日志
Former Australian PM Paul Keating suggests good relation with China by getting a
|
Former Australian PM Paul Keating suggests good relation with China by getting away the troublemaker U.S.
Paul Keating: overdue foreign policy review demands new focus on China
by Mark Kenny MARCH 1 2017
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/paul-keating-overdue-foreign-policy-review-demands-new-focus-on-china-20170301-gunwrq.html
Paul Keating has welcomed the Turnbull government's foreign policy review but dismissed the last two decades as wasted because policy had been based on the assessment that the US would be the major power of the region indefinitely.
Rather, he said, China was rapidly becoming the biggest economy in the world and was already the only global super-power actually situated in the region, making its growing influence both relevant and permanent.
Keating: Australia has no foreign policy
Australia needs a nuanced foreign policy to deal with seismic shifts in the world, says Paul Keating. Courtesy ABC News 24.
Fairfax Media sought Mr Keating's views as Foreign Minister Julie Bishop drafts the final stages of a new foreign policy white paper, the first since the early years of the Howard government.
Making a rare foray into contemporary policy, Mr Keating also pushed back at recent comments by the former chief of defence forces, Air Chief Marshal (retired) Sir Angus Houston, and an expert from the Australian National University, Professor Rory Medcalf, advocating enhanced strategic ties with Japan, the US, and India.
The former prime minister characterised that approach as containment via the discredited doctrine of "quadrilateralism" and declared it "reckless on an international scale".
Welcoming Ms Bishop's commitment to draft a new foreign policy for the changing region, Mr Keating said Australia's past failure to view China's rise as "completely legitimate" had led to reduced influence, and less leverage with Beijing over its strategic direction.
He said Australian governments must recognise the character of China's rise rather than mistakenly viewing it in the same light as the former Soviet Union, which had been an exporter of Marxist-Leninist ideology, and a military super-power.
Mr Keating said China was more accurately understood as a broadly self-reliant Asian powerhouse intent on meeting its own security needs while creating its own wealth. In time, its economy could grow to double the size of that of the US.
"China is fundamentally a lonely state and looks to Australia as a supplier of much of its raw materials and therefore its development," Mr Keating told Fairfax Media.
"How much iron ore has it got to buy before we treat it with strategic regard?"
Calling for a new "positive approach" which recognises the Middle Kingdom's colossal scale in economic and strategic terms, the former Labor leader said the white paper was "a valuable opportunity" for a fundamental rethink.
"If Australia were to have a positive strategic policy of engagement with China rather than a negative one, our influence on China's behaviour would be much greater than it is today."
We don't want a dominant China any more more than we wish to contain it
While Mr Keating has expressed strong views before, his comments articulate a more positive view of the Australian opportunities presented by an ascendant China.
"The 'pivot' or 'stay-as-we-are' has meant the US is seeking to maintain strategic hegemony in the western Pacific, rather than recognising the rise of China as a legitimate event, and a state now as large as the US itself," he said.
Mr Keating said the preponderance of Australian foreign policy was broadly with the US under the ANZUS umbrella. As the world has moved to a position of bipolarity with the US and China, Australia should similarly be developing a policy of cooperation with China, and not of "resigned reluctance", he said.
"We don't want a dominant China any more more than we wish to contain it," he said.
"We want to bring China into the community of nations in the Asia Pacific."
Mr Keating said anxiety over the artificial islands in the South China Sea was being exaggerated and they were no challenge to Australia.
However, had Australia properly nourished its relations with Beijing, it would be better placed to prevail on Beijing to act in ways that created less regional tension, he said.
The comments came as Ms Bishop revealed she was bringing home all Australia's diplomats in March for a three-day conference, aimed at drawing on their combined expertise to contribute to the white paper.
Last month, Sir Angus and Professor Medcalf jointly addressed the National Press Club on the subject of the Australia-US alliance.
While the pair presented separate opinions, both defended the alliance as the bedrock of Australia's security architecture, and supported the idea of deepening defence and security integration with the India, and Japan as an effective reinforcement of Australia's regional position.
However Mr Keating said that approach was wrong.
"For Angus Houston and Rory Medcalf to be talking about quadrilateralism is reckless on an international scale, which they say does not represent containment of China. But of course, it does," he said.
"The moral of this story is you don't let the soldiers run the policy – you let them operate it, you don't let them write it."
Sir Angus, who had urged caution and diplomacy regarding the South China Sea, last month said the post-war alliance was "the cornerstone of our defence policy ever since".
"Over time we would lose capability if we weren't working so closely with the Americans," he said.
"Intelligence, technology, logistics, we get great logistics support, and in areas such as cyber we need American support."
Australia’s former prime minister says claims by US secretary of state nominee threaten to involve the country in war
Former prime minister Paul Keating has lambasted Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, saying his claim that China should be denied access to artificial islands it has built in the South China Sea threatens to involve Australia in war.
He says Australia must tell the Trump administration “from the get-go” that we will not be part of such adventurism, “just as we should have done on Iraq 15 years ago”.
Tillerson, a former ExxonMobil chief executive, told his confirmation hearing in Washington overnight that China’s control and construction of artificial islands in waters claimed by neighbouring countries was “akin to Russia’s taking of Crimea”.
Tillerson said China was declaring control of territories that did not rightfully belong to it, and it would threaten the “entire global economy” if it was allowed to control access to the waterway.
“We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed,” he said during his confirmation hearingto become America’s top diplomat.
“They are taking territory or control or declaring control of territories that are not rightfully China’s. The failure of a response [from the US] has allowed [China] just to keep pushing the envelope on this.
“The way we’ve got to deal with this is we’ve got to show back-up in the region with our traditional allies in south-east Asia,” he said.
Tillerson did not elaborate on how the US would bar China from the islands.
China claims sovereignty over almost the entire South China Sea, and has built seven artificial islands on reefs and rocks, and outfitted them with military-length airstrips and anti-aircraft guns.
Keating issued a public statement on Friday, castigating Tillerson for his recklessness.
“When the US Secretary of State-designate threatens to involve Australia in war with China, the Australian people need to take note,” Keating said.
“That is the only way Rex Tillerson’s testimony that a ‘signal’ should be sent to China that ‘access to these islands is not going to be allowed’, and that US allies in the region should be there ‘to show back-up’, can be read.
“We should tell the new US administration from the get-go that Australia will not be part of such adventurism, just as we should have done on Iraq 15 years ago. That means no naval commitment to joint operations in the South China Sea and no enhanced US military facilitation of such operations.
“Tillerson’s claim that China’s control of access to the waters would be a threat to ‘the entire global economy’ is simply ludicrous. No country would be more badly affected than China if it moved to impede navigation.
“On the other hand, Australia’s prosperity and the security of the world would be devastated by war,” Keating said.
Thank you Mr Keating. Turnbull will no doubt bend over for Trump/Tilletson and the US of A before he's even asked.
As would Shorten as did Howard and Gillard and Rudd would have if given the chance.
Not sure about that. Shorten has already indicated that Australia should not blindly follow the US into situations that are detrimental to the Australian people.
Do you have any evidence of Shorten's independent foreign policy? I always thought he was as pro if not even more so than Tony Abbott.
So, talk of war and the inauguration hasn't even happen yet. God help us.
Sorry, but I think you are being naïve, Sammy.
CCP/PLA ruled China has claimed an entire ocean and it's resources up the beaches of it neighbours; constructed islands for military bases in areas claimed by its neighbours and shot at and threatened anyone entering these self proclaimed zones of control, which straddle international transport/trade routes; consistently threatens Taiwan with invasion and Japan with outright war, while whipping up xenophobic hatred towards Japan and the West in general at home. And you think the US calling the CCP out on their shit is 'talk of war'?
God help us indeed.
All Keating and the other CCP apologists are concerned about is how this will affect their bank accounts. They don't care about the repressive CCP regime in China, or the futures of our Asian neighbours and the region in general.
Well said.
Steady, I expected your usual 'Chinese glass heart' response, and the inane CCP versions of history and 'ancient territorial claims' that I've addressed many times before.
When a nation is stealing it's neighbours territory, issuing belligerent military threats towards anyone that disagrees, threatening invasions, and is continually whipping up hatred towards 'the enemy' at home via the media it controls - it's already at war, ne?
Up until now, everyone has tried to resolve the issues with CCP China diplomatically, and at every turn the CCP/PLA have needlessly blustered and blathered and refused to negotiate - so if the US decides to turn the screws now, the CCP only have themselves to blame.
Do they want their 'island' bases and loopy claims, or do they want the international trade that props up their regime? I'd have thought it's an easy choice.
The CCP have to learn to live in 2017, not 1617.
I'm in such deep denial that, even now, I simply can't envisage the inauguration taking place.
Not religious or superstitious but somehow expecting a miracle.
You seem to diverge wildly from official US policy going back many decades. The US all along has been entirely neutral on disputed island sovereignty. It just opposes changes to the status quo involved in developing said disputed islands by any state.
Amateur hour out of depth Tillerson seems unacquainted with basic US and Pentagon policy in the region, and strangely seems only to know what he has read in the press. He doesn't even know his own forthcoming department's policy.
Of course if he wants to start WWIII he should do precisely what he states. It just goes to show his boss was a liar selling the snake oil of no more war. Yes, no more petty wars, just the war that could end human life on Earth over some stupid uninhabited rocks the main smaller state involved with which has just changed policy to doesn't at the moment much care seeking closer ties with China to boost its struggling economy.
I addressed your first hysterical post point by point providing facts and evidence to show the ridiculousness of your claims. Your response says nothing new, you fail to provide a shred of evidence to support your sensational claims, you even exaggerate the US position by claiming it is "everyone". If the Australian response to Tillerson's extremism is indicated by the posts here there will be little support for a war on China by the US from down under.
Do believe we won't hear any more from SecularBeast. You've neatly dismantled him from top to bottom.
