Chinese imperialism and future Australian sovereignty

[pietillidie]

[stui magpie]

Worth a read.

The South China Sea has all the ingredients of a global cataclysm. Greed. Nationalism. Politics. All are conspiring against peace and stability.

And Australia could be the forced to make a tough decision if asked to by the Unite States.

Polytechnic University of the Philippines Geopolitics Professor Richard Heydarian says the political turmoil swirling through his nation’s waters have “all the ingredients of a global cataclysm”.

It’s all about 3.5 million square kilometres of water, broken only by a few reefs, sandbars and rocky islands. About 33 per cent of the world’s international trade passes through its waters. Much of the region’s food is hauled from its depths.

Beijing claims all of it.

And it continues to do so despite the ruling of an international court of arbitration that its claims are baseless.

That’s the background to a political crisis shaking the Philippines to its core. China moved a force of more than 200 maritime militia vessels posing as fishing boats into its waters earlier this year. They’re still there. And they’re enforcing a Beijing-imposed fishing ban on Manila’s subjects in Manila’s waters.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/inno ... 839627ccf6

[pietillidie]

Lo and behold it's being called the TPP again!

I thought the term was dead in the water, soiled by Trump and more recently replaced by the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). True, the latter's still got 'TPP' in it, but this is an interesting choice of wording from the BBC. Perhaps a subtle sign of a shift following the British discussions? (Or maybe they just went with it for recognition factor, especially given how long the new agreement name is).

Get Biden on board, add South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand, have India in the wings, and start finding some mutual wins with China.

It seems the most likely vehicle, anyhow. And Australia, please send someone with half a clue and don't let the Glibs wreck it just to win a news cycle.

The 11-member Trans-Pacific Partnership trade bloc has agreed to open accession talks with the UK.

The British government, which asked to join the TPP in February, said membership was a huge opportunity in a post-Brexit world.

A working group is now expected to be set up to discuss tariffs and rules governing trade and investment.

The UK is not expected to join the TPP, which includes Australia, Mexico and Japan, until next year at the earliest.

...

China, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand have also expressed interest in joining the TPP, which covers a market of nearly 500 million people.

The US was initially involved in the process to set up the bloc, but pulled out on former President Donald Trump's first day in office in 2017.

The TPP's current members are Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Peru.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57327372

[roar]

All quiet on the Wuhan conspiracy front, which is surprising given it's airplay over the last few days. My guess is that people know it's too easily spun into the wrong conspiracy.

Wuhan conspiracy is alive and well no matter how certain bodies try and deflect away from the issue.

[pietillidie]

All quiet on the Wuhan conspiracy front, which is surprising given it's airplay over the last few days. My guess is that people know it's too easily spun into the wrong conspiracy.

Wuhan conspiracy is alive and well no matter how certain bodies try and deflect away from the issue.

Which Wuhan conspiracy? The American, Bill Gates or Chinese one?

[pietillidie]

What an adult might say to China if given the chance ahead of the infantile dunces usually given the task:

It is a huge mistake to ignore the benefits that come with more regional autonomy. Consider an alternative history in which the People’s Liberation Army had overrun both Hong Kong and Taiwan in 1949; Sichuan had not been allowed to pursue pilot reform programs in 1975, when Zhao Ziyang was appointed provincial party secretary; and China’s centralization had proceeded to the point that the Guangzhou Military District could not offer Deng refuge from the wrath of the Gang of Four in 1976. What would China’s economy look like today?

It would be a basket case. Rather than enjoying a rapid ascent to economic superpower status, China would find itself being compared to the likes of Burma or Pakistan. When Mao Zedong died in 1976, China was impoverished and rudderless. But it learned to stand on its own two feet by drawing on Taiwan and Hong Kong’s entrepreneurial classes and financing systems, emulating Zhao’s policies in Sichuan, and opening up Special Economic Zones in places like Guangzhou and Shenzhen.

At some point in the future, China will need to choose between governmental strategies and systems. It is safe to assume that relying on top-down decrees from an aging, mentally declining paramount leader who is vulnerable to careerist flattery will not produce good results. The more that China centralizes, the more it will suffer. But if decisions about policies and institutions are based on a rough consensus among keen-eyed observers who are open to emulating the practices and experiments of successful regions, China will thrive.

