Prev
Next

Should we defend the Great Wall or the Grand Canyon?

Calum Logan

by Calum Logan

13 Jul 05:35am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: China, Economy, International Politics, National Interest, Population

48 comments

Recently a colleague mockingly asked me why I bothered writing. I replied: because the quality of debate is appallingly bad.

Better than a rabbit proof fence. Pic: AFP.

Exactly, she said. Thus with a sense of light-hearted despair at the recent banter in the media, I weigh into Australia’s strategic policy apropos the on-rushing war with China.

It appears that the conservative minds that discuss strategic policy are aligning. China is growing, the world is changing, and power is being redistributed. According to those who subscribe to the various brands of “Realist” international relations theory, this situation necessarily entails armed conflict between states.

This means Australia need “choose” between persisting with the US or going with the golden goose and “backing” China.

As any decent analyst knows, conventional warfare constitutes the mechanics of international relations. History has made this abundantly clear. Just as the US wrested global hegemony from the British Empire in bitter fighting, the US subsequently affirmed that privilege by bombing a once threatening Soviet colossus back to the Stone Age.

This is how the powerful men who act as nation states do business: tough statements followed by even tougher smack downs.

Well, fortunately this is not the case; the “reality” of international relations is somewhat more mysterious. However, the above scenario reveals that a love of sensationalising certain issues whilst completely disregarding others remains an enduring aspect of “strategic analysis”.

I can only assume employing such methods is popular as it allows analysts to develop a “strategic picture” reflecting one’s own interests or preferences. 

I would never dismiss the possibility of a conflict between China and the US, which would indeed probably wreak havoc, and be extremely bad for us all. However, I feel there are reasons to remain ambiguous about the imminence of such a conflict.

In no particular order of significance other than their emergence in my imagination, let us ponder these questions.

How enduring will “China’s Rise” be? Academic journals of the ‘80s and ‘90s were full of predictions about the implications of Japan’s rise, which as Japan faltered seamlessly became the rise of the Tiger economies, until of course the Asian financial crisis broke.

At that point numerous articles appeared which explained that the crisis had to occur because of the obvious problems of crony capitalism, democracy deficits, and the rest.

Predictions can often appear inevitable until they are not fulfilled. Likewise our perceptions of the world are generally skewed by whatever theory or argument is in vogue.

Is China the aggressive, robust, monolith we imagine? Although depictions of China emphasise its dynamic economy and large population, Chinese agency is also beset by a laundry list of challenges.

A brief sample of antagonisms inherent to rapid industrialisation includes: unequal wealth distribution, environmental degradation, demographic challenges, wary neighbours, reliance on international trade, and all the rest.

These points do not lessen the likelihood of conflict; however they challenge perceptions of China as an irresistible usurper to US hegemony, poised to impose its will on the world.

Rather than speculate about the possible intentions and capabilities of China, Australian policy should focus on imagining the type of regional dynamic we might wish to foster and consider what strategies could pragmatically be pursued to such an end.

Persisting with the daydream that a colossal showdown with China is a foregone conclusion is currently the biggest threat to Australia’s security. Such ideas drove the incoherent 2009 Defence White Paper and much of the poorly considered, extravagant spending it proposed.

Buying lots of expensive military equipment is good for the defence sector and its supplicants; it is not necessarily good for Australian citizens or our regional relationships. Such planning fails to engage with the multitude of “real world” challenges.

These range from banal, yet pertinent issues such as finding recruits for the Defence Force in a labour market overheated by Chinese demand for resources, or considering how an aging and increasingly obese population might limit Defence capabilities.

More pertinently, contemporary planning seemingly fails to engage with ideas about the limits to military power or alternative means for pursuing national interests. However, such mundane issues scarcely warrant the attention of those who only have time for grand strategy, and even grander wars.

Most commented

48 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Damian Parkhill says:

      07:37am | 13/07/11

      I vote for option C) - We become a superpower.

      I really, really, REALLY hate the whole sycophant approach that people have with the USA and China, like somehow we should be under the thumb of one or the other.

      After all, are not the US and China responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in modern history?(Soldiers in Tibet and democracy at 20.000ft anyone?)

