China-Australia Relations (1 Viewer)

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

I'm going to not reply to this in the hope that it's a troll post.

A lot of Libertarians say shit like "we should abolish the defence forces", so I doubt it's a troll.

 

[Freedom_]

I'm going to not reply to this in the hope that it's a troll post.

I never troll

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Why do we even have a defense force? I dont think we need one.

Well, even though this is a nice idea in theory, it's totally impractical when applied to the 'real world'. Even if we'd like to think we could cease to be the aggressors, the very name implies its importance...defence force. Even if we could rely on our own nation never to attack another, this does not mean we can expect the same from others.

 

[murphyad]

Seconded.

Although diplomacy > force obviously.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Do any of you know about Game Theory? It's very interesting when applied to situations such as war...

And, yes...agreed with murphy's implication that we should always try to use diplomacy first, and force second, a course of action that seems to have fallen by the wayside, unfortunately.

 

[Iheartgays]

Do any of you know about Game Theory? It's very interesting when applied to situations such as war...

And, yes...agreed with murphy's implication that we should always try to use diplomacy first, and force second, a course of action that seems to have fallen by the wayside, unfortunately.

You joking? When was the last time we rushed into a war? In your lifetime, anyway.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

You joking? When was the last time we rushed into a war? In your lifetime, anyway.

Hmm. Let's think...maybe...Iraq AND Afghanistan...there's two, take your pick.

 

[Iheartgays]

Hmm. Let's think...maybe...Iraq AND Afghanistan...there's two, take your pick.

Okay, well I pick both of them, and raise the point of 'who cares that America led us into war with the terrorist inhabitants of these nations (and more, of course), as we set up a more stable, fair system of government.' I mean, they'd be worse off under the previous rule, but nooo we have these flawed viewpoints which say that we should leave them to sort themselves out. Obviously that's worked in the past.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Hmm. Let's think...maybe...Iraq AND Afghanistan...there's two, take your pick.

You show your abject ignorance of the situation by classifying Afghanistan alongside Iraq. The force in Afghanistan is a peace-keeping force with an international mandate recognised by the UN. There was nobody to negotiate with besides terrorist cells and brutal warlords in the middle of butchering each-other and anyone around them. It was the most violent country on Earth.

The 'invasion' of Iraq was to remove a brutal dictator under the guise of WMD's. It did not have an international mandate. It involved a select few countries. No WMD's found, but they did still remove a dictator and gave the people democracy. Worth something whether you supported that war or not. As to diplomacy in that situation? Has diplomacy worked with Iran? North Korea? It's certainly worth trying, but if it fails (and it sometimes will), what then... do we let these dictators keep murdering their own people as long as we can delude ourselves into beliving that we have the moral highground by not intervening?

 

[murphyad]

Okay, well I pick both of them, and raise the point of 'who cares that America led us into war with the terrorist inhabitants of these nations (and more, of course), as we set up a more stable, fair system of government.' I mean, they'd be worse off under the previous rule, but nooo we have these flawed viewpoints which say that we should leave them to sort themselves out. Obviously that's worked in the past.

Gee whizzakers. Iraq and terrorists were light years apart, even if that country did have a tyrannical regime.

The operative word in terms of government is more stable and fair. In reality, neither have a system that approaches stable and fair. In fact, most Iraqis want the US to get the hell out of Iraq right now, but the States are sticking around. In terms of Iraqi public opinion, that's not very fair.

It would seem that you are quite the cultural imperialist in your advocation of these countries' regime changes. An unstated premise of your post is the idea that because we judge our system to be the best, we have a right to perpetrate it upon others, even if they don't necessarily want it. I wouldn't consider this appropriate in all cases; in fact the vast majority of cases.

In short, HD's post was really more of a rhetorical....statement......? I'm damned if I know.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Okay, well I pick both of them, and raise the point of 'who cares that America led us into war with the terrorist inhabitants of these nations (and more, of course), as we set up a more stable, fair system of government.' I mean, they'd be worse off under the previous rule, but nooo we have these flawed viewpoints which say that we should leave them to sort themselves out. Obviously that's worked in the past.

Who cares? I'm pretty sure the civilians would care about other nations muscling in without taking stock of the situation or considering that there might have been a better way to go about it. Also, who defines 'stable and fair'? That's only in our frame of reference, they have different values, many are uneducated...the list goes on.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

In short, HD's post was really more of a rhetorical....statement......? I'm damned if I know.

Yeah, essentially...summing up that, imo, both the Iraq and Afghanistan situations were handled very poorly, this is why I can class them together.

I'm not suggesting that the situation for the citizens of either nation were at all desirable before the intervention of the West, but I'm not sure they're much better off now. The situations didn't necessarily have to be left alone, but at least considered more carefully.

And, Iraq was an 'invasion', whichever way you spin it. Even if you believe that the aim was *truly* to get rid of Hossein, with the best interests of the people at heart, intervening in a way which killed civilians seems a funny way of showing it.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Let's ignore Freedom's tired rant about about leaving dictators, warlords and terrorists alone and get back to the thread topic - China. Peter Costello wrote a concise rejection of the notion that all Chinese investment is good investment in The Age in July:

IN FEBRUARY I raised concerns about the proposal by Rio Tinto to sell a 30 per cent stake in its Pilbara iron ore mines to the Chinese state-owned company Chinalco. I urged Treasurer Wayne Swan to look at it carefully under the foreign investment law, which I used to assess Shell's proposal to takeover gas producer Woodside in 2001.