The Chinese can argue that it's only for defensive purposes, but if you are building giant anti-aircraft gun and CIWS emplacements, it means that you are prepping for a future conflict.
"They keep saying they are not militarizing, but they could deploy fighter jets and surface-to-air missiles tomorrow if they wanted to," he said. "Now they have all the infrastructure in place for these interlocking rings of defense and power projection.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-arms-exclusive-idUSKBN1431OK
Satellite imagery reveals china has installed weapons, including anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems, on all seven of the artificial islands it has built in the South China Sea.the Chinese are militarizing the area which is not good.
The conservative Tory-loving Tea Party imitators the Coalition have sold off the Port of Darwin to the Chinese communist party and the Chinese Communist State Party is hoping to acquire the NT power grid.
Trump has already pledged another nuclear arms race.
Trump tweeted: “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”
It was unclear what prompted the comment on a medium that favours brevity over context. But it came on the same day that also Putin addressed Russia’s nuclear capacity.
US ballistic missile submarines, bombers, and land-based missiles – the nuclear triad – are expected to reach the end of their useful lives over the next decade. Maintaining and modernising the arsenal is expected to cost about $1tn over 30 years.
Sigh, they are hemmed in by water by massive and potentially hostile foreign fleets and nuclear missiles. That foreign power has stated (pentagon papers) it is seeking a stranglehold embargo threat over China to keeping it in line. If America had never sent so much military hardware into their backyard it is conceivable there would be no Chinese reaction of militarising islets and reefs as a defensive strategy. Just putting across the perspective as it appears from the international policy academics here in China.
Awesome thread :)
Except for you, Cactoblastis. That was just insipid.
No, I understand, I feel the same. It is so unbelievable that a man with such terrible qualities could possibly be about to be the most powerful man in the world, and he may even be compromised by the Russians - you just can't believe it will actually happen can you?? And he was ELECTED for God's sake, what fools have we all become???
you are either incredibly ignorant or lying.
Hardly, Cactoblastis, steady and I have been poking each other for years now - lol.
Steady addressed none of the 'here and now' issues I outlined, and instead threw the ad hom that I'm hysterical, and offered the usual rhetoric about; ancient 'Chinese claims' recognized by no-one in the real world beyond the grandiose imaginings of the CCP; some misdirection about the Taiwanese and Japanese brutality 70+ years ago - which somehow justifies the CCP's ongoing belligerence towards them; and a comparison between recent statements made by the 'white devils' and the 'oh so peaceful and benevolent' CCP.
Funny how the CCP was screeching about starting WW3 if the US interfered with their expansion into the SCS 2 years ago in 2015 (and threatened Australia if we sided with the US), and has now 'blinked' and started preaching 'mutual cooperation and respect' the moment the US called their bluff.
Nobody wants WW3, not the US or the CCP. China's prosperity (and the CCPs survival) is dependent upon its access to Western markets - so enough of this endless CCP bluster and brinksmanship already. It must be galling to the CCP to know that China needs the West, but the West (and its allies) doesn't need China.
I addressed the main issues you raised in your first post and as Cactoblastis noted, demolished your assertions. I did not use "ad hom" nor call you "hysterical", I guess inventing is useful in the absence of fact. You follow up with the usual repetition providing nothing but more unsubstantiated hysterical assertions.
You have given an accurate description of how the countries in the neighbourhood of China feel about its expansionist mindset. The US view is articulated well by Tillerson, though for different reasons.
I think by everyone he might be referring to the recent court decision denying Chinese sovereignty over the islands that they have recently constructed.
I do believe your rhetoric is absolutely garbage. Only the huge war mongering corporations will benefit from a war.
And NOBODY ELSE
That's odd. Rex Tillerson is the one threatening to start WWIII by militarily blockading Chinese supply ships to their people on already existing installations, a declaration of war.
As for your weird statement the US doesn't need China, Boeing, GM, Buick, Ford, Apple, Lincoln, Chrysler and many more would disagree with you as losing access to the world's biggest market for their products would eviscerate their jobs at home and crash their stocks. Airbus, VW, Audi, BMW, Mini, Mercedes, Landrover and Jaguar must be crossing their fingers Trump is as stupid as he seems and doubles their sales.
I have given no description of how countries in the neighbourhood feel other than perhaps Australia and I am only one person here. Tillerson is articulating the new regime's view and many hope and even pray that that view will change or adapt quickly.
What court decision? Are you referring to the Permanent Court of Arbitration a tribunal which was supposed to provide arbitration between the Philippines and China but since China did not appear it failed. That tribunal hardly represents everyone, just the views of a few selected judges who have been directed to disregard historical claims. No international judgement regarding any of the claims in the South China Sea has been given by any international court.
TIBET!
You demolished nothing, steady. And you did call me hysterical, read your own posts.
I addressed your first hysterical post point by point providing facts and evidence to show the ridiculousness of your claims.
Your own pro-CCP hysteria is hysterical.
"...your first hysterical post..."
"Your" is the possessive, "hysterical" is the adjective applying to the subject, the subjective is "post". (I feel like I am back teaching primary school kids.) Perhaps it is just your ego thinking somethings always relate to you personally, but don't get upset it was not directed at you, but at your post.
Your final comment is devastating!!! How can I possibly reply to such extraordinary evidence, logic and deduction!!!
Learn Chinese Quick!
"just the war ..... over some stupid uninhabited rocks..."
Mankind has gone to war over much less.
I read an article in RUSI (Royal United Services Institute) a couple of decades ago.
The thrust of which was that it 10 - 20 years to build the capability but only 10 months to manufacture the threat.
You may have addressed his issue, but you replied with complete Bull.
Beijing has never had any right to the SCS except for their own 200 mi Zone.
It is theft - plain and simple.
Yes, yes, yes. And America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Falklands, Gibralter were all theft. His point which you could have confirmed with a simple search of "history SCS" was that back in the colonial days China laid claim when the smaller states didn't, in fact weren't even considered states as we now know them (they were European colonies). Back then (KMT) the US told one smaller state it controlled on independence don't interfere with KMT China in the SCS.
Do some research rather than relying on mere press reports that never give the history.
Are you saying that modern free democratic nations still engage in that kind of nonsense? We though we were past that. Then along came a post civilization Trump.
China claims territory of the South China Sea on international standards and back history this territory belonged to China (although different dynasties) since very ancient days. How can you say China is stealing territory from others? Please lay your evidence, or you have to apologize!
It is a court and its judges decided that based on the evidence China did not have a claim. China chose not to present their case, perhaps because they realised it was without merit, I couldn't say but they had an opportunity and passed it up. China can now either defy international law or comply. They won't comply but that really only reflects the realpolitik of situation and the fact that China is a violent totalitarian regime above laws that less violent and repressive regimes have to comply with. Don't try to represent China as something they clearly are not they're asserting their dominance of the region and threatening our neighbours and allies in doing so. The US needs to carefully decide how it wishes to address China's belligerence. Reasonable people will have and do have issues with the way the US have and do assert their current dominance of the region, however anyone who believes that the current situation will be improved by replacing the US with China are either wilfully ignorant or a client. There needs to be a balance and accommodation of China's status in the region but Chinese hegemony asserted in the manner they're currently choosing to project it needs to be confronted.
The reality is that China has indicated time and again that it appears willing to share the resources of the South China Sea with its neighbours, even though most of those countries have ignored the region for centuries. It is the US which has sent its warships into the region playing the bully boy and attempting to dictate what solution will be implemented. Already the Philippines have indicated that they are willing to make new arrangements with China concerning closer political and economic relations, it seems likely that the US will endeavour to sabotage such closer links and instead promote antagonism.
As far as Australia is concerned we have no claims in the South China Sea, our economic interests are not threatened by China's claims and the best decision to make is to keep out of the US-created conflicts as former Prime Minister's Keating and the late Malcolm Fraser have both advocated.
So China proved sovereignty over the islands by not contesting a case decided by independent judges. Nice one Centurion?
I really don't understand why when I pointed out that China are a brutal repressive and violent regime, you didn't dispute this but thought that pointing out the US in your opinion is also violent was somehow relevant.
The Chinese junta are bullying their neighbours and simultaneously complaining that the US are bullying them. They're trying to assert themselves militarily and must be confronted they'll return to diplomacy once they realise they can't bully.
The length of their claim over the islands proves absolutely nothing worthiness of their claim. It was false in 1909 and remains false today.
Firstly under the UNCLOS China was not obliged to attend the hearing, arbitration cannot be compulsory. Secondly the parameters of the case did not include China's historical claims which also include legal recognition of which China's claim for sovereignty is heavily reliant on.
I did not address it directly because is was factually incorrect, a personal opinion not based on any evidence and frankly, silly. I gave some examples of a "violent" regime to point out the difference for you.Which neighbours? In the case of the South China Sea China discovered and charted those islands more than 500 years ago. China formally claimed sovereignty in 1909 when none of the current claimants existed as proper nations. Other nations recognised China's sovereignty by the 1930's. The US assisted China in reclaiming the islands after the Japanese occupation in 1945. After the PRC issued its formal outline of claims in 1958, Vietnam acknowledged and recognised China's claim, the Philippines said nothing and had no claim. It is China's neighbours who have occupied those islands and reefs suddenly and without any attempt to negotiate, beginning in 1975.They have invaded Iraq? They have established massive military bases in every continent? In fact China has been working hard at diplomatic means to achieve what they think is a fair and reasonable solution. In 2002 they reached agreement with ASEAN over the islands which included not building any more bases, first Vietnam, then the Philippines broke that agreement. Ten years later China reached bilateral agreements with both Vietnam and the Philippines over the islands in order to avoid confrontation, then under pressure from pro-US forces the Philipines tore up the agreement before even ratifying it and Vietnam effectively and immediately ignored the very obligations outlined in the agreement. The agreements would have assured the sharing of the resources of the Sea, but it seems that Vietnam and the Philippines do not want to share but to seize as much as they can get away with.Perhaps you can take a time machine back to 1909 and make that argument, since nobody else did at the time. Both the US and Japan acknowledged China's claim after WWII. So if China's claim is "false" whose claim is "true", Vietnam? the Phillipines? Malaysia? Brunei? Since those claims all overlap they cannot all be "true". Which one and why?The South China Sea is not an entire ocean.