      Do not both enforce a censorship system via internet filters, the detaining of whistle blowers and jailing of dissidents under patriot acts?

      Do not both spy on their own citizens?

      Do not both cater to a powerful elite at the expense of the rest of their citizens?

      Do not both try and tell us who we should elect and threaten us if we speak out about what they do?

      And Don’t both present a threat to the world with their nuclear armaments? 

      So someone remind me again why we try and cater to them again?

      I say we begin our own power production plans (Thorium, Solar, Tidal, Fusion or whatever) start building more of our own military equipment, increase our defense force and take over from the US as the defenders of Democracy and human rights (hell as arrogant as it sounds, I’m almost completely certain we can do a hell of a better job) and kick both their governments interests out of the country

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      08:45am | 13/07/11

      @ DP,
      Might be some similarities and before you get too overwrought about it all, you might just want to realise that most dreams such as you dream off have a need for people and or money to bring to fruition.

      On the point of democracy, there is an ability in the US for anyone to aspire to political life, even the Presidency as Obama reminds people and then there’s fewwdom of speech and wanting to tell people what and where as you attempt to make a fist off below.

      And then the sad irony for you is that as much as you will criticise China and the US, you feel we could do better by replacing them along similar lines!

    • Damian Parkhill says:

      09:20am | 13/07/11

      @Gregg

      “You might just want to realise that most dreams such as you dream off have a need for people and or money to bring to fruition.”

      Yet we close the borders, have one of the highest taxing nations in the world and have the money to spend 50 billion on a broadband network.

      “On the point of democracy, there is an ability in the US for anyone to aspire to political life, even the Presidency as Obama reminds people and then there’s fewwdom of speech and wanting to tell people what and where as you attempt to make a fist off below.”

      Obama is a bad example, he might have position yes - but his little more than a puppet figure and a patsy, as for freedom of speech you might want to look at their patriot act, what they did to try and silence wikileaks (google HPgary), the new powers brought in enabling them to shut down anything deemed not to be in their best interest without recourse, the treatment of Bradly Manning, the arrest and interrogation of a Al Jazeera journalist so they could get inside information and leverage on them and more.

      And last of all I know its a dream - but that’s were all ideas start.

    • Damian Parkhill says:

      09:30am | 13/07/11

      sorry this bit was meant to read “the new powers brought in enabling them to shut down any -website- deemed not to be in their best interest without recourse

    • Chris says:

      10:15am | 13/07/11

      That’s rediculous. Australia is a comfortable middle power (Oceanean regional power, but when the competition is New Zealand, that doesn’t count) whose ability to influence international events is limited. Australia’s population is roughly 22 million and our military is around 50,000 active personel. How does this compare with the US or China, who have military numbers ranking over 1 million?

      International relations isn’t just about, “My Dad can totally beat up your dad,” and it’s silly to hope to be a global military hegemon. Our power is exerted through multilateralism and diplomacy, not brute force.

    • Gregg says:

      10:22am | 13/07/11

      @DamianP
      ” Yet we close the borders, have one of the highest taxing nations in the world and have the money to spend 50 billion on a broadband network. “
      We do have borders to control Damian and No!, they are not closed and we have substantial immigration policies, just one of the reasons why our population keeps growing despite infrastructure issues.

      Australia is a very dry continent if you did not realise, droughts and flooding rains and all that and so whereas we do need to look at what increasing populations require, power hungry desalination plants is not necessarily the answer.

      No argument by me re the waste on NBN.

    • Damian Parkhill says:

      11:11am | 13/07/11

      @Chris

      Having a more powerful military would be a powerful deterrent and if the US and China started a fight, I doubt they would pick a hard fight with a second group, I think James1 post below sums it up well - also while both China and the US have the soldiers to invade us - Only the US has the equipment to get them here - China’s navy up until lately was a joke (and while its increased and been trained a lot better, our navy still would have the edge in a fight), not to mention their air force while large, doesn’t have a lot of long range strike options.

      @Gregg

      “we have substantial immigration policies”

      Your joking…........ right?

      Please, please, please be joking….......