At that time most of the business and economic writers supported the Chinalco deal on the grounds that Rio needed money and Australia needed Chinese foreign investment. One Asia specialist, Professor Peter Drysdale of the Australian National University, who supported Chinalco's bid, described my criticism as "grubby".

But when Rio's iron ore negotiations manager, Australian Stern Hu, was arrested in Shanghai no one was suggesting the Chinese leadership was "grubby". You don't talk like that in China. Even back here in Australia Chinese specialists will be careful how they talk. And this is the nub of the issue. Business in China is not conducted as it is in a Western democracy.

Hu has been arrested and held since July 5 for allegedly stealing state secrets. We don't know the details of the charges or the evidence against him. If this had happened in Australia, there would have been a bail hearing before an independent magistrate and the charges laid out. If it was thought Hu was a flight risk his passport would have been seized and he would now be out on bail. In China he continues to sit in the State Security Detention Centre.

Stealing state secrets is not a common crime in Australia, and it is certainly not a crime to obtain information about your customers and how they might approach a commercial negotiation. If you do obtain such information, it can't be a state secret because Australian companies are privately owned. In China, where the state owns so many companies, commercial information becomes a state secret, which tells you that these are not corporations in the normal way we understand them.

Chinalco was even more intertwined with the Chinese Government since its chairman was an alternate member of the central committee of the Communist Party.



We should remember the Australian Government did not rule that the Chinalco bid was contrary to Australia's national interest. It never expressed a view about the application. Rio itself pulled out of the proposal under pressure from its shareholders. As it turns out, it could raise money elsewhere. And it recognised there was more benefit from an association with Australian producer BHP than Chinalco - an association it had previously spurned.

The Government was relieved of a hard decision and in my view the outcome was in Australia's national interest. But it is fair to say the Chinese Government was not happy with Rio.

I can say that when Shell's application for Woodside was ruled out, the company was not happy. It may have taken some countervailing action in foreign exchange markets, but there was never any risk that the British or Dutch governments would take action against Woodside or its employees.

Has the Chinese Government decided to respond because Chinalco was spurned by Rio Tinto? We do not know. And there is not much prospect we ever will. In our country a minister would be grilled in an open news conference over this, with hostile journalists looking for any skerrick of a connection. That does not happen in China.

Since Hu is now in detention, someone else will have to lead Rio's negotiations with the Chinese steel mills. My guess is that they will not push negotiations as strenuously as Hu. In China you are doing business with state-owned enterprises subject to political control in a country that does not tolerate political opposition or a critical press. And the legal system is not independent from government.

China has made great strides in the direction of liberalising its economy, but the process is still in transition. It is in the global community's interest to encourage the process to continue.

But it is also incumbent on our leaders to remember the differences when considering Australia's national interest. In sensitive foreign investment decisions, it's worth remembering that Chinese state-owned enterprises do not operate in the same way as our private corporations.

Doing business in China is not as we Westerners know it | theage.com.au

 

[Iheartgays]

Yeah, essentially...summing up that, imo, both the Iraq and Afghanistan situations were handled very poorly, this is why I can class them together.

I'm not suggesting that the situation for the citizens of either nation were at all desirable before the intervention of the West, but I'm not sure they're much better off now. The situations didn't necessarily have to be left alone, but at least considered more carefully.

And, Iraq was an 'invasion', whichever way you spin it. Even if you believe that the aim was *truly* to get rid of Hossein, with the best interests of the people at heart, intervening in a way which killed civilians seems a funny way of showing it.

Every Christmas when Santa visits your house, is that an invasion? Or is he helping, even if he is disregarding the laws involving your property? In the same way, a few meaningless civilians is a small price to pay for the safety of Obama and his fuggo wife. What we should do is reinstate slavery because at least then everyone is employed. Isn't that what you want? 100% employment?

 

[Josh22]

Who cares? I'm pretty sure the civilians would care about other nations muscling in without taking stock of the situation or considering that there might have been a better way to go about it. Also, who defines 'stable and fair'? That's only in our frame of reference, they have different values, many are uneducated...the list goes on.

lololol you argue so badly specially considrin yourr epic forgetfulness of the kurds... GJ

 

[dcb4usmcfr]

I don't really think there will be "good relationship" with mainland China forever unless there's a radical change in the political regime there, plus the abolition of extreme nationalism

But business is another thing

 

[copkiller]

Now for the important question. Who are we? At a stretch we're the third most relevant country in the region which we command any authority. Under Japan and China. Again that's a stretch considering South Korea's PPP and wordly contributions are slightly above ours. What gives us authority is our bridge between the East and West, and our vast lands.

Just because the United States is not located in the region, doesn't mean it doesn't have an influence in the region, especially considering its large military presence in Japan and South Korea.

Australia is really nothing more than an arm of the US empire, and this is how we are perceived by the Chinese. If you think Australia is actually a real player in international affairs, you're having a laugh.