Both Keating and Hewson are voices of reason...different to now...
The 'up side' from all this is that Australia will/should become more independent from direct us foreign policy.
#change 'different to now' to 'different to so called leaders/politicians now'.
Look a form PM that has something meaningful to say.
Tillerson has been quick out of the blocks to raise the hackles of the Chinese to divert attention away from his own and Trump's dealings with Putin.
What can we expect from our own Liberal government? They will be torn between the money cow of China and slavishly supporting the US into every sabre rattling, war mongering posturing response.
At no time in the last 20 years or so has it been more necessary cool heads and an independent foreign policy response differing from the US executive. Yet look who we have in office a weak and vacillating PM, Joe Hockey as Us ambassador and a talentless lot of self seeking ministerial hacks.
It should be clear that Turnbull should differentiate Australia from the US while being clever enough to not support China's expansionism at the same time. Can we expect that?
While respect is due to John McCain it is strange days when Lindsey Graham is a voice of reason raised against the likes of Tillerson and Trump
"raise the hackles of the Chinese to divert attention away from his own and Trump's dealings with Putin."
Diverting public attention with perceived threats from a foreign power is right out of China's playbook. Good to see the US is learning.
Look a form(er) PM that has something meaningful to say.
Yeah, great. Shame he didn't perform like this when it mattered.
What cave were you living in during the 80's and early 90's?
Paul Keating, he's still got the magic. I miss him, come back Paul, the country needs a real PM.
I haven't voted since 1993, the one for the true believers. I would probably vote for him if he was still leader of the ALP even though I don't like his economics and ego. He is one of the few political leaders that actually look ahead and consider where the nation will be in decades or even a century ahead. His views on the Trump anti-China hysteria is spot on and points out a very real danger for our nation.
Exactly, I can't think of anyone else to match his political skill or foresight.
A challenge to China over the South China Sea would be more realistic if SE Asian countries themselves were prepared to defend their territory. As it is, China is successfully buying off all these states thus negating any excuse the US is defending the rights of SE Asian countries.
It is also somewhat late now to do anything about it. The US would be better off simply defending any country that wants to strongly stand up to China.
And which one individually or combined has the resources to go against China?
I doubt there would be many nations within the region that could repel the Chinese, the Chinese are the biggest boys in the region and it would take an equally large country to tip the balance towards countries in the region.
Vietnam defeated China when China invaded in 1979:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
There's an enormous difference between grabbing a pussy and tweaking a tiger: the danger, of course, is the orange headed loon may see it as a good distraction from his Moscow frolics.
The old world order (Russia included) seeking to tame the new world order. Good luck with that
I think we're all in need of some luck me old pachyderm.
The myopic orange headed loon might see it that way, but a US-China conflict will be a significant component in Putin's strategic thinking.
Good to see a politician with common sense out there.
Tillerson is great isn't he
Great like his fellow Texan G.W. Bush, who started the two longest wars in US history leading to blowing up the entire middle-east?
No one imagined anyone could be worse or more incompetent, but then another Texan comes along this time promising a bit of biffo with the biggest country in the world. Well, the distractions need to get bigger and bigger to cover up what the Republicans are really do to their own country.
Hahahaha, he's back. Whenever a cheap headline is available, whenever someone's there to be criticized, "The Shiver" will be there.
Filling the intellectual abyss in the current leadership of this country.
Ad hominem all you've got. Do you agree with Tilletson and Trump... or not?
Not.
Right on, Paul. Wish he was current PM or Leader of ALP. Could use a spine in Australian politics.
You won't find any spine in the current Australian parliament. As soon as the Anti-Christ is inaugurated next week the Australian politicians will be queuing up to kiss Trump's arse.
Said it before and it seems more obvious every day: soon we will have to decide between our major traditional ally and our major trading partner. Which will it be?
Its an easy decision, which Australia has already made.
We'll side with our largest trading partner, neighbour and guarantor of our sea passages.
USA is in economic and military decline, its lost its moral bearings and can no longer guarantee our ocean passages.
Australia signed a 99 year lease for Darwin Port with a Chinese Government corporation and the Abbott/Turnbull Government didn't give Barak Obama the courtesy of letting him know of the deal.
The Darwin deal flags Australia's strategy for a war between US and China.
2500 marines based near Darwin this year would say otherwise.
I hope you are correct. Not only largest trading partner but biggest customer of our stuff, largest supplier of tourists, and two years ago replaced the UK has the largest supplier of immigrants for the first time in two hundred years, largest supplier of foreign students who pay a fortune to our educational institutions propping up our education system. The only thing we got out of the US alliance was body bags returning from Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. When will they ever learn?
China has nothing against Australia except wish to do business with. There is no historical baggage or any territorial disputes and many Chinese wish visit Australia, even wish to call Australia home if possible.
There are ideological differences which may hinder their relationship but at least Australia should looking Europe for alliance rather than the belligerent US.
It is not in western countries interest that China and Russia are forced to form a military alliance. The world needs a strong and united Europe to keep peace and stability. Australia should help to strengthen the EU.
Really? Only if history is 40-odd years. Australia's relations with China and Chinese at a non-government level have been controversial for most of Australia's European history. Anti-Chinese feeling, occasionally erupting into violence, was a feature of Australian goldfields from the 1850s and a desire to prevent Chinese immigration was one of the first motivations for the White Australia policy instituted after Federation in 1901. You'll be aware that between 1949 and 1972 Australia refused to recognise the People's Republic of China. Baggage.
wasn't Gough Whitlam the first western leader to visit China in 1972?
that we had a conservative government for decades before that is certainly a blip in our history
But I think we've done more than enough to quell any 'baggage' that might have existed in our relationship. What percentage of our population today is of Chinese heritage? Much has changed since the goldfields and Bob Menzies you know.
Most of your comment doesn't relate to the Chinese state, and I do have to pick up one fault.
That wasn't what caused the White Australia Policy, although it is true that there were concerns about Chinese immigrants as far back as the gold rush days (as you noted)
The White Australia Policy was very much an I.R act set up to appease concerns held by the union movement over the use of Pacific Islanders on Queensland cane farms.
This is all so dumb. What are they arguing over? That shipping route will be gone in about 10 years. No-one will be using it.
30% of total world trade uses the Malacca, Lombok and Sunda straits. That's why the US has four Littoral Combat Ships and a spy plane at Singapore and marines at Darwin. Australia is the region's largest producer of coal, iron ore and food, and everyone knows what China needs.
> That shipping route will be gone in about 10 years. No-one will be using it.
Interesting. Household 3D printing from reticulated raw matter feeds? Hot and cold running elements?
Explain!
Paul Keating is just unnecessarily worried. We are talking about genuine amateurs here in Trump's administration. Trump would probably go to war with China, without even remembering to call up its allies to help.
That's not what the ANZUS treaty says.
Haha. We should fight to the last American.
Time to remove the US from ANZUS
Australia should become neutral and develop its own defence capabilities that can act in the interests of the Australian people.
Yeah!!! They could get all the unemployed to start making boomerangs and archery equipment in case there's an invasion and like that ex Lieberal defence minister stated he wouldn't trust Australians to build a canoe.
How's the weather in Beijing, comrade?
Clear blue sky, AQI 38 classed as good. What about where you are?
China thinks it has sovereignty over much of the South China Sea with its nine-dash line that includes militarily armed islands. A wrongful maritime boundary which is a slap in the face of neighbouring countries. Australia should support its allies with freedom of navigation exercises in the area and any forms of asymmetrical warfare that would pressure China to revise its stance in the area.
This must be done within a framework of avoiding war at all costs as the world economy would go into global meltdown and much more importantly, the maiming and loss of life would be devastating. Australia needs to make such a concrete stance crystal clear to the United States: that it will be party to demonstrative efforts which highlight China's illegality in the South China Sea but it won't commit forces in an all out engagement.
the two do not go together
besides, why do we need to conduct freedom of navigation flights/sails when we can do so quite freely anyway, do so at present and have done so since ever
The Nine-Dash Line claiming the S. China Sea was proclaimed by US ally Chiang Kai-shek in 1947. Nobody complained about it then. Why is it such a big deal now? Answer: the "defense" contractors, etc., of the USA want another Cold War. Ignorant xenophobes in the USA want to play Cowboys and Indians in E. Asia. American politicians and generals are still fantasizing about "Full Spectrum Dominance," i.e., ruling the world. Rational people would negotiate, but there's no one rational in US government.
A desire to make trouble, push others around. That's a staple of US foreign policy.
Now Donald Trump has been elected, there'll be hell toupée
You're not getting a recommend.
But i got a chuckle.
I like this one actually:
This is what I've been waiting for my whole life. A President who's not afraid to tell the truth about being a lying a**hole!―Lewis Black
its gonna be yooge! -a.v.
More power to you Mr Keating.
We live in dangerous times and we have socialites running the country. How unlucky could the lucky country be at this time in history.
This is what happens when the ill- informed elect idiots. We have the same problem in Australia too.
Mrs Clinton was and is very hawkish as well.
Dear Mr Trump don't include Australians in your reality TV Presidency, if you want to pick a fight with China do so on your own.
There's no chance of that!!
Australia will never fight alone. It will fight with the US, Canada, Britain, New Zealand and probably UN forces such as those which fought China in Korea. And Australia will win, just as it always has.
yeah like we did at Gallipoli, Vietnam, Iraq and so on. No thanks Yank keep your wars and leave us out of it.
