Asia China's growing influence

[Ned_Flanders]

So you never mentioned Murdoch, Lowy, Kagan & AIJAC then?

no, I left my tiki torch at home

 

[smokingjacket]

I was having dinner with some chinese friends last night, and they asked why Australia is the only country in the world other than israel who is going all in on Team Trump. I honestly had no answer for them

he hangs up on our leader, accuses us of exploiting them in trade, says we havent done our share supporting the alliance, and our response is to kow tow and agree to trade restrictions

Australia is more committed than almost any other US ally to the idea of the "rules-based-order" of liberal internationalism - the idea that all states are treated as equals, with rules that govern how states interact with one another, no matter how big or small each state is (excluding the US) - that the US has set up. Canada is in a safe location and can free ride on the US military space, the UK and European allies have a fairly settled strategic position with strong institutions in their region. Japan is easily strong enough to defend itself if it needed to. It's really Australia and Israel that feel the most vulnerable as wealthy, small population, states in regions that are going through major geopolitical shifts.

Israel's response seems to be increasing belligerence and trying to use US power while they're still strong enough/have the authority to do so.

Australia's response is to view the Trump regime as a passing phenomenon, and in the meantime push as hard as possible to maintain the rules-based-order, while accepting that things will not go back as they were and there is a need for new institutions in Asia. Where the US has pulled out, they've tried to patch it up with a coalition of states committed to multilateralism, the interest in maintaining it, and the means to do so. France has stepped up with its military plans in the SCS and Japan has attempted to fill the economic gap as the major consumer market in liberal trade deals. Australia has also been instrumental in trying to draw India into a new/old "Indo-Pacific" multilateral framework of democracies known as "the Quad" that would feature Japan, India, the US, and Australia. However the Indian response to being part of what is essentially a grouping aimed at balancing Chinese power in the region has been mixed.

Short version is I don't think Australia is all in on Team Trump. I think most of the foreign policy/political elite are one part terrified and one part contemptuous, but they're desperately trying anything they can to maintain influence and push the policy direction towards what they perceive as Australia's interest, often at the expense of degrading themselves.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Australia is more committed than almost any other US ally to the idea of the "rules-based-order" of liberal internationalism - the idea that all states are treated as equals, with rules that govern how states interact with one another, no matter how big or small each state is (excluding the US) - that the US has set up. Canada is in a safe location and can free ride on the US military space, the UK and European allies have a fairly settled strategic position with strong institutions in their region. Japan is easily strong enough to defend itself if it needed to. It's really Australia and Israel that feel the most vulnerable as wealthy, small population, states in regions that are going through major geopolitical shifts.

Israel's response seems to be increasing belligerence and trying to use US power while they're still strong enough/have the authority to do so.

Australia's response is to view the Trump regime as a passing phenomenon, and in the meantime push as hard as possible to maintain the rules-based-order, while accepting that things will not go back as they were and there is a need for new institutions in Asia. Where the US has pulled out, they've tried to patch it up with a coalition of states committed to multilateralism, the interest in maintaining it, and the means to do so. France has stepped up with its military plans in the SCS and Japan has attempted to fill the economic gap as the major consumer market in liberal trade deals. Australia has also been instrumental in trying to draw India into a new/old "Indo-Pacific" multilateral framework of democracies known as "the Quad" that would feature Japan, India, the US, and Australia. However the Indian response to being part of what is essentially a grouping aimed at balancing Chinese power in the region has been mixed.

Short version is I don't think Australia is all in on Team Trump. I think most of the foreign policy/political elite are one part terrified and one part contemptuous, but they're desperately trying anything they can to maintain influence and push the policy direction towards what they perceive as Australia's interest, often at the expense of degrading themselves.

Trump spits in our face, and bishop and co apologise for him. How is that not being all in?

 

[smokingjacket]

Trump spits in our face, and bishop and co apologise for him. How is that not being all in?

