and manned fckn space program.

      These Chinese think-tank types are a real echo-chamber getting high on their own supply. A systemic risk when all dissenting views are silenced.

  3. Russia’ strategic threat is limited and they are acting out of weakness. Their economy is based on petrocarbons and is going to be displaced by renewables and thorium reactors, their population is declining and only the size od bangladesh, and their economy the size of Australia and New Zealand. They face ethnic tensions all along their periphery, which is mostly not guaranteed by natural barriers. So their leaders poke and prod, bully and bluster. I dont think for a second Putin wants conflict in Ukraine. What he wants is higher oil prices, to look masculine to his domestic jingoist supporters and, if the west abandons Ukraine, he will happily collect it. But my read of washington is that they know hes been attempting to detabilise US politics and the American elite are sick and tired of him. The problem with military action – as Afghanistan shows – is that the outcomes are never clear or forecastable.

    • and the difference here (compared to Afghanistan) is that the US deterrent effort has the backing of the EU… some in the EU will go to great lengths to deter Russia and their potential to disrupt vital energy supplies into the EU

    • Actually Peter Russia is the largest grain exporter and its organic. All Russian food is organic by government decree.

      Given that 80% of Russian wealth was stripped out by the oligarchs, UK and USA entities in the 1990s following the collapse of the USSR, it’s doing damn well compared to us, to Australia. We were so good in the 1970s under Whitlam and look how we have collapsed since 1998.
      Russia is on the rise for the next couple of hundred years. Look at Deagle prediction of population of countries in 2025, the disposable income of Russians is looking very good.

  4. If the US led world order is fading away – how much culpability can be internally apportioned to the snowballing fanaticism of Reaganist accolytes?

  5. adelaide_economist

    I don’t think US decline is in question (mirroring pretty much the entire Western world – a mix mostly of poor demographics, terribly misguided domestic policies [ranging from abandonment of manufacturing through to policy by twitter on social issues] and the fact in many ways Western superiority was an artifact of non-Western countries pursuing self-destructive policies – ie theocratic states or extreme corruption). And it goes without saying Australia has advanced down this path in its own terrible way.

    That said, I don’t really think the withdrawal from Afghanistan was a defeat. The actual act of withdrawal was instead a rare sign of sanity in the power elite of the US. Russia of all countries seeing this as anything more than a recognition of reality is pretty difficult to swallow given their own history in that part of the world.

    The real question is how prepared and capable are countries like Russia and China to act given they each have their own fairly extreme internal issues to resolve. Projection of power WW2 style, or even Gulf War 1 style, seems almost impossible today given lack of coherence in modern societies.

    China might be 90% Han and mostly ‘loyal’ but they too have plenty of simmering tensions and riots relying on extreme suppression techniques to keep a lid on it. All those loyal CCP families happy to send off their only son to die fighting India, Taiwan, Japan, the US, Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore and Australia? Russia’s dwindling sons sent off to die across eastern Europe and then endless theatre and car bombings within Russia in response?

    War might be the answer but it might also be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for any of those three powers.