You are absolutely right Paul, and Australians really need to know this, they are way asleep at the wheel and being fed nothing but MSM negative stories about China (always the bad guys), when the US is behaving not only in a very jingoistic way but also strengthening and targeting every one of their bases in the region that the Chinese also perceive as a threat. Trump has made it very clear during his election campaign that China is his (and US's) enemy, the phoney cause of all US economic problems, and also making a big attempt to woo Russia as his ally against the Chinese.
Given that China is our major trading partner we must tread lightly and not fall blindly into following the US into another phoney war with horrific consequences.
China has got us by the economic balls so even the belligerent wing-nuts in the LNP would have to think twice and not blindly follow the US into a confrontation with the Chinese ala Howard with Iraq.
They are not showing very much of a capacity to act decisively, and there has been no resistance to Trump's views in their rhetoric in the least. Turnbull has shown us nothing but procrastination on major decisions, and always caves into the right, even extreme right,and the latter will happily go off to war as a twisted moral crusade.
Turnbull might even take advice from Howard on the merits of being a Khaki PM.
China needs your coal and iron ore, and they prefer not to pay for it, just like the Japanese when they bombed Darwin in 1942. Why do you think there are US marines in Darwin?
Methinks that Paul "Peace in our time" Keating is losing the plot.
Methinks it is a poor sign of the times that someone could possibly interpret his words that way.
Why? If you said why, you might have something genuine to say.
If you don't compose an argument with some evidence to support your views, they are worth a big fat zero.
I am more concerned about USA looking to "liberate" Australia in the not-too-distant future when their GM crops have failed and their attention turns from easy oil targets to Australia's crops and livestock. Building US military presence in Australia is already taking place in USA's 'Pivot to Australasia'.
Keating is a sound voice on Australia-China relations, especially regards the US and South China Sea. Keating rightfully says that all the trade going through there is to/from China. Tillerson is talking crap.
There has been a growing voice in Australia for a few years now, including from the media and from this newspaper, to increase our military presence in the South China Sea and conduct 'freedom of navigation' operations to the islands, atolls and reefs in dispute. Why? The sole purpose can only be to aggravate China? even when there is sea everywhere in the South China Sea for free navigation.
The affected nations are handing this in quite a low level and measured manner. The last thing our region needs is a loose cannon USA flexing muscle, and the last place we need to be is sailing beside them, if not for them. The economic damage alone would be catastrophic for us.
"there is sea everywhere in the South China Sea for free navigation".
Footage of Vietnamese troops being machine-gunned in the water by the Chinese navy at Johnson South Reef:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq30CY9nWE8
Yes Vietnam attacked a Chinese reef in 1988 and the Chinese shot the shit out of them...and this is relevant to....? Oh I see, a warning that if we join with the US also to attack the Chinese we might get shot at as well. Good point there Matt.
Paul, your comments are accurate.
However, you and your predecessor when PM did nothing to move
Australia to a non aligned position internationally. You made some
steps economically and a very few Foreign Policy wise, but absolutely
non with regard to our Defence policy.
Indeed it was your Prime Ministership that saw the maximum development
of our Defence "interoperability" with US forces that has dictated all our
Defence procurement since (and reinforced our dependence).
It was you/Hawke that aligned itself diplomatically to the US with regard
to Indonesia's actions in Timor-Leste, Israel on the west bank etc.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and you should perhaps "fess up" to your
own failings that have contributed to the US's ongoing belief that its hegemony
is the only "righteous" one..........after all your actions supported this self
declared role of the "worlds policeman" that the US has held since 1945
and that Tillerson is simply reinforcing.
Your Comment is marginally less relevant that the utterances of Keating on this issue.
I agree totally
Please explain why.
I think we aligned with the US forces sometime around 1942. Something to do with the Pacific campaign, Korea, Vietnam... US ships were bought in the 1960s and late 70s/early 80s. Pine Gap was built around 1970. FA-18 Hornets were bought in 1981. Abrams tanks were bought in 2004 (replacing the German made Leopards bought in '74 - Whitlam). I don't think any of these fall into the Hawke/Keating period, but correct me if I'm wrong.
It is amazing the ex-Australian Prime Ministers who upon retiring suddenly seem to find balls of steel and make fantastic suggestions which they would never be seen close to when in power. In Keating's case I will at least acknowledge he had more courage and conviction than most and pushed the republic and the rights of indigenous Australians like no other.
Our Defence policies from 1985 onwards specifically noted our
need for interoperability with US forces....it was a reality earlier
as you point out, but not stressed in our Policy papers until 1985
to my knowledge.
Certainly we had much US equipt., trained with them, allowed
their bases and deployed with them.
However much of our procurement prior to this time was from the
UK (Navy), France/Italy (RAAF), Army (UK) and we had significant
capacity to manufacture ourselves incl. ordonance, radar systems,
electronics even guided missiles !
The Leopard was indeed evaluated during Whitlams time and delivered
from 1976 to 1978.
I guess my point was that any semblance of independent operations,
especially for the RAAF and Army and to a lesser degree the navy
was subsumed to a US "dependence" from 1984-85 onwards.
While the purchase of the Abrams Tanks in 2005 has been an unmitigated disaster. The tanks, 59 of them, were supposed to be located in the North of Australia, primarily in the NT. It turns out the earth is too soft and apart from exercises on sealed roads the tanks cannot go off into the bush, sort of makes the whole tank purpose useless. Even worse the tanks cannot use many of the bridges and need to be transported to the Northern Territory by rail, however they are too large for the rail trucks.
Not a problem, we'll keep them in Adelaide in case those nasty penguins get any ideas. Another bonanza for the US armament industry.
You can add to that that they were second hand and we paid virtually
as new prices. They required significant refitting on arrival. The end
price paid was further inflated by the need for RAEME to totally re-tool
its maintenance workshops and retrain its tech's. Non of the munitions
we then made locally were adaptable so had to be purchased off the US
as well.
All the tankies and proving ground staff recommended the Leopard 2
(where non of the above were issues) but were overridden politically
.........plus for the same price we could have had between 120 to 180
ex-Bundeswehr tanks plus bridging and recovery/engineering units
totalling 220 units for the same price !
That our defense policy made by US stooges is a problem is an understatement.
"You can add to that that they were second hand..."
And heavily polluted with Depleted Uranium.
This move was as predictable as Trump's 'warlord' ( I have the population behind me and they want a strong' leader so I'll flex muscles at every opportunity) approach to the media.
Psychology shows us that people will stick to what they know and will view the world or any other job through that prism. Tillerson is a corporate executive and sees the world as a corporate exec. His background is in Oil, soooooo why do you think he's doing what he's doing ? There are believed to be significant oil reserves in the Sth China sea.I doubt that he'll go to war but he does have business "contacts" with the Russians. Ergo he's trying to get The USA into the South china sea., My guess the argey bargey will end with a n agreement to share the area's oil and too bad other countries that want a bit of the action.
I wouldn't be surprised that a sweetener will involve Taiwan.
Both The USA and Russia are frustrated by the others in Opac who for their own local reasons resist lowering production ( cash flow) to put a floor under the price of oil.
China has a tenuous relationship with Russia so this won't harm the US relationship with Russia.
Then one needs to look at where else there are untapped oil.... in the Arctic and Antarctic .
Three guesses which two countries have serious industry pressure to tap both.
Folks what An EX pm has to say about this is irrelevant as Abbott's pretensions to be the Captain of Australia. All ego and a bid for publicity to claw just that little more lime light.
"China has a tenuous relationship with Russia so this won't harm the US relationship with Russia. "
I agree with all you wrote in your post, but I think Russia and China could swing either way according to the strategic situation. Trump is making great efforts to woo Russia and make it an ally, while castigating China. China and Russia are very big trading partners, like Australia and China. Russia could still become an ally with China under a number of scenarios. Trump has anti-Russian madmen in his administration too, and the US are still building up forces in bases near to the Russian border. Poland only just recently. It is my view that America could end up being the big loser under an incompetent Trump regime full of belligerent crazies who have little experience in genuine diplomacy and running a country, not a profit making business. Shoot first ask questions later will be their policy. I very much doubt if America will be made great again, it could very well be its demise.
"Ergo he's trying to get The USA into the South china sea"..........
The US is already in the South China Sea ..... certainly militarily.
Negotiations between US oil ( and UK oil) with Vietnam have been
ongoing however, at present, US involvement is minor compared
to UK and Russian interests (India may purchase BP's leases).
Vietnam is reportedly cautious about US involvement given this
is one industry they want to retain control over and they can/have
technical assistance from elsewhere (indeed Vietnams oil/gas corp.
is developing/exploring in other Asian countries).
US oil has not aggressively pursued leases in SE Asia to date
incl. Brunei, Indonesia, Myanmar etc. and I would suggest has
better options elsewhere.
In short, I would suggest oil , in this instance, isn't a significant driver
for the US ......... the preservation of US interests in Taiwan, Japan, Sth.
Korea are , as are the attempts to re-engage with the Philippines.
I would suggest this is about ego, anger at loosing the superpower monopoly
and the ongoing inherent belief in the US that they are the world "policeman"'
a role much of SE Asia supports.
I agree with Keating that if the Chinese and U.S come to blows over the South China Sea islands that we should sit it out, unless the Chinese started to take the opportunity to invade countries int he region such as Indonesia, although I am not expecting that to occur.
The Indonesians have asked for our support in their dispute with China as the Chinese claim stretches that far south.
"unless the Chinese started to take the opportunity to invade countries int he region such as Indonesia, although I am not expecting that to occur."
Japan did, why wouldn't China? Indonesia has oil and Australia has coal and iron ore. That's why Japan tried to annex them, and that's why China will too.
It is possible that the Chinese could move to do that, but there are differences between China and Japan, mainly the Chinese don't lack resources, they are the largest producers of coal and as you mention they can easily access it via Australia and Indonesia and maybe elsewhere.
China is the largest buyer of Australian coal and iron ore, meaning they don't have enough, just like Japan didn't have enough in WW2. The result will be the same: an attempted invasion of Australia. That is why there are US marines at Darwin.