Short version is I don't think Australia is all in on Team Trump. I think most of the foreign policy/political elite are one part terrified and one part contemptuous, but they're desperately trying anything they can to maintain influence and push the policy direction towards what they perceive as Australia's interest, often at the expense of degrading themselves.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

What's in Australia's interest for agreeing to steel quotas for nothing in return?

Name what benefits we have received from humiliating ourselves?

 

[smokingjacket]

What's in Australia's interest for agreeing to steel quotas for nothing in return?

Name what benefits we have received from humiliating ourselves?

The broader strategic goal of keeping the US as an active Asian power that maintains the rules-based-order on trade and so on. As I said, my take is that they think Trump is a short term issue to be endured, and if that includes giving away some things like steel quotas in exchange for him not tearing up more important trade agreements and international institutions that "allegedly" benefit Australia, then that's what they'll do. It's a relatively small price to pay so that Trump can say he's had a win on trade in an emblematic industry. I don't think that means they like or support him, rather that because Trump is the first US President in a long time to renounce US leadership and patronage of a global liberal order, what can appear to be US allies supporting him, is really allies trying to drag the US back into that leadership position. Macron is a good example, two months ago the headlines were all about him and Trumps 'bromance' but just last week before the G7, Macron lacerated him with a speech about Trump's "crude hegemony." So these leaders are trying to play a delicate game of nursing his ego in personal diplomacy while pushing back against the America First stuff.

“The six other countries of the G7 represent a market which is bigger than the American market,” the French president said. “I believe in cooperation and multilateralism because I will resist hegemony with all my strength. Hegemony is might makes right. Hegemony is the end of the rule of law.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/07/macron-g7-summit-trump-trade-policy-hegemony

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The broader strategic goal of keeping the US as an active Asian power that maintains the rules-based-order on trade and so on. As I said, my take is that they think Trump is a short term issue to be endured, and if that includes giving away some things like steel quotas in exchange for him not tearing up more important trade agreements and international institutions that "allegedly" benefit Australia, then that's what they'll do. It's a relatively small price to pay so that Trump can say he's had a win on trade in an emblematic industry. I don't think that means they like or support him, rather that because Trump is the first US President in a long time to renounce US leadership and patronage of a global liberal order, what can appear to be US allies supporting him, is really allies trying to drag the US back into that leadership position. Macron is a good example, two months ago the headlines were all about him and Trumps 'bromance' but just last week before the G7, Macron lacerated him with a speech about Trump's "crude hegemony." So these leaders are trying to play a delicate game of nursing his ego in personal diplomacy while pushing back against the America First stuff.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/07/macron-g7-summit-trump-trade-policy-hegemony

if we believe what you think, we are completely dumb

USA is preparing for some sort of fight with China, be it hot or cold. Its not gunna leave Asia because Australia refuses to be its bitch

The Philippines has told them to get ****ed, and they are a key player in the SCS situation, and the USA hasnt changed tact as a result

 

[Procrastinator35]

no, I left my tiki torch at home

Well maybe you'd prefer the direct route then.

"Because we are both the U.S & Israel's spineless biatches."

 

[smokingjacket]

if we believe what you think, we are completely dumb

USA is preparing for some sort of fight with China, be it hot or cold. Its not gunna leave Asia because Australia refuses to be its bitch

The Philippines has told them to get ******, and they are a key player in the SCS situation, and the USA hasnt changed tact as a result

Probably. Not for me to defend the mandarins and apparatchiks but there's more to it than what you've said. The US will always use its power to pursue its own interests, containing a rival power in China is part of that, but up until Trump, the US pledged (inconsistently) to use its power to uphold the laws for states it has set in its liberal order, and to defend the rights of less powerful states. Without a dominant state to enforce the rules, diplomacy and conflict is resolved by power, as opposed to morality or justice. Australia's foreign policy community seem concerned that if the US lets the liberal-order break down in Asia, as a demographically small country surrounded by booming developing states with large populations, Australia will be much more vulnerable to coercion in the future. In the immediate term from China, but also Indonesia and other states as they become stronger and attain military and economic tools to match.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Probably. Not for me to defend the mandarins and apparatchiks but there's more to it than what you've said. The US will always use its power to pursue its own interests, containing a rival power in China is part of that, but up until Trump, the US pledged (inconsistently) to use its power to uphold the laws for states it has set in its liberal order, and to defend the rights of less powerful states. Without a dominant state to enforce the rules, diplomacy and conflict is resolved by power, as opposed to morality or justice. Australia's foreign policy community seem concerned that if the US lets the liberal-order break down in Asia, as a demographically small country surrounded by booming developing states with large populations, Australia will be much more vulnerable to coercion in the future. In the immediate term from China, but also Indonesia and other states as they become stronger and attain military and economic tools to match.