    • Chris says:

      11:54am | 13/07/11

      @Damien: I’m wondering why China or the US would invade us in the first place. Seriously, why? The international environment isn’t as realist as you might think, with realism referring to a world political environment marked by anarchy and self-interest. It’s more like realism-lite (realism with some neoliberal elements). The globalised economy is a fabulous leveler on the international scene. Why would we tick off China or the US enough to completely screw over our own economy when they’re two of our greatest trading partners? Being intertwined trading partners is a greater deterrent than having a built up military.

      Also note that while Australia doesn’t have a great long-range strike capacity, the navy still has Aegis equipped vessels. Having a large military is still no substitute for having a highly advanced military. Saddam discovered that after being decimated during Desert Storm 1, and China has gone through a process of restructuring over the past decade because of it, reducing their military for 2,000,000 active personnel to 1,000,000.

    • Tim says:

      12:20pm | 13/07/11

      Sorry Damian, but theres more freedom in the USA than there is here. They have no internet filter, and theres not even a proposal for one as there is here. Heck, theyre even defending their right to choose their own lightbulbs, which was taken from us a few years ago.

    • n_dude says:

      01:08pm | 13/07/11

      Isn’t China invading us already by stealth? Purchasing prime mining and agricultural land.

      And Damian, there is significantly less freedom in China than in the US. What about the great firewall of China?

    • Damian Parkhill says:

      02:50pm | 13/07/11

      @Chris I was talking about the Chinese air forces strike options, not ours.

      @Tim and N_dude - they don’t need a filter, not with the new patriot laws meaning they can instruct all .com/.net and cloud based domain registered websites shut down on a minutes notice without reason.

      Also for all those that say that China and the US wouldn’t invade won’t fight and everything will be done with diplomacy and reason…...... The exact same things were said by the British Government and its people just before WW2.

    • Dan says:

      03:39pm | 13/07/11

      This is certainly one of the most original posts I’ve read here for a while. Damian, we would need to put over 10% of our population into a standing army to have similar numbers to the Chinese. Given that many of our population are too young or old to be much use as a soldier we’d be talking about approximately 40-50% of 18-25 year olds being in the army and many more outside that group being in officer roles.

      In that scenario our country would basically be a war machine, with those outside the armed services making the weapons that the army needs.

      As much as it is humiliating to admit it, we just are not big enough to tackle the global superpowers…. at least that reduces our attractiveness as a target!

    • Damian Parkhill says:

      05:29pm | 13/07/11

      @Dan

      “we would need to put over 10% of our population into a standing army to have similar numbers to the Chinese. Given that many of our population are too young or old to be much use as a soldier we’d be talking about approximately 40-50% of 18-25 year olds being in the army and many more outside that group being in officer roles.”

      Or we could make 2 years conscription compulsory on leaving school - not only would it give the 16 year old males that get kicked out of high school because they aren’t good enough a chance at the future and teach them a bit of respect but it would boost the numbers. and we don’t need to have 1-1 numbers with either side.

    • Bruno says:

      06:21pm | 13/07/11

      I have long held the theory of why does such a massive country with great prospects have such a tiny population, certainly our leaders cannot be that stupid. And they’re not. I believe Australia was seen as a backup plan should the UK go kasplash. Then after WWII the yanks said ‘backup plan aye, you know what, i like that, thanks I think I’ll take it’. Sure the US let us keep the union jack on our flag however should anything catastrophic happen to their country then we would really know the meaning of boat people and refugees. Of course the whites would be allowed in first, within the white group, the anglo-saxon-celtic would be first. Anyway is there any other explanation as to why such a massive country with great prospects have such a tiny population, certainly our leaders cannot be that stupid. Any they’re not.

    • chopper says:

      02:17pm | 25/01/12

      Bruno you hit the nail on the head.
      And all those idiots with the stickers “f off we are full”
      How stupid can humans be?
      Australia is the 3rd I think least populated country compared to land mass in the world. Only Greenland or iceland has less i believe..

    • Gregg says:

      07:37am | 13/07/11

      Julia might well try and salvage her reputation by waving a magic wand to attempt to have the Chinese pay the carbon tax and more on all the coal they are currently using and not that it would work and there will be things muttered in Mandarin that even Kevin cannot translate as well as what the raised finger indicates, perhaps the real question is should we support a Kevin Wong puppet governor that gleefully accepts Chinese manned gunboats patrolling our northern waters for us to prevent other people on boats arriving unless they are slaves for Chinese Coal and Iron Ore extraction.