Hey Mal, this is what political courage and conviction looks like.
You must realise a Trump White House just might be deranged enough to engage China in some gunplay. How do you intend to play it? What if Trump decides to use the US marines based in Darwin in such a conflict?
Given how gutless you've been with most everything, you'll probably wet yourself and yell for Lucy.
Just think if you, as PM, said what Keating said; you'd be hailed as a bold and visionary leader; noticing in Tillerson's comments a potential catastrophe for Australia, you with just a sentence or two, delivered now — at the right time, before Trump is inaugurated and before Tillerson has a chance to whip his circle jerk buddies up into a frenzy — would've protected Australia from any involvement and maybe even dampened down the overly exuberant gung-ho Americans.
You now, just like you'd expect from a masterful "world leader".
Instead, you let a former-PM-20-years-out-of-office speak in the best interests of Australia.
You really are pissweak, Mal.
PK should move to Beijing, he's been trying to relocate us to China since the 80s, mind you he won't have to soon because China is relocating here!
Oh what an incisive response. Do go on.
Oh he goes on; and on and on and on.
"Paul Keating castigates Rex Tillerson over comments on China"
The just voices are still heard in the American sphere and it may not be in the interest of American elite to wage wars with China.
Chinese sovereignty over Chinese South China Sea inside 9-dashed line cannot be changed by Mr Rex Tillerson.
Chinese ownership over Chinese South China Sea cannot be changed by the wars as wage by American war mongers.
It wasn't the US which invaded the Nine-Dash Line.
My understanding is that Chinese citizens in Australia are monitored by their Government, and are also mobilised from time to time to demonstrate against perceived slights against China.
Care to comment on that?
Ah yes, I see I have replied to Matt rather than canofbeans
Amazing the perspicacity of ex PMs who entrenched our subservience to the US. While I agree with Keatings comments, perhaps he should reflect on how he failed to assert Australia's independence and non-alignment.
Would it have been better for Australia to be non-aligned when Darwin was bombed by Japan in 1942? The troops who died fighting the Japanese in Papua - before they could invade Australia - were Australian, American, New Zealander and British. Non-alignment will be the death of Australia. It will fight alongside its friends - New Zealand, the US, Canada, UK, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, India etc - just as it always has. And it will win, just as it always has.
Selective history and very likely phoney argument full of nationalism and attempted guilt projection.
I'm utterly in respect for those that died, absolutely, humans do not deserve to die in war, but I would argue that they did not have to die like that.
If you make a thorough study the history of Sino-Japanese-Korean-Russian-English- American relations within the region, (not just our views either) the Americans had a lot to do with creating a Japan that eventually became their enemy out of control. A tale of the Dr Frankenstein creating the monster Frankenstein and having the experiment go very wrong.
No the troops that first fought Japan in New Guinea (not called Papua then, an American would not realise that) were Australian. At that time the Americans were still recovering from the shock of Pearl Harbour. None of this has anything to do with the extremist warlike comments coming from the Trump camp.
Yep won in Gallipoli, won in Vietnam, won in Afghanistan, won in Iraq, us Aussies are so bloody tough!!!Keating fails to understand that although his country doesn't like war, war likes his country. The Japanese attack on Darwin in 1942 is proof of that. Australia is the region's greatest supplier of coal, iron ore and food - the reason Japan tried to invade it - and the reason China will do the same.
Yes indeed,,,China are likely to invade Australia because Japan bombed Darwin in 1942 . Which in your mind is proof that China want to steal our 19th century resources. All the more ludicrous as they already own much of it anyway as we have an economy largely beholden to China.
Tell me, did you reflect at all before you clicked on the Post reply tab.
Can you provide a reference supporting your statement "we have an economy largely beholden to China."? No, because it isn't true. An attack on Australia is the logical conclusion of war in the South China Sea, which is what happened in 1942. It is reasonable to expect the same to happen if war breaks out again. That is why there are US marines at Darwin.
Actually: there is some dispute about whether the Japanese intended to invade, or simply deny the US a staging point. The Japanese did not have sufficient strength to occupy such a large landmass as Australia.
The latter point is probably the most relevant to your analogy.
Well said by Keating.
Abbott did the tough thug thing with Putin and his shirt fronting, you bet you are you bet I am.
Now the Trump thugs think they are tough, you bet you are you bet I am.
The conservative extremists are only interested in lining their own pockets and those of their enablers.
The US is a disaster waiting to happen. Trump will do far more damage than Dubya Bush ever did and we should never follow them.
Thanks for the view from Beijing.
How is his the view from China? It's common sense. Besides, if the US wants to get all high and mighty about land grabbing, perhaps they should be reminded that they commandeered Hawaii despite the objection of the local population, purely for their military games.
People can have different views can't they? Thanks for your bigotry.
Tugging the national forelock and bowing obsequiously to the mighty United States of America has been Australia's meek behaviour since "All the way with LBJ" was Harold Holt's pissant slogan.
Howard continued the genuflecting to suck up to the Americans, and - incidentally - to enhance his personal status as he strutted on the world stage. Howard was a small man trying to be a big man and he almost orgasmed with pleasure when described as 'The Man of Steel" by George Dumbya Bush. Georgie might have been dumb, but he knew the value of flattery, and knew its effect on a weaker man.
Following America into invading an Arab Muslim country was monumental stupidity; with or without a valid excuse. Did Howard think they wouldn't mind?
Putin is using the same strategy on the Mango Madman. It is effective. The dimwit egotists love to be flattered; it justifies their high opinions of themselves.
Keating is correct; it is time Australia forged its own foreign policies and didn't slavishly adopt policies designed to benefit America, not Australia.
Obeying the Americans and antagonising China might make Mango happy, but it would kill off our trade with the largest country on earth.
If the United States is considering pulling out of the TPP agreement, this might be a good thing. The agreement should continue without American influence. It will not take long before they are begging to be included, particularly if they are stupid enough to damage their trading relationship with China.
There is a new Big Dog on the block, and it is not Trump's America.
["All the way with LBJ" was Harold Holt's pissant slogan.]
Yeh, and when Askin told his driver to run the bastards over when anti-Vietnam protestors got in the road of his LBJ's motorcade.
"Tugging the national forelock and bowing obsequiously to the mighty United States"
Pray you never have to do it to the Emperor in the Forbidden City. There were plenty of eunuchs in the Forbidden City, you know...
If you don't like your leaders - then remove them by the methods espoused in the U.S constitution.
Onya paul .... our current calibre of pollies is worse than somethink outta "yes minister"... wtf happened?
Since Korea, Australia has toadied the US in every conflict excluding South America. I agree with Keating, NO MORE!
Maybe something to do with the US helping defend Australia from the Japanese in WW2?
The USA was not here to defend Australia, it was here to defeat Japan. The fact that Australia was here was strategically important in regards to man power, resources and to allow the counter to be from both from the south and east.
Remember the USA was very reluctant to join the war and they didn't suddenly grow a conscience after Pearl Harbour and say, those poor Aussies we have to get over there and save them.
Can you show any evidence to support your claim that Japan was intending to invade Australia?
Attacks on some sites in northern Australia is not an invasion.
World War II here, was two countries with a mutual desire working together for a result.
What was owed at the end of it, friendship, yes, subservience, no.
The Japanese had no plan to invade Australia. If Australia had stayed neutral, there is a likelihood that the U.S. would have invaded it to use it as an operations base. (Australia declared war on Japan because the Japanese had attacked British colonial possessions in South East Asia not because of Japanese attacks on American Pacific possessions.)
This is the man who toadied to Suharto over East Timor for decades. Bugger off Paul, you have a terminal case of relevance deprivation. Apologies if others have already pointed that out
What are you seriously suggesting? That Keating should have declared war on Indonesia to correct the situation?
Er, well maybe said no, this is not OK
Grow Up!
The Chinese are in the wrong but threatening a war is fucking diplomatic suicide. It leaves you absolutely no wiggle room and makes anything but a total Chinese back down look like failure!
PJK's recommendation, brushed aside by Jules the party girl and Silvery Mal, that Oz should start to make its own way is absolutely prescient. The US will go to hell and is unlikely to return under this toad like narcissus they have put in charge, with Vlad's help and against the will of the majority one must say. Unless we start to think for ourselves we are going all the way with them.
Did you know that the Trump family bought the most expensive single building ever purchased in the United States, at 666 Fifth Avenue, a street symbolic of money, hubris, excess and greed?
Gough Whitlam had that idea. He called it 'Fortress Australia'. It never went anywhere
In England, particularly the north where I spent much of my childhood and teenage years another word for smelly fart is trump!
Tillerson is a F**king imbecile..
..what is it with Republicans and starting unnecessary wars..?
..SERIOUS QUESTION!!..
War is a tried and tested method espoused by the RWNJ's designed to ensure that the entrenched problems of overpopulation of the human species; poverty and homelessness can be controlled.
..SERIOUS ANSWER!!..
Jobs for the 'rust belt'??
They and their family trusts have large investments in the "military, industrial complex", like Halliburton. So they make lots and lots of blood drenched money out of war that they then stash away in tax havens so the crippled victims of the same war can't get pensions, affordable housing or healthcare. Why? Because "their" government can plead revenue problems and the need for austerity to pay for the war, fix the budget etc.
Could you please make clear which 'aussie' you're referring to and what you're trying to infer?
Australia does not like war, but war likes Australia. If Australia is attacked - as it was by Japan in 1942 - it will defend itself as it always has.
Wow - how ignorant are you of contemporary weaponry?
Large possibility this is Tillerson deflecting news away from Trump being compromised by Putin.
It seems to have worked.
Pretty irresponsible if it is that. Even more reason to separate ourselves from such a government.
It will be fun to watch during the Trump presidency who is call the shots, Trump or Putin.
Well done Paul Keating.
Onya Paul. When can you start? Monday morning?