That sounds like our policy circa 1939

 

[smokingjacket]

That sounds like our policy circa 1939

The the liberal-internationalist institutions didn't exist in 1939 but yes, in military terms the British Empire played a large role in governing the region and setting the "rules" of trade but in a more mercantilist way.

 

[yebiga]

Probably. Not for me to defend the mandarins and apparatchiks but there's more to it than what you've said. The US will always use its power to pursue its own interests, containing a rival power in China is part of that, but up until Trump, the US pledged (inconsistently) to use its power to uphold the laws for states it has set in its liberal order, and to defend the rights of less powerful states. Without a dominant state to enforce the rules, diplomacy and conflict is resolved by power, as opposed to morality or justice. Australia's foreign policy community seem concerned that if the US lets the liberal-order break down in Asia, as a demographically small country surrounded by booming developing states with large populations, Australia will be much more vulnerable to coercion in the future. In the immediate term from China, but also Indonesia and other states as they become stronger and attain military and economic tools to match.

Oh come on
You really believe that benevolent leadership schtick?

 

[yebiga]

Their system of capitalism is not overly dissimilar to Western capitalism anymore given the tariffs and protectionism written into WTO rules, RFTAs, etc.
We're in a new paradigm where the White House to crowing about protectionism and China are looking more like the champions of free trade.

It's a very weird time. China are signing non-aggression treaties with India while the US is bombing the crap out of the enemies of ISIS in Syria while maintaining a 'war or terrorism'.

Their system of capitalism is similar to ours 50-100 years ago maybe.

Our rich have been allowed to run amok - and have effectively destroyed the best of capitalism leaving us with this kabuki Ponzi scheme.

Half the worlds post grads, half the worlds super computers, 30000 km of high speed 300 - 400 km trains

Leadership in renewables- solar wind hydro

3000 km canals - cities built within 5 years

In comparison - we can’t get a 60 km train from the city to the airport

And we haven’t even considered that they make pretty manufacture everything - while we flip burgers and provide finance inflating the value of our assets so we can consume more trash.

For the USA to continue to really run the world there is only one option st it’s disposal and that is to blow the whole thing up.

The western populace like it’s political class is unfit, obese, medicated, indebted, dumbed down and browbeaten. Whilst China builds cities and unimaginable infrastructure - we bitch about pronouns whilst our government loots another third world country.

If you take a breath and turn off our legacy media - all this is irrefutable.

 

[smokingjacket]

Oh come on
You really believe that benevolent leadership schtick?

I didn't give my own thoughts, simply stating Australia's foreign policy which doesn't have a specific viewpoint on whether US power is benevolent or not, it just states that overwhelmingly US power upholds the liberal-order, which is a statement of fact. Included in most of these discussions is a side note that the US created the liberal-order in its image and to benefit itself. Further the US isn't subject to its own rules of international law. While a country like Australia with similar values and economic profile to the US might see how perpetuating the US led liberal-order would be a good thing, there's obviously plenty of other states who would like to see it changed. From my perspective, tt the moment Australia is circling the wagons with other states who benefit from the liberal-order to make sure it outlives the Trump administration and inevitable challenge from China.