      Reply

    • Damian Parkhill says:

      08:33am | 13/07/11

      I’m certain Gregg there are better places to rage about Julair carbon tax and show your support for Dr No.

      May I direct you to troll the 50 other odd Climate Change Cancer topics (CCC) on the Punch?

    • TChong says:

      08:59am | 13/07/11

      Gregg
      youre drinking too much coffee again.
      “Chinese manned gunboats, slaves.”
      WTF you on about?
      Reds under the beds ? Yellow Peril?

    • Gregg says:

      10:32am | 13/07/11

      @Chongy,
      Redrocracy or Yellocracy, learning Mandarin may not be too irrelevant and you could even put the question to Comrade Great southern Province Governor Kevin if you like.
      He may look a goose, act like a bit of an idiot but then like that Virgin bloke he knows what side his bread is buttered on.
      One bloke is getting ready to leave the planet, the yanks have given up and Comrade Governor in waiting has done his kindergarten homework to get ready for the one world order.
      I think the Chinese could be a little too cunning for you Chongy for you think re-education is just about education do you?

      Get yourself an old clip of the 55 Days at Peking water wheels and I reckon Comrade Governor in waiting has ankle and wrist shackles with names like Shorten, Arbib and maybe even Gillard engraved on them and already fitted to a WW.

      Meanwhile, the Chinese gunboats are already anchoring off Timor.

    • TChong says:

      11:22am | 13/07/11

      Pssst
      Gregg
      Can i get a fifty of whatever your on. Seems to be quality.  wink

      55 Days at Peking is about historically accurate as Green Berets or Rambo.
      Peabody and Sherman- they tell history how it should be told.

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:10am | 13/07/11

      Why does it need to be one or the other?

      Why can’t we work for common interests?

      If you continue to view the world as confrontational then it will come back to haunt you.

      China has many advantages for us with over a billion people. Same with SE Asia. I’d say we help them up to our standard of living then you have a massive market of people with whom to do business, share cultures and enjoy.

      The US is still important in that it is the most populous advanced nation on the planet. I’m sure they are more than willing to share in the above goal. It was China that helped bail out the US, after all.

      What we should focus on, however, is our own prosperity and how we are going to prosper in the future once our minerals have been shipped to China.

      Reply

    • fml says:

      09:39am | 13/07/11

      True, we should be Neutral, Neutral like Switzerland.

    • Budz says:

      10:20am | 13/07/11

      I’m not sure if there is enough resources on this planet to get China and the rest of SE Asia’s standard of living up to ours. Someone has to go without.

    • James1 says:

      10:22am | 13/07/11

      Armed neutrality would be best.  We would still benefit from having the best military equipment - including nuclear weapons - as this would make any potential attack too painful for the attacker to contemplate.  Then, when they have their little war, we can sell raw material to both sides and come out on top.

    • Gregg says:

      10:39am | 13/07/11

      @fml,
      Switzerland don’t have a lot of coal and iron ore that the Chinese reckon is real handy.
      And then of course, there’s all the forests and space for a few hundred million or so of population.
      And water you say?
      Forget desalination and think a pipeline across from NG they’ll have in no time at all.

      Actually, there’s already artesian water in Cape York that has its source in the NG highlands and so water is not such a problem.

      Just start learning Mandarin.

    • fml says:

      12:09pm | 13/07/11

      All for it gregg,

      Chinese cuisine is much better than australian grubb.

    • Mark says:

      09:22am | 13/07/11

      “More pertinently, contemporary planning seemingly fails to engage with ideas about the limits to military power or alternative means for pursuing national interests. However, such mundane issues scarcely warrant the attention of those who only have time for grand strategy, and even grander wars. “

      I call BS.

      The simple fact of the matter is that most issues are resolved without open conflict becouse nation states only begin wars they think they will win. Most often they think they can win becouse they are huge considered to their potential foe & nobody else cares to intervene, Russia in the former states of the USSR, or the USA outside the area’s sensitive to other major powers.