"Trump risks 'war' with Beijing if US blocks access to South China Sea, state media warns"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/13/trump-risks-war-with-beijing-us-blocks-access-south-china-sea-state-media
It's not state media.
It's the Global Times. It's a comic.
State media is Xinhua, and they've said nowt.
Sounds like the new guy won't be a steady hand on the tiller.
OMG! Next thing we know Paul will be saying he's recalcitrant - and we all know where that can lead. Probably just as well neither Tillerson or Trump knows what it means. Now shirtfronting - that they could understand. Or perhaps a slur on the size of his dick?
Huh......!!!!?????
I read the headline as "Paul Keating castrates..."
which would have made for exiting trans-pacific politics.
A red line once again has been drawn by USA without much thoughts - no Chinese access to the South China Sea new islands. It would be interesting to see on 20th Jan or days after that how US would make it happens. Chinese do not seem to back off from any threads from the US at all. Will Trump then order US military to take action driving out all Chinese personnel from these islands in order to make sure this new US red line is not breached? At the moment this new red line is already breached and Chinese army are stationed on these islands, let along access to them. If US can't really drive them off these islands and keep Chinese out as what they have sworn to do, it would just be another laughing stock.
Any attempt to remove Chinese troops or deny access of navigation through the South China Sea means war. China will not kowtow to US forces right in its door steps. China had been humiliated in the past by foreign powers. She will not let the world watch her be humiliated again. The American way is to send in massive display of power to overwhelm the Chinese forces as they try to do during the Vietnam War. Yes, a very sophisticated force against a peasant army that was.
Nonsense. The Aust government won't even support the US freedom of navigation exercise in South China Sea. It also approved the Port of Darwin lease to Chinese company. How that makes it the US's patsy in SCS I can't imagine. Keating has become one of the worst China apologists of all Has never expressed any concern about China island-building in SCS or adventurism in East China Sea or sponsorship of major cyber attacks on Aust government and businesses.
We also now have American troops stationed around the Darwin area, admittedly put there by Gillard. We have Pine Gap which would become a target for China if America started a war with them.
We have no quarrel with China so there is no reason why we should back America if they start a war with them.
The so-called "Freedom of Navigation" exercises are military provocations directed at China. No such exercises were conducted at the Philippines or RoC (Taiwan) bases in the SCS. Nor did the US in 1939 conduct any exercises in confronting Japan when they occupied those Chinese islands. However in 1945 the US was happy to help China regain them.
Well this time the CIA won't be able to remove Labor from office. Once again Labor is telling the US to but out of our affairs; whereas the Coalition are toasting Trump's win.
Keating is right on this issue and we really need a government that is willing and able to take a strong neutral stance on this matter. Sadly the LNP conservative governments have a poor track record of this sort of thing.
unfortunately, since Whitlam, the ALP is not much better when it comes to the U.S
Hi Terrancerh, yes, you are correct. Hawke was totally pro-USA and pro-Israel in his foreign policy stance. Remember the MX missile issue? At a time when his Kiwi counterpart David Lange was putting up a "mouse that roared" position over US nuclear weapons entering New Zealand, the Hawke Labor Government was embracing "Star Wars".
Yesterday at the Media farce,
The Gibberer (one who speaks giggerish) said "the problem of ISIS is number 1 tricky". This after saying he had a plan to destroy ISIS, but that he wasn't going to tell anybody what that plan was.
Spot on Paul.
Traitorous rat
Indeed you are, however it's's nice to see Keating standing up for what is in Australia's best interest rather than what's good for an American oil company. I wish we had more politicians like that.
Under international law, it is not illegal for china to build islands on existing reefs and rocks. Just that, they are not entitled to 200 nautical miles of exclusive economic zones, but 12 nautical miles of territorial waters and 500 meters for submerged reefs.
UNCLOS article 121 states:
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
Islands GENERATE TERRITORIAL SEAS, CONTIGUOUS ZONES, AND CONTINENTAL SHELVES. Rocks generate only territorial waters. This means Islands are entitled to 12 nautical miles of territorial waters and 200 nautical miles of exclusive economic zone; just like coastal states themselves.
Itu Aba Island more than fulfil the UNCLOS definition of an ISLAND. Since, it is an Island it is entitled to 200 nautical miles of EEZ, just like Philippines.
Tillerson proposed blockade will be a violation of international law, as it impede China's right of FREEDOM OF NAVIGATIONS.
Isn't the USA in South China seas to protect the right of Freedom of navigation?
Violating international law didn't stop them, or us going into Iraq, even though most of the rest of the world kept pointing out how fucking stupid that would be.
Perhaps someone should ask Tillerson when does the USA propose signing up for UNCLOS?
Keating was always an apologist for Oriental imperialism. No friend to the East Timorese
Bunkum. Grossly misinformed overstatement.
Rubbish. I was a big Keating fan. I even joined the ALP as a teenager. He never criticised Indonesia, then still in effect a dictatorship, for anything, least of all their annexations of East Timor and West Papua and their oppression of the people there. A massive blindspot of his. Find one such criticism! You cannot
They just look too much like forward bases for my liking. They are forward bases.
They are meant to intimidate the whole region. They have successfully intimidated the whole region. For good reason.
However, trying to blockade in anyway would be foolish. Still, freedom of navigation
must be preserved. China would take advantage if kowtowed to.
China may be willing to do business with Oz barbarians, but you can bet their respect
for us, and trust in us, is next to nil.
Oz is in a difficult position. We will always be seen as natural allies of the USA by virtue
of our origins. I guess it should be no surprise that our politicians see it that way as well.
.
Perhaps we have not given credit to China for thinking ahead for this. I have maintained that from the beginning that the islands were meant to be a fortress and outpost in addition to a point for access to the Melaka Straits. Pilger stated that in 2015 the US and allies conducted a secret exercise to blockade the Melaka Straits hence strangling the oil and resources supply mainly to China. This led to WWII for Japan. In addition, perhaps China is counting on the hysterics of US to bolster their case to militarise the islands. How do you think China will respond to Tillerson's testimony? Put more missiles on that islands for sure.
They have already responded;
What missiles are you referring to?Too tight, Paul. It is a big worry. The liberal party has serious form involving Australia is disastrous, unwinnable, illegal, murderous wars - think Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. There would be plenty in the party who would love to add The South China Sea War to that list and all so Exxon can get some oil leases. Even the looming China-US trade war will do serious damage to the Australian economy.
The world is just getting crazier every day. We are all living in the twilight zone now and not the normal world any more.
And Howard just about busted his gut, trying to get Australia (and the US) to hop over the border into Iran.
God yes. It is terrible to contemplate. They get drunk on the power. Suddenly they are masters of the universe. Lords or life and death. All very intoxicating.
The Tillerson/Chump logic is simple: if China's claims to the South China Sea can be likened to Putin's 'taking' of Crimea, and the international community agrees that China's claims are in order, then so are Russia's.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15720
Col. Wilkerson: All War Games Between China and US Lead to Nuclear Attacks
Keating may of been a neoclassical economic arse who instigated much of our present economic woes, but on this and on Australia electing an Abbott government, he is 100% correct.
Unfortunately for us, Australia has become an integeral part of the US's "Asia Pivot", specifically targeting China, and plans for more expansion of our involvement ....talks of a large US Marine Base in the NT just recently, and our purchase of ships and subs specificall to be used in the South China sea, that any move to change our foreign policy that jeopardized the "Asia Pivot" resources here and US military complex profits, would see US regime change here.
The Yanks should keep their interfering nose out of things, All they want to do is try to be the rulers of the world.
They have interfered in South America over the past 50 years and have made a mess of the Middle east with their foreign policies.
If this government backed them in a war with China then they could go fuck themselves as far as I am concerned.
Is this the reason abbott and this moron are spending around $100B on arms ?
I notice it is the old republican farts that keep talking war, too old to go fight and would hide if they were young enough.
No hope of anything being said by this reçalcitrant government, turdball,would not be able
To get a sentence together,he would be crapping himself at the same time as Trump is feeding him up and spitting him out!
But then you could send jbishop over there ,she could give him the death stare,but she wouldn't want to get too close,be might grab her pussy.
Feeding-chewing
Rex wouldn't even know who Paul Keating is.
Keating was addressing the Australian body politic, not the US. So, your point is?
Yeah, he's not very bright is he.
Drunk on power, the American bullies are barking and defame Diplomacy.
It wasn't Americans who invaded the Nine-Dash Line.
Funny why the US kept mum when its ally the ROC published the eleven-dash line, predecessor to the nine-dash line in 1947. The US also kept quiet when the ROC declared the Paracel and the Spratly island groups to be parts of Guangdong province after accepting the surrender of the Japanese forces there in 1945.
I think the drunk on power award goes to China for brutally crushing a peaceful Buddhist nation that has been resisting non violently for many decades, and still it's at it. How about a little bit of free Tibet from the drunken power hungry dragon raiding it's resources? No? Didn't think so, let's just put the yanks down because we see them more on news. Most of the British public seem oblivious to even be able to locate Tibet on a map anyway. Media spotlights terror. Not peaceful defiance. Something wrong there no?
I doubt that China will allow itself to be plundered and humiliated by a Western nation again like it had been over the past 200 years due to previous Western Imperialism and colonialism in the area beginning half a millenium ago, when China was then the wealthiest nation on Earth. Communist China tolerated the British Colony of Hong Kong, although it could have easily invaded after the 1970s when British power in the area was in decline. Considering the colony was imposed upon China as a result of the British instigated Opium Wars in the 1800s, then I doubt whether China, today, will tolerate the US sticking it's nose into China's affairs in the area near China again. The real imperial powers have been and still are the Western powers. When the US gives up Guam, Hawai, and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and their other bases around the world, and the British gives up their few remaining colonies a long way from Britain, then perhaps China might might be prepared to negotiate about it building on a few isolated rocks in the middle of the South China sea. It is the West that has a history of invading countries and doing their military shit all over the world, not China. China exerts influence close to China, but it has not had the tradition of military action all over the globe. If it starts now, it will be because it will have learnt it from the Western powers. Traditionally, China preferred to trade with countries, not invade them. You don't need some ignorant self-serving blowhard trying to bully people and provoke a war because they are too stupid to know any better, and lack the subtlety to act with proper diplomacy and negotiate. Ironically, the excuse used by these US hawkes is that it doesn't want China controlling the South China sea because of its importance for trade, but the only reason it is important for trade is because most of the trade traffic comes from countries trading with China, considering it is now the preminent economic power in the region. Utter stupidity.