 

[yebiga]

I didn't give my own thoughts, simply stating Australia's foreign policy which doesn't have a specific viewpoint on whether US power is benevolent or not, it just states that overwhelmingly US power upholds the liberal-order, which is a statement of fact. Included in most of these discussions is a side note that the US created the liberal-order in its image and to benefit itself. Further the US isn't subject to its own rules of international law. While a country like Australia with similar values and economic profile to the US might see how perpetuating the US led liberal-order would be a good thing, there's obviously plenty of other states who would like to see it changed. From my perspective, tt the moment Australia is circling the wagons with other states who benefit from the liberal-order to make sure it outlives the Trump administration and inevitable challenge from China.

mmm
You also wrote: " to defend the rights of less powerful states. Without a dominant state to enforce the rules, diplomacy and conflict is resolved by power, as opposed to morality or justice."

your use of the word "Justice" fills me with horror.

Other states are long out of the habit of any kind of agency and sustaining the neo-conservative - pre-Trump - order is not even a conceivable option. Trump didn't happen in a vacuum! It happened because the world order had all but collapsed. You remember that GFC - well it never ended - inflating the value of your assets to continue releasing equity is not a solution - you simply wake up with a bigger and even less sustainable debt. And if you need any proof, the USA foreign policy in the Middle East and towards Russia should be all the proof you need - unless of course you really believe a collection of drug ****ed, goat herders with rifles really were a threat to civilisation.

 

[smokingjacket]

mmm
You also wrote: " to defend the rights of less powerful states. Without a dominant state to enforce the rules, diplomacy and conflict is resolved by power, as opposed to morality or justice."

your use of the word "Justice" fills me with horror.

Other states are long out of the habit of any kind of agency and sustaining the neo-conservative - pre-Trump - order is not even a conceivable option. Trump didn't happen in a vacuum! It happened because the world order had all but collapsed. You remember that GFC - well it never ended - inflating the value of your assets to continue releasing equity is not a solution - you simply wake up with a bigger and even less sustainable debt. And if you need any proof, the USA foreign policy in the Middle East and towards Russia should be all the proof you need - unless of course you really believe a collection of drug ******, goat herders with rifles really were a threat to civilisation.

Sure, justice can be a subjective concept created to cement the status quo of state hierarchy. That's China's argument in the South China Sea. But even strong critics of US power post WWII will note that the system of international laws and institutions that the US put in place essentially put an end to "sovereign" colonialism. Previously, powerful states and empires were able to annex whole countries and that was an accepted part of world affairs. At least now small states can take their claims to the UN or the ICC and other methods of dispute resolution. The only state that consistently terrorizes other states is the US, and it's the only state not subject to the set of laws that the US laid out to govern the state system. You can argue the merits of the system and whether it can be improved, or whether multi-polarity might regulate US power, but there's no doubt the US system is an improvement on what came before for a state like Australia.

I don't see the connections between the liberal-order, the GFC, Russia policy and terrorism? Did the GFC end US power or the world order? In the last budget Trump allocated more new spending for the military than Russia's entire defence budget.

 

[yebiga]

Sure, justice can be a subjective concept created to cement the status quo of state hierarchy. That's China's argument in the South China Sea. But even strong critics of US power post WWII will note that the system of international laws and institutions that the US put in place essentially put an end to "sovereign" colonialism. Previously, powerful states and empires were able to annex whole countries and that was an accepted part of world affairs. At least now small states can take their claims to the UN or the ICC and other methods of dispute resolution. The only state that consistently terrorizes other states is the US, and it's the only state not subject to the set of laws that the US laid out to govern the state system. You can argue the merits of the system and whether it can be improved, or whether multi-polarity might regulate US power, but there's no doubt the US system is an improvement on what came before for a state like Australia.

I don't see the connections between the liberal-order, the GFC, Russia policy and terrorism? Did the GFC end US power or the world order? In the last budget Trump allocated more new spending for the military than Russia's entire defence budget.

Oh - you think colonialism ended?

Why go to the trouble of annexing and being seen as responsible for anything, when you can have a local figure head appointed who helps keep the natives in check while you can focus on implementing the classic mercantile exploitation?