      Less often but of greater concern is when miscalulations, often from both sides result in them stumbling into conflict. Most major wars occur becouse of this problem. The most common miscalulation is when the potential attacker belives that nobody will intervene & they are wrong.  “Nobody is going to fight over Danzig”

      The best why to insure that this does not occur is to make it very clear that you will intervene & furthermore victory is by no means assured.

      Therefore a concern that China for instance may decide to fix it’s energy needs by force is best countered by making it clear that such an action will be meet with force & building said force. Faced with such an open postion China would almost certainly act in a rational manner & pursue their national interest by alternative means. Therefore the very contemporary planning that the writer bemoans is in fact the safest route to the required outcome the writer wishes.

      There is one problem that must be mentioned, you need to be careful about how you go about insuring the potential attacker knows you will intervene. If it becomes mutual sabre rattling that gets stronger & stronger, finally everybody will be convinced that war is unaviodable & same stupid arch dukes death will light the fire.

      Reply

    • Shane Coghlan says:

      11:11am | 13/07/11

      IIt isn’t the early 20the anymore, as a nation we have more options when it comes to International conflict. There are also more disencentives for nations to engage in war thanks to globalisation and nuclear weapons.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      11:38am | 13/07/11

      The economic interconnections, expressed as percentage of economic activity, between Wilhelmine Germany and Great Britain pre-WWI were as great as those between China and the US now.

    • fox says:

      11:41am | 13/07/11

      The irony is that China didn’t just get rich.

      The west made China rich by selling out their children. Getting rid of tariffs, shutting down manufacturing, advocating offshoring etc has decimated the USA and the UK. Australia is lucky because we dig stuff out of the ground. We are not a clever country, we have no backup plan. Once the demand for our resources slows we have nothing to fall back on.

      Services and shuffling papers around are necessary, but as the USA has shown, you can’t base an economy on it.

      China didn’t just get rich and powerful. The west made it rich and gave it power and in the process lost it’s own wealth and power. Yet the low tariffs remain, and to do any business in China a foreign company has to jump through dozens of hoops, share technology and profits and do the Chinese governments bidding.

      Not exactly a level playing field, but greed ensures that western governments and big business are all too happy to sell out the west’s future for short term monetary gain.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      12:04pm | 13/07/11

      I’m not so sure.  I saw some figures recently which show that agriculture and mining only make up a small part of Australia’s economy - less than 8 per cent.  Services already make up 74 per cent of Australia’s economy.

    • fox says:

      01:03am | 14/07/11

      But that’s why the media constantly refer to Australia as having a two-speed economy. Once the mining sector slows, everything else will come to a virtual standstill.

    • Tim says:

      12:28pm | 13/07/11

      China and the USA wouldnt fight, because there’s nothing the USA has that China needs. Wars are expensive and time consuming, China knows its cheaper and faster to just buy the other country, rather than invade. Just look what they’re doing here.
      If China wanted to destroy the USA, they would just offload their $1.4trillion of US debt in a hurry. That would completely wreck the US economy for a bargain price.

      Reply

    • Mark says:

      01:33pm | 13/07/11

      The foreseeable conflict point between USA & China at present is the oil & gas rich area’s in the China sea.

      China is going about saying, they are in the China sea, therefore they are ours & trying using minor force to intimidate their neighbors out of the area.

      The risk is that China will decide that the USA will not fight if China decides to take them by force & the USA will decide that China will back down if pushed back. Boths sides end up being wrong & the missiles begin to fly.

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      02:51pm | 13/07/11

      You forgot one scenario: China continues to grow and its citizens become more and more aware of ‘the West’ and how we westerners live. Because China simply cannot elevate the majority of its citizens to a comfortable lifestyle quickly enough, slowly many millions of poor Chinese become restive. Demonstrations begin. Arrests are made. People get killed. The sheer number of citizens eventually demonstrating however, threatens to overpower the Chinese Government.

      Some git in government says, “We need a distraction.” Nothing gets people motivated more than a healthy dose of nationalism and a good ‘enemy’ to hate, so the Chinese Govt goes into propaganda overdrive, telling its people that they’re poor because of greedy capitalists. So then they invade Taiwan, returning a rogue state to Chinese control. Next? If the Chinese military is big enough by then, perhaps South Korea or even Japan. Hungry for resources, Australia would look pretty appealing, too, and I’d place an each-way bet on America and its allies not rushing to help defend a country so large, so ‘empty’ and so far away.