"I doubt that China will allow itself to be plundered and humiliated by a Western nation again"
China is usually plundered and humiliated by its own people. Read a history of China and you will see more than a hundred revolutions, insurrections, rebellions. A few of the more recent ones:
Taiping Rebellion 1850
Boxer Rebellion 1899
Civil War 1850
Tiananmen Square Massacre 1989
Nobody buys your stupid argument.
Read up on the boxer rebellion?
That is all I will say to you as I am sick to death of being moderated for trying to get through your head!
Weak. Stop sucking up to the Chinese dictatorship
Better to suck up to a pussy grabber.
Weak, stop sucking up to the yanks which is just an industrial dictatorship!
if the yanks Gotta industrial dictatorship, what does that make China? Uh huuuh....exactly
Well said Keating; he makes sense as did Gough Whitlam in his book;
"Dangerous Allies".
Essential reading for all Australians if you want peace this century.
Well said - thanks. It is unfortunate that there so little debate here on this issue. Penny Wong for Labor at least took a step in a better direction some months ago, but her position didn't appear to gain much traction (that I'm aware of).
the writing has been on the wall for years and years re chinas takeover of these islands. why has the world waited this long? too much kow-towing tho china for too long. greed too, on the part of the west, to get at the chinese markets
another aspect...the world needs to not tolerate chinas oppressive attitude to taiwan, look at history...the chinese have no claim to taiwan. they shd get over it, leave it alone
Yeah, just like Britain has no claim to Gibraltar, and the Falkland Islands.
If it's good enough for Britain, it's good enough for China.
The actual people who live in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands want to be ruled by Britain (by overwhelming margins whenever they've been asked), whilst those in Taiwan don't want to be ruled by mainland China. It's rather a basic difference.
what about diego garcia? why did the brits and yanks feel the need to forcibly remove the natives?
I smell war.
This situation is similar to the lead up to World War I. Trump is the Kaiser, running around insulting everyone, all the great powers are itching for a fight if only because they haven't had one for some time now. As Freud said, World War I started because of boredom.
It's easy to start a war, but who is going to finish it?
Poor old Germany, having to invade Russia again.
At least Europe and the US will be on their side this time.
Not so sure anyone will be invading Russia, especially if Trump and Putin are pals.
There are three plausible scenarios:
1) The US, Russia and the UN attack Israel
2) China and the US face off in the South China sea
3) North Korea vs South Korea, Japan and US
Keep your hat on.
I don't think Russia will be involved.
I see Keating's point, but on the other hand I don't we should just stand by and watch China break the rules on international waters .
The two positions aren't mutually exclusive.
Tillerson's statement is the equivalent to Abbott's shirtfront comment.
It's counterproductive, the best that can come out of it is that China is still willing to talk to the USA, the worst is that China says, stuff you, and refuses to talk about the issue.
If the second happens what does Tillerson / Trump do?
Well they could follow through on their threat and potentially start World War III or they could back down and do nothing, giving the world the message that they are weak and unwilling to follow their words with actions.
So instead of trying to manoeuvre the Chinese into a position where a solution can be found, he has very simply manoeuvred the USA into a tight corner and how they get out it nobody knows.
What rules? Do you mean the rules which says the US is allowed to commit acts of amphibious invasion (Iraq 2003) of an independent nation, occupy such a nation and install a regime more to its liking?
Tillerson is an amateur that don't know what diplomacy is. With this kind of guy in charge of US foreign policy, Trump will surpass Bush Jr. as the worst president of the US, and probably the last one too before the nuclear winter fall upon us.
What has diplomacy achieved under Obama?
ISIS
North Korea
Crimea
Syria
I think you are dressing Obama in robes you borrow from his predecessor in the main.
North Korea and Crimea, no difference under McCain or Romney.
They may have put a no fly zone over Syria though, with possible war to follow, a la Iraq.
And that was such a huge success, huh.
bah humbug! your rant is so bitter and anti the west! china "learnt it from the western powers"!!! what nonsense! you mean china is now capable of doing it, so its doing it! it has nothing to do with learning it from the west! it does it because that is what humanity does!! men do it. tribes do it. countries do it. expand to take new lands! its a human thing, it has nothing to do with learning it from the west.!
I strongly suggest that you read a little 19th Century Chinese History.
For example, what would you make of a country which sent warships to yours so as to facilitate the sale of addictive drugs?
This happened in 1842 during the so called Opium Wars. British warships attacked the Chinese navy to enable British merchants to sell Opium grown specifically for the purpose in India, to the Chinese
Would you truly expect any country with the means would be happy to accept any kind of humiliation now with an historical experience like that?
I strongly suggest reading ...anything. I don't think our little British naval adventures warrent the Chinese to build artificial islands in international waters and build up a military that pays homage not to its citizens, but the communist party. Which is why they rolled tanks over their own citizens to crush a democratic gathering in 1989, and why they still as we speak are plundering Tibet and torturing them for as little as wanting a return of the oooohhh soooo baaaaad Dalai Lama. Or what about its own Chinese people, practising a bit of meditation for world peace? Inprisoned, and getting your organs harvested while you're still alive.
Goes for a lot of countries around the world - look at the US, a bloody good example of a system of government that has finally elected an idiot, a moron, someone who speaks from 'twitter' ! No one is saying that China is perfect, but then the UK isn't, the US isn't, look at the US prison system! Secret prisons around the world, look at other countries. What is wrong is governments! Do we need them?
my reply was meant for mancan18
What do the Chinese call their Monroe Doctrine?
Funny. That 's what the US recommended that Japan copy when president Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in power before WWII. Japan was chosen and fostered by the US as the supreme power that should dominate the region by the US. We know how that turned out.
Keating stopped short of suggesting that the USA needs a recession.
PJK would no doubt reply that the impact of you comment was like being flogged with a warm lettuce... which he actually said of course to one of your heroes, John Hewson back in the 90s.
And you should be grateful the former PM isn't here in person. Some of his comments directed at me in young labor meetings are not printable here or any other place...
Mr Fake news has arrived
Think he forgot to mention guaranteed PAYE tax cuts too.
On the other hand, the US did nuke one of her traditional allies in the region not that long ago, and more recently accidentally bombed The Great Barrier Reef.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/22/great-barrier-reef-bombing-war-games
It is clear that Australia, Indonesia, Brunei and Antarctica are at one end of the so-called "Asian pivot".
It is not clear which shareholders and arms manufacturers are at the other end.
Or perhaps Tillerson was referring back to the Vietnam war, when the US's key strategic regional Asian and UN ally and 'silent partner' was France.
Presumably, having already expelled a large number of Russian diplomats, the next logical step will be for the new administration to expel an even larger number of US diplomats.
"Very smart" will be the tweet.
or perhaps "not so smart"
depending which has the more advantageous effect on share prices.
Paul Keating is correct, However Trump & his team are entering global politics & I doubt the Chinese leadership will lose much sleep......Sure the media will have a field day, you would have to wonder what will happen to Wall St If they want all their investment,s back, China has survived 4000 years.. 4 years of hot air will not phase them...They have already started to take the lead on Climate Change & Trump is going in the opposite direction.....How that fits in with "make America Great again" is beyond my comprehension..........john
Alec Douglas Home then Prime Minister of the UK, asked Chinese Prime Minister Chou en-lai what he thought might be the lasting impact of the French Revolution on the world.
Chou turned to him and said, he thought it premature to make a final assessment on that. [For the war mongers here, the French Revolution took place in 1789.] Premier Chou was speaking in 1964.
Fundamentally the Chinese are governed by educated grown ups.
Currently the US is not.
For all our sakes we have to hope the Chinese can navigate their way thru' to safe waters, and I do not mean the South China seas.
Yes, the Chinese have been doing their thing for thousands of years now (with a brief hiatus under the onslaught of British - and then Japanese - imperialism). So they've got pretty good at it. I think that's the most strategic way to look at their society - communism was made to fit it rather than the other way around, as they've now demonstrated with their embrace of consumerism etc.
They've never had a democracy, and the way democracy is going under neoliberalism, I can't see any reason why they should consider becoming democratic.
I really don't understand why most Australians keep deluding themselves that we're living in a democracy - in spite of so much evidence to the contrary.
Bugger of Keating you globalist dinosaur.
I think I can say to you on PJK's behalf, though never so well, "bugger of[sic] you parochial nitwit"
Onya Pauline.
"Bugger of Keating" - who?
Keating is a 'former prime minister'. Why does he make statement on what AU should or shouldn't do? Very likely, he received a hefty speaking fee from communist China.
By the same logic, very likely, you also receive fees from the CIA for posting anti China comments on this forum.
If CIA pays people for posting anti China comments, they will go broke in one day. Have you ever asked yourself, why do people hate China so much? Here are a few hints for you: China oppress human rights, China puts false territorial claims, China steals technology, China destroys wildlife, climate, and exploits natural resources, and the big one...China is turning into a military bully.
Apply that to Howard and any other PM. Apply that to Abbott!! at least Keating weighs in with valid, serious, necessary comment!
Only a fool would be threatening war with another nuclear power.
But we are talking about someone appointed by Trump.
As for us, we are not obliged by any treaty with the US to do anything, except consult and act according to the constitutional processes of the country. Any Aussie Prime Minister worth his meat could stonewall the Americans until the cows came home or they came to their senses, whichever occurred first.
But we are talking about Malcolm.