A China with many distinct systems exploring possible paths to the future might really have a chance of becoming a global leader and proving worthy of the role. A centralized, authoritarian China that demands submission to a single emperor will never have that opportunity.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/comme ... ng-2021-06

[think positive]

hmmmmm

"We must pay attention to a good grasp of the tone, as well as be open, confident and humble, try our utmost to portray an image of a reliable, lovely, respectable China," Mr Xi was quoted as saying, in a line that appears to suggest a need for change."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-04/ ... /100186166

[pietillidie]

^Yeah, there's no cultural basis for this style of aggression. I have long argued this was a tactical PR switch that has badly backfired. I can just see the returning graduates from Harvard and Yale giving the wrong advice because while being smart, they weren't overseas long enough and certainly weren't assimilated enough while there to understand the dynamics, but due to the status of their degree had authority to advise (just enough knowledge of Western culture to persuasively get it all wrong).

There are some interesting misreads in Asia of Western culture. The feeling from many, rightly to a large degree, is that we take advantage of English and do PR and self-promotion better, whether that's in going for job interviews, delivering sales pitches, or winning friends and influencing people generally, and Asians now need to start asserting themselves. But there's no history of this sort of self-promotional, brash comms in Asia as we understand it, so it's just coming off as juvenile aggression.

The hierarchical and deferential communication of many Asian societies is unfit for a world where the other party just doesn't care as much about age, gender role, bloodline, hometown, family face or university, and these can't be used to deny them a job or their child entrance to a good school, or to punish an uncle. So, this in-group hierarchical communication style is at sea and ends up feeling offended every second sentence.

Add that to the fact that yes, working in a second (or third or more) language is absolutely disempowering because you just can't say what you mean exactly, or pick up nuances, or wield language artfully, which is incredibly frustrating. To make it worse, the other party might have a harsh Liverpudlian accent, cluelessly use local sayings or complex words, or purposely do so just to be an ass.

This causes even more resentment in individuals who are also subject to racist or imperialist Western comms in business, social media, study abroad, travel, etc. (It happens *regularly* in business; I used to audit Western Comms for Korean companies to make sure they understood tone and meaning for negotiations, dispute resolution, etc. It wasn't pretty because the arrogant Western counterparts didn't realise they were being monitored and let out the ugliness for all to see).

Add that to a percentage of people who are just angry about stuff and need a scapegoat ("Westerners!"), and you have a lot of resentment just waiting to find outlet, and to be given the green light to break custom and face ("well, if this is the game they're playing, let's give it back...").

Clearly, Xi made an enormous tactical error responding to Trump with tit-for-tat aggression. I can see how they got it wrong ("Trump was elected by them, that's what they're really like, the internet is full of this, their media is full of this..."), but they misjudged the fact that Trump was a one-off crazy and social media lowlifes are considered trashy unemployable scumbags, so all they were doing was following pigs into the mud.

[David]

[stui magpie]

One of your more coherent posts Ptiddy, but IMHO you have it wrong.

You've conflated the experience of the average asian in western society with the agenda of the CCP. The two are unrelated.

The CCP doesn't act without thought. They've gone from from passive/assertive diplomatically to aggressive, that's a deliberate tactic. It's also a great way of feeling out who is going to be a potential problem and who isn't with your ultimate agenda.

Publicly punish Australia for perceived slights, see who protests and who doesn't. Dialling things back is easy when you have that kind of purchasing power, it's the equivalent of WW1 tactic of sending in a small expendable incursion of troops to test defences.

The CCP is playing the long game, China always has, it's their nature.

They're also playing the propaganda game aimed largely at their own subjects who are increasingly mobile and all round the world. Positive propaganda about Chinese superiority to harness nationalistic leanings combined with harsh behind the door reprisals for any who offend.

The CCP will dial back the aggression when and if it suits them. Think of them in terms of a corporate with a vision and mission statement.

[pietillidie]

[pietillidie]

[pietillidie]

[stui magpie]

[pietillidie]

^That's a good piece and I think it's a good lens for looking at nations and nationalism, not just China. Most of the people who wave the flag aggressively are doing so to convince their fragile selves. Canadians, not so much.

South Korea has a very similar fragile bipolarity, but is incentivised to keep the shame-driven anger in check internationally because its neighbours are Russia, China, Japan and North Korea. Instead, the wrath gets turned on domestic minorities and random sods on the internet, with daily mob beat downs and doxxings set for 4pm sharp.

To extend the metaphor, multipolarity is the solution to bipolarity, both in terms of global power and for individuals. Globally, this is why the EU is so important as the third stable bloc and power centre. Domestically, this is why South Korea needs more avenues for personal fulfilment and expression, something that is happening with younger generations, but needs to be enshrined in 'get out of my face and let me enjoy my life as I choose' laws at some point.