      It could happen.

      Reply

    • Deng ZP theory says:

      02:11pm | 25/01/12

      Theres more chance of Pauline Hanson becoming Prima Minister Steve.
      I am Chinese and a member of the CCP. It is not in our nature to “take over” foreign countries. We never have and we never will.
      Our aim is to stabilise OUR country and protect ourselves from the foreign devil. We do not believe in war mongering, ruthlessness and supporting the western capitilists influences.
      If the US marines do not leave the Korean Peninsula we will NOT encourage our friends the North Koreans to do anything abrubt.
      However as time goes on we see the South Koreans being influenced by the americans, a lot in negative ways and this we believe is mainly to support their Capitalistic ideas and to supplyment their failing economy.
      However if the americans continue to FORCE their views and ideas onto our culture we can not stop the North Koreans doing what they dont want to do.And trust me, with the 4th biggest army in the world, our analysts believe the capital Seoul could be captured within hours.
      This a rumour spreading within South Korea as we speak.

    • Semi Concerned Citizen says:

      03:31pm | 13/07/11

      We need some nukes and should develop some chemical and biological weapons and do an israel and have a samson option. Kevin can sell it on his next UN world tour.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      07:12pm | 13/07/11

      What is a samson option ?

    • stephen says:

      03:35pm | 13/07/11

      China has a supreme self-belief : that with a proper and timely transition of new leaders which they groom exquisitely before the new People’s Congress, that everything will flourish, as if only the large and all-encompassing economies of scale are important.
      China thinks big and wants to oversee the big issues, yet in their Provinces, they are in debt to about 2.2 trillion dollars.
      Marxists like to enlarge their point of view, as if all moments of decision-making should involve ‘Concept’, e.g. the objective, the Grand Notion, takes precedence over process, (the process being only an equation : labour versus output versus productivity.)
      China thinks strategically at the expense of managing internal balance.
      She does not yet undertand the value of personality and varieties of psychologies to yet bring her own very important cultures to bear on her economic growth.
      And culture, in China, is of paramount importance, regionally.

      Reply

    • Jane2 says:

      04:06pm | 13/07/11

      China is a big believer in studying history so my bet is if they were in a war mungering mood first to fall would be Taiwan. The fact that China theatens but doesnt attack indicates that they are not in the mood or the position for war.

      Also based on history the 2nd to be attacked would be Korea. The North would fall very fast considering its current health, the South would take a little bit longer but unless America comes to its defence again then that would be a foregone conclusion.

      Japan, despite not having as large and army, is still percieved as the strongest Tiger nation so it would probably next take out Vietnam, Burma and Thailand.

      It would then need to take on Japan, Phillines, Indonesia and Malaysia before even getting anywhere near us.

      However we would probably be at war long before that point as we would go and assist in the defence of any and all of the above nations.

      This is how I know China is not really a threat to Australia as there are so many much more tempting targets on its borders.

      But I am betting on one thing the Chinese would not do, because they learnt from witnessing what happened to the Japanese, they would not attack the US and because they wouldnt attack the US the US wouldnt come quickly to our defence when China finally attacked us directly.

      Besides which, whether we like to admit it or not, our Defence Force is more tokenism than anything else (not as much as NZ but still not enough to defend our country for even 1 day). We are hear not to protect the pacific from any of the Tiger economies but from each other. Its only the tiny countries of the Pacific that find our small defence force even slightly intimadating.

      For the rest of the world we hold a vital position as Peace Keepers with a small highly skilled force who can respond quickly as the world needs. As we proudly hold this position we do have to make sure that we have the trained people and the equipment necessary to perform this vital role for the world.

      So we need to change the way we think about the equiping of our Defence force, we are not doing it to defend Australia from the “red scurge” we are equiping our Defence force to assist in keeping global peace where ever the UN needs a small highly skilled armed force.

