China groveling was a great Australian pastime until the late 20-teens. We all did it for the cash.
But, most of us realised it wasn’t worth it some time in the late teens as parliament was overrun with bribes, Hong Kong was destroyed, and China occupied the South China Sea.
Those that were left behind got another shove when China unleashed the plague, probably from its Wuhan lab, foisted a trade war on Australia, and daily insulted the nation for fun.
If you missed any of all this, and still felt a soft spot for the CCP, then there was the quiet invasion of the Solomons to wake you up.
But, now that China has declared open war on Taiwan from our national press club, Waleed Aly has chosen this moment to begin a China groveling campaign:
Here again, China is identifying a position Australia won’t declare, but which everyone knows to be true. Australian politicians might repeat the mantra that we don’t have to choose between China and the US, but should push come to shove, we already have.
That gets sharp around Taiwan because of a question no Australian politician will want to answer until they have no choice: if China invades, and the US decides to send its military, will we join them? Our approach to the US alliance says we probably would.
But the real debate would be whether or not that would be in our national interest. And that would depend on what consequences we’re happy to wear. Are we happy for our economy to grind to a halt? Will we risk an invasion, assuming the US will defend us? Does it change things if Trump is elected in two years?
Circumstances are asking us the question of a century. My reading of China’s language is that it sees us really as US representatives in the Pacific. It would prefer this to change, and will apply pressure to that end, but otherwise is quite prepared to engage with us on those terms. Meanwhile, we’re acquiescing to that role. In doing this, we’re inevitably punting on the kind of unknowable future that foreign policy so often throws up. We’re basically assuming that American power will continue to hold sway, that Chinese power will remain in check, and that in the event of open conflict, we’ll be safest behind American shields.
Earth to Waleed. We are the US representatives in the Pacific, a groveling US satrap, and thank god for it.
The US is a liberal empire. Pax Americana. Like all great powers, it imposes its will upon those it deems need it. We are just fortunate that we happen to be liberal as well so that imposition has not cost us much over the stretch. Indeed, it has delivered us freedom so fulsome, for so long, that we all take it for granted.
The only debate we need to have, or more importantly the only debate that is available to us, is do we want to remain a part of Pax Americana or do we want to replace our hegemon with an autocratic China? That is the only choice before us. There is no neutral position available. China has made that clear in its 14 conditions to end democracy:
To summarise, end parliament and the press freedom and install gulags for those that are divergent. No worries!
Absobloodylutely, let’s debate it. But let’s do so honestly and openly. Warts and all. A wokish and Waleed debate sure ain’t that:
- Should we fight for Taiwan? No. That war could be so catastrophic that it is not worth it given the conflict is essentially civil in nature.
- Should we do our best to help Taiwan defend itself? Yes. It’s a democracy and deserves no less. As well, it is a useful strategic thorn in China’s side.
- How should we support it? Arms buildup and the deployment of NATO’s economic response to Russia applied to China if it invades. That is to boot China out of the global economy.
- That will come at a high cost but much lower than war. We were fine before China and will be after it.
- What do we need to do at home? Expel the Chinese ambassador for his outrageous violation of every democratic principle.
- Ban WeChat to get the local Chinese-Australian community off Bejing’s propaganda drip.
- Stop Chinese immigration lest that community become overly influential in Canberra and prevent it from making national interest decisions. This is not race-based. It is a strategic necessity. It will also help prevent outcomes such as the rounding up of Japanese migrants in WWII.
Over to you Waleed.