The old colonial method was way too bothersome.

This method is infinitely more efficient. The dumb locals don’t even know they are being fleeced.

And it’s not just our US buddies either - god forbid - Australians an companies with the French English Germans Canadians and other like minded countries all get paid off to keep quiet.

It’s the usual suspects.

So yes it is an improvement - only not in the way I think you meant.

There is little doubt that Asia is now the leading productive force in the world.

By encouraging our leading manufacturing conglomerates to migrate their infrastructure chasing cheap labor in Asia - we excelerated our own demise, we enriched our oligarchs and empoverished our middle and working class. Whilst transferring higher knowledge and advantages to our competitors.

In return, we receive cheap products we discard in months.

Across all three continents western countries are heavily indebted, our assets over inflated, our work force underemployed and increasing poorly technically educated.

We flip burgers, sell financial things and some raw resources.

 

[smokingjacket]

Across all three con
tinents western countries are heavily indebted, our assets over inflated, our work force underemployed and increasing poorly technically educated.

US unemployment hits an 18-year low
https://www.news.com.au/finance/bus...w/news-story/5cc7106967b75fabb6b9f8f7e34f145b
Unemployment Hits Lowest Level Since 2000
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2018-05-04/unemployment-hits-lowest-level-since-2000
UK unemployment rate to drop below 4% says Bank of England policymaker
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ction-4-per-cent-latest-updates-a8163871.html
German jobs bonanza pushes unemployment to record low
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...unemployment-to-record-low-idUSKBN1ES0OG?il=0

 

[Jello_B]

Their system of capitalism is similar to ours 50-100 years ago maybe.

Our rich have been allowed to run amok - and have effectively destroyed the best of capitalism leaving us with this kabuki Ponzi scheme.

Half the worlds post grads, half the worlds super computers, 30000 km of high speed 300 - 400 km trains

Leadership in renewables- solar wind hydro

3000 km canals - cities built within 5 years

In comparison - we can’t get a 60 km train from the city to the airport

And we haven’t even considered that they make pretty manufacture everything - while we flip burgers and provide finance inflating the value of our assets so we can consume more trash.

For the USA to continue to really run the world there is only one option st it’s disposal and that is to blow the whole thing up.

The western populace like it’s political class is unfit, obese, medicated, indebted, dumbed down and browbeaten. Whilst China builds cities and unimaginable infrastructure - we bitch about pronouns whilst our government loots another third world country.

If you take a breath and turn off our legacy media - all this is irrefutable.

Have you been to China recently? They’re needing to export...

 

[yebiga]

US unemployment hits an 18-year low
https://www.news.com.au/finance/bus...w/news-story/5cc7106967b75fabb6b9f8f7e34f145b
Unemployment Hits Lowest Level Since 2000
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2018-05-04/unemployment-hits-lowest-level-since-2000
UK unemployment rate to drop below 4% says Bank of England policymaker
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ction-4-per-cent-latest-updates-a8163871.html
German jobs bonanza pushes unemployment to record low
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...unemployment-to-record-low-idUSKBN1ES0OG?il=0

The trouble with unemployment rates is that it doesn’t measure any absolute numbers - if you are no longer looking for work or are working an hour a week - you are not counted

Consider though GDP graph below which ends in 2005 and since then China has surpassed all comers - this long timeline shows you a more important trend

 

[smokingjacket]

The trouble with unemployment rates is that it doesn’t measure any absolute numbers - if you are no longer looking for work or are working an hour a week - you are not counted

Consider though GDP graph below which ends in 2005 and since then China has surpassed all comers - this long timeline shows you a more important trend

View attachment 511312

And? The problems with the unemployment rate are well known which is why short time scale data should be used with caution but over longer time scales you can draw patterns. Clearly the US economy has bounced back from the GFC. The gains from growth have been incredibly lopsided and caused a massive blowout in inequality but in terms of being raw power, being able to fund their military, and afford their wars they're looking pretty good right now.
That chart shows China's share of global GDP is rising...what's your point? You claimed the US led world order all but collapsed and then linked that to US policy facing the Middle East and Russia. US policy in ME and Russia is proof of a collapse of the liberal-order? I would say the opposite.