      Reply

    • chopper knows says:

      01:56pm | 25/01/12

      Jane2 , what world are you living in?
      Why would China take over anything?
      They never had and they never will. Maybe you should be more worried about US taking over Australia. They have a history of going into other countries to take over them. And England and Spain and The turks!

    • Tom says:

      04:54pm | 13/07/11

      There is already a war on. I refer to the war between the young citizens of Australia and Chinese nationals over the right to buy a property and have a roof over their head in NSW.
      Went out looking at apartments the other day, all chinese. A couple even asked me what the weather was like in Sydney, they had only been here for two days or something. Its really disheartening for a young bloke looking to move out with a new wife.

      Reply

    • chopper knows says:

      02:00pm | 25/01/12

      Well too bad its a competitive world out there my friend and jealousy does not reign supreme. 1.3 million Chinese compared to 20 million Ozzies.
      get a higher paying job. You urself is making urself disheartening…

    • 70 Liberal Party Punch Trolls says:

      07:43pm | 13/07/11

      Your comment:I would defend the Great Wall Of China and not The Grand Canyon as USA has no money to pay me and China does have money to pay me.
      I am sick of USA Wars And the Australian Media supporting USA.
      I am also sick of calls for elections in 2011 as there are none.

      Reply

    • 70 Liberal Party Punch Trolls says:

      08:30pm | 13/07/11

      If World War 3 was fought between any two sides, the world would be all over before Australians woke up in the morning from sleep and had time to work out which side to support.
      China and USA may even be on the same side.

      Reply

    • Bikinis On Top says:

      08:44pm | 13/07/11

      Your comment:Next World War?
      New South Wales Versus Queensland!

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      10:30pm | 13/07/11

      It’s ironic that progressive liberals like Calum become rabid mouth foamers when nationalist parties like One Nation spring up in Australia. And yet, bizarrely, they unblinkingly economically facilitate the rise of an ultra nationalist superpower like China armed to the teeth and itching for a fight.

      How do progressives reconcile these two contradictions? Don’t ask me. But what scares the life out of me is the knowledge that, while Western nations softened after the horror of two world wars (the spectre of Nazism has well tempered the West for decades), yet China has no such memory, no nightmares, no guilt to tame their thirst for world domination. We see their intolerant thirst in Tibet, and now their aggression in the South China Sea and general bullying attitude.

      Wake-up people, there will be no mental guilt or nightmares to moderate China once they become a superpower. History repeats. Empires always overreach. Projecting Western sensitivities onto the Chinese is unfounded lunacy. Hence we need to stop aiding the rise of China with our trade until it stops acting with old fashioned xenophobic nationalist supremacism.

      Lunatics like Swan and Rudd prostrate themselves with the mantra of the “Asian century” which only feeds a Chinese supremacist complex. A complex that is already visible with threats like “China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that’s just a fact” from China’s foreign minister in response to Hillary Clinton’s demand for freedom on navigation in the South China Sea.

      Reply

    • Marcus says:

      02:26am | 15/07/11

      Careful the toxic rhetoric being espoused in this comment, Michael. China has a long history of humiliating military defeats (Opium Wars during the early 19th century, the Japanese invasion of 1931), where massive numbers of human lives were lost. The Nanjing massacre of 1937 by the Japanese was one of the most brutal occupations of the 20th century. Not to mention the so called ‘Cultural Revolution’ when at its peak, neighbours even family members turned on each other to purge the country of so called capitalist roader (....kinda ironic considering), you can only imagine what effect these things have on their national psyche.

      Fast forward to the present. They recently overtook Japan as the second biggest economy in the world, naturally they want a military to match (to protect their interests of course). The scary rate of growth (the chinese govt is trying their best to stem inflation) is the REAL concern. As long as Australia continues to lay golden eggs, this little goose is pretty safe. The Chinese Government and mining companies both have similar synergies in their agenda, they’ll mine our resources until it’s all GONE. Both don’t give two shits about whatever taxes are being imposed, as long as the vast majority of the Australian public believe that their lifestyle is joined at the hip with the mining boom. We will continue to demand the government toe the line, we’ll continue to focus all our energies with skilled labour and heavy industry to efficiently mine this country quicker than you ever thought possible.

      And people think that BHP, Rio Tinto, & CHINA want to change that. WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter