Comments on: We need to talk about China

By: Zach S

Zach S — Fri, 19 May 2017 14:47:05 +0000

Here we have the difference between ideals and the real. We can want whatever ideals appeal to us and then, in the end, we must contend with the real. China most certainly will continue to gain dominance, for two reasons in particular. One being the new Asia Development Bank. This puts China firmly at the helm of Asian power in the 21st century. Read: all roads lead to Rome. The second reason is China’s new One Belt, One Road. There’s no stopping it, and there’s no stopping its enormous anticipated influence.

Sure, Australia could make sacrifices to lessen China’s impact, but the simple question to be asked is: which will be of greater value, retaining Australian ideals, or prospering along with the real Asia of this century. If China is the new superpower in this neck of the world, does it make sense for the local neighbors to turn up their noses at the prevailing future?

By: M.Dhanasekar

M.Dhanasekar — Tue, 16 May 2017 15:11:51 +0000

Correctly analysed, & well presented, China, is using the police of I , ME , MYSELF, leads to Power corrupts, absolute Power corrupts absolutely, ; Power should be used like jute steam, otherwise, like a bamboo sticks it will break beyond reganation, & there are lots of doubts about the SILK ROADS, after a few years the true colour will be revealed, India’s stand is appreciatable

By: KK Wren

KK Wren — Tue, 09 May 2017 23:13:08 +0000

Shouldnt the Godwin Rule apply here? Whoever evokes the Nazi comparison loses the argument. IT s an indication of supreme intellectual laziness at best and of self righteous delusion at worst.

The Nazis spent well over 10 percent (near 20 percent by 1939) of GDP on Military build up; it had created a systematic super-race /expansionist philosophy and a racial enemy, who was subject to genocide.

China today even by the most devout cold war warriors’ standard is no where near doing any of those. The most they may claim is certain broadly defined rights abuse and the even more user-friendly and flexible crime of ‘cultural genocide’ (just so as to insert an emotive word where it has otherwise no role).

I am not saying that the Chinese system is to my liking orin anyway better. But they dont claim to have an exportable political model at all. Instead it is us who fervently deny the legitimacy of any other sociopolitical system other than ours. And our hatred of ‘the other’ seems mightily selective to boot.

Every nation has its own national interests to further and defend. China is playing the same game as are we and others. But their increasing capability at it seems to be deemed morally reprehensible. I mean, how dare they seek to change the geopolitical status quo as established by the West in their neighbourhood and trade routes? And how lucky that the status quo as established by the West is so perfect that it is good for everyone and should be accepted by everyone!

Again I hope we are more than a match in this game against China. But to pretend somehow that they are the Nazis and we are on the side of the angels is rather dishonest and potentially dangerous. Afterall every warmonger (including Chinese ones) is armed with moral righteousness, and believes their rival, evil and hence less human.

By: Michael Heazle

Michael Heazle — Fri, 05 May 2017 08:22:15 +0000

At last we reach, after nearly a decade, the central question on which this debate rests.

That is, what, if anything, is worth risking the prospect of going to war? Hugh White’s argument logically concludes, ultimately, that nothing is.

We should, rather, just adapt our values and ideas of independence as a sovereign nation state (i.e., everything that gives meaning and purpose to everyone’s lives) to whoever has — or in his case will have (HW knows the future obviously) — the biggest stick, and never mind the carrots by the way.

Sounds to me like unconditional appeasement of the worst kind!

By: Clive Hamilton

Clive Hamilton — Thu, 04 May 2017 05:08:56 +0000

Freudian slip?

“We Need to Talk About China”

“Kevin’s mother struggles to love her strange child, despite the increasingly vicious things he says and does as he grows up. But Kevin is just getting started, and his final act will be beyond anything anyone imagined.”

By: Clive Hamilton

Clive Hamilton — Thu, 04 May 2017 04:13:58 +0000

In reply to Sam Roggeveen. Sam. It's a very big topic and I will be setting out my views in full in the book I am writing.

By: Sam Roggeveen

Sam Roggeveen — Thu, 04 May 2017 02:20:42 +0000

Clive, you say our freedom ‘is worth a great deal and we should be prepared to make sacrifices in some areas of our lives.’ Can you be more specific? Would you, for instance, favour a substantial increase in defence spending to reduce China’s ability to coerce Australia?

By: Clive Hamilton

Clive Hamilton — Thu, 04 May 2017 01:04:02 +0000

I appreciate Hugh White’s response to my critique of his CiW lecture. I would like to make two points of clarification where I think he has misread my argument.
First, I am under no illusions about the possible major costs Australia would need to bear in order to maintain its sovereignty against the creeping influence of China. The question I pose is this: How much is our freedom worth? For me, it is worth a great deal and we should be prepared to make sacrifices in some areas of our lives.
Second, in my opening analogy I was not implying that the present Chinese regime is comparable to Nazi Germany. I think that analogy is misleading and unhelpful. My point was simpler: that in order to understand how to respond to China we must comprehend the nature of the regime we are dealing with, something I believe Professor White does not appreciate. I could have used a different analogy, such as an academic in 1950 advising the US government on how to respond to “Russia” without making an attempt to understand the nature of the Stalinist regime.