It happened because the world order had all but collapsed. You remember that GFC - well it never ended - inflating the value of your assets to continue releasing equity is not a solution - you simply wake up with a bigger and even less sustainable debt. And if you need any proof, the USA foreign policy in the Middle East and towards Russia should be all the proof you need - unless of course you really believe a collection of drug ******, goat herders with rifles really were a threat to civilisation.

 

[Mofra]

US unemployment hits an 18-year low
https://www.news.com.au/finance/bus...w/news-story/5cc7106967b75fabb6b9f8f7e34f145b
Unemployment Hits Lowest Level Since 2000
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2018-05-04/unemployment-hits-lowest-level-since-2000
UK unemployment rate to drop below 4% says Bank of England policymaker
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ction-4-per-cent-latest-updates-a8163871.html
German jobs bonanza pushes unemployment to record low
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...unemployment-to-record-low-idUSKBN1ES0OG?il=0

Do they measure unemployment rates like we do in Australia, i.e. 1 hour per fortnight counts as 'employment'?

We have an under-employment problem in Australia that goes unreported. The US have an enormous issue with the 'working poor' where you can work 50-60 hours per week and still require food stamps to survive. It's welfare without the conservative outrage (see Walmart).

 

[yebiga]

And? The problems with the unemployment rate are well known which is why short time scale data should be used with caution but over longer time scales you can draw patterns. Clearly the US economy has bounced back from the GFC. The gains from growth have been incredibly lopsided and caused a massive blowout in inequality but in terms of being raw power, being able to fund their military, and afford their wars they're looking pretty good right now.
That chart shows China's share of global GDP is rising...what's your point? You claimed the US led world order all but collapsed and then linked that to US policy facing the Middle East and Russia. US policy in ME and Russia is proof of a collapse of the liberal-order? I would say the opposite.

They are looking good now only because the world continues to sustain their annual trillion dollar deficit.

That’s only possible because of the reserve currency status of the US dollar. That status is perilously fragile.

China mainly but Russia too have been slowly putting together an alternative financial system. An alternative to swift an alternative to the imf. They are increasing their trade in either their own or other currencies. Both have significantly increased their gold reserves over the last 15 years.

They are playing geo strategy games akin to their own culture - chess and go - whilst USA plays poker. And increasingly the USA is relying on bluff.

I watched a European symposium recently - the panel included senior euro diplomats. They expressed concern that they are being forced by the USA to choose between supporting the USA and or Russia/China

They do not want to be left out of what they perceive as the future by being stuck in the past.

This game of thrones is fascinating

 

[QuietB]

The trouble with unemployment rates is that it doesn’t measure any absolute numbers - if you are no longer looking for work or are working an hour a week - you are not counted

Consider though GDP graph below which ends in 2005 and since then China has surpassed all comers - this long timeline shows you a more important trend

View attachment 511312

What is the source of that graph?

 

[smokingjacket]

Do they measure unemployment rates like we do in Australia, i.e. 1 hour per fortnight counts as 'employment'?

We have an under-employment problem in Australia that goes unreported. The US have an enormous issue with the 'working poor' where you can work 50-60 hours per week and still require food stamps to survive. It's welfare without the conservative outrage (see Walmart).

I'm aware, that's not the argument though. We're talking about the power of the US state vs the Chinese state, not what country you would like to live in as a wage worker.

The gains from growth have been incredibly lopsided and caused a massive blowout in inequality but in terms of being raw power, being able to fund their military, and afford their wars they're looking pretty good right now.

In raw terms in the US, tax receipts are up, corporate profits are up, and there's $80b worth of new defence spending flowing in large part towards the Navy. The idea that the US is cooked is laughable. yebiga said that Trump had changed because the US system collapsed with the GFC but Trump has had the same foreign policy ideas since the 80's! Can't say he was responding to China at the peak of American power.