Exactly! we are speaking about Turnbull and his stupid, incompetent government!
Any PM worth his salt would tell America to shove off but the Liberal Government under John Howard crawled to Blair and Bush, strutted the world stage like the little man he is, involving Australia in the infamous Iraq war! against the very vocal wishes of the Australian people. Trump is as mad as a cut snake, a dangerous fool. Will Australia now grow up and stand on its own two feet? A testing time! requires guts and intelligence. Perhaps we could have Keating back! We need a bit of leadership and style!
We have already been conducting freedom of navigation exercises, I guess this is from the Chinese accosting the geological survey people and taking their drone in international waters.
Well said smudge!
Howard lurks in the wings, that's what cowards do, and he is directing Turnbull, (and Abbott), at every turn.
We had the chance six months ago to " stand on our own two feet", but we dogged it. Apathetic, ignorant, and happily prepared to listen to lies, we allowed the Fascists to take over. Now, my good friend, we pay.
And sadly our children pay, and for that, we should be eternally ashamed.
We exchanged Keating for Howard.
That was the day we sold our souls to the devil!
Rex Tillerson needs to stop going for coffee and or a beer with John McCain. That old man has one ambition and that is foir the US to test it´s nuclear arsenal on the world. he needs to be put out of his misery. He is the biggest danger the US has ever faced.
You mean Trump and co?
So true. That little man cares nothing but wars, any wars, against anyone.
No war is a bad war for the little man McCain.
I am thinking the worse. Tillerson is as mad as a cut snake and we will be sending "Barbie" Bishop in the same room to put our case on his craziness.
Not good. Not good at all.
Oh I don't think that Tillerson is mad; he just knows what's good for (his) business.
You are still my favourite ex-PM Paul, but you can GFY if you think I am ever going to capitulate to the CPC.
But you're happy to "capitulate" to the U.S.A.?
What harm is China contemplating for Australia? No reply?
Go Trump yourself!!
We'll all be fine while you stand staunch.
No, but I much happier to be on their side than the CPC
What about the denial of natural resources to the weaker countries who are also claiming the land? Doesn't that matter, Paul?
Like the US taking control of Iraqs oil and trying to bully Iran into submission. Iran has done nothing but defend its own sovereignty.
US expansionism over the past hundred years dwarfs anything China has done or is likely to do in the future.
Exactly. The Anglo-US invasion of France in 1944 was an international disgrace and infringed the sovereignty of Nazi-Germany. Likewise the US invasion of the territories of Imperial Japan was another war-crime. To say nothing of US aggression in preventing the Chinese from over-running Korea in the early 1950's. Yawn.
What "natural resources"? What "weaker countries"? What "land" for chrissake?
These islands were built by the Chinese out of bugger all!
That "All the way with LBJ" BS is indefensible and you and the rest of the Howard/Abbott/Turnbull/Bishop admiration society know it.
How many more Aussie kids have to give their lives for the advancement of American financial interests does it take for you people to wake up.
We're being used, again, by these warmongers.
Or doesn't that matter!
Loudmouth RWNJ Rex Tillerson will soon learn if you provoke the dragon he must accept the consequences.
Actually I can't see it's America that is doing the provoking here.
China's islands, USA's walls.
Islands belong mainly to the weakest SE Asian nation, the Philippines.
Well said Paul Keating. This is why I voted for Labor all those years ago. it is a pity we don't have a PM here like you now. Thanks.
I agree. Having given up on the Greens, I'm back to voting Labor first.
But I want to be able to vote for vision and intelligence - and wit! I can see some of it Labor today - particularly in several of its women. But I'm afraid that it'll never be my Labor Party again, without Whitlam, Cairns or Keating. Come on Labor MPs! Please prove me wrong.
The horrifying fact is that Trumpet and his team of 'Colonel Potter' Army leaders could so quickly lead young Australians into a devastating war with China. That would decimate our economy as well as our population. Extreme Right politics have consequences.
Nope, if they want to have a go at this people should first decline to buy Chinese goods etc...besides, we don't even have a dog in this fight really.
I am far more interested in making a decent living, seeing my children grow up and being around for events they deem important in their lives than supporting right wing politicians hell bent on starting a global war.
As a keen environmentalist, I figure a nuclear winter would be quite damaging to the planet, certainly far more than China creating some bloody islands.
If the SCS is Crimea, is the US going to impose sanctions? I thought Exxon would want the Russian sanctions lifted, not more sanctions. Tillerson always argued against sanctions.
Stupid comparison anyway. Let me know when the Chinese on those islands accidentally shoot down a Malaysian aircraft.
Not saying the Chinese are right, but Vietnam, Phillipines et al could have built their own bases. It wasn't a shooting match featuring mobile artillery and a suspicious number of Russian "volunteers".
Christ, these clowns can't think straight at all.
This isn't America's or Australia's problem, this belongs to Japan, Vietnam and a few others. Although China should respect international rule of law.
True.
In the way that the US does? Get real!
Apparently 2/3 of the world trade passes through this area...there would be no problem if it didn't, why not manufacture in our own countries? surely these greedy multinationals and their shareholders have made enough money.
Exactly! And they have avoided taxes like the plague they are.
and what do you do about it, what do we do about? the only response is in a small way for everybody to try and become self-sufficient and avoid the $2 shops.
There's a truism in the 'Fair Trade' community, 'shop local, think global'.
Just about every 'transaction' that I do is applied here, with Electricity I buy thru a company that has 'green and wind-power certification' called Powershop, as my capacity to be self-sufficient has been severely limited, and hated the marketing rubbish that Origin Energy wanted me to believe; I very rarely shop at supermarkets and have nearly removed any and all reliance there except for things like vinegar, bicarb soda, domestic laundry supplies are purchased via an Australian manufacturer from SA called Dominant; my toilet paper is purchased from a company here in Melbourne called 'Who gives a crap' with 50% of profits directed to third world nations to build toilets and provide clean water - have the diseases of poverty come from the lack of clean water.
There are many 'artisan' providers these days if you take the time to ask and follow the money trail......
what China has done and is doing in the South China Sea is unlawful and, by my standards, immoral. It isn't made "right" by pointing to similar conduct, present or historical, engaged in by other superpowers. However, PJK is no fool. Sometimes the only practical & available response to the conduct of others is to simply "bend over and take it up the proverbial ...". I think PJK is saying that self-preservation demands such a response in this instance.
Just like Chamberlain advised with his famous "Peace in Our Time" negotiation?
Will we march in the streets in protest as we did when Howard took us to war?Will the government listen to us? I will be surprised if we come out in numbers, as we appear to be too busy consuming. With the way the political class is behaving, people are becoming disengaged. Most just don't want to know. We need help!
Marching against Howard made absolutely no difference.
The arrogant little man continued with his policy of sucking up to the Americans and completely ignored his public... as he did with Tampa and the 'children overboard' fiasco.
Australia should have an independent foreign policy and it should have happened long ago!
As far as the South China sea is concerned Despite the NYT's claims that the case was "brought by the Philippines," it was in fact headed by an American lawyer, Paul S. Reichler, of US-based law firm, Foley Hoag. Just like the court case itself, the apparent conflict in the South China Sea may be portrayed as being between China and its neighbors, but it is in reality a conflict cultivated by the US explicitly as a means of maintaining "primacy in Asia."
Trade moves freely in this area! I wonder how the United States would feel if China ran gun boats up and down their coast! Keating's comment is spot on “Tillerson’s claim that China’s control of access to the waters would be a threat to ‘the entire global economy’ is simply ludicrous. No country would be more badly affected than China if it moved to impede navigation."
Er, no. There's a UN convention on the law of the sea, of which China is massively in breach. Keating's claim is correct in a rational sense but then China is not a democracy. The leadership is now dictatorial and the economy is slowing down. They need a diversion to distract the masses and their glorious expansion into the SCS fits the bill. Where next? Liberate Singapore from Malay oppression?
# The "international tribunal" ruling regarding China's claims in the South China Sea was more than just anticlimactic - it was indicative of the United States' waning influence as well as the waning legitimacy of the many international institutions it has used, abused, and thus undermined for decades.
#A key summit between Asian and European leaders at the time in Mongolia ended without direct mention of the South China Sea dispute in its closing statement, with diplomats describing intense discord over the issue between Europe and Asia. The European Union issued a statement noting China's legal defeat but avoided direct reference to Beijing, reflecting discord among EU governments over how strongly to respond to the court ruling. One must wonder then, just how "international" a tribunal is, whose ruling is not recognised internationally.
# International Tribunal Serves US, Not Philippine Interests . Even in the Philippines, whose name the case was brought to the tribunal in, reactions were muted, with the newly elected president, Rodrigo Duterte, calling for calm in the aftermath of the ruling.
# The Philippines' leading trade partner is China, with 26% of its exports and 19% of its imports accounted for amid the two nations' economic ties. The United States on the other hand, accounts for only 12% of the Philippines exports, and 9% of all imports. It is upon Asia, by far, that the Philippines economy depends - an Asia enjoying peace and stability. And it is this peace and stability that is directly threatened by America's openly declared plan to militarise the region and confront China.
# Your talk of democracy in the light of sovereign busting free trade agreements imposed by corporate America is a bit rich and America embrace dictatorships when it suits their interests!
# The word 'massively in breach' would you use that term talking about the excesses in the West, Have a look at the colonial history of the Phillipines under the United States!
'the waning legitimacy of the many international institutions it has used, abused, and thus undermined for decades. ' Starting with the UN, presumably.
'One must wonder then, just how "international" a tribunal is, whose ruling is not recognised internationally.' On the other hand, those parties not directly involved may have seen no benefit in sticking their noses into other peoples' business.
'International Tribunal Serves US, Not Philippine Interests . ' Have you any idea what you are talking about. The hearing was before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Holland. Not in a Tribunal of your imagining.
'And it is this peace and stability that is directly threatened by America's openly declared plan to militarise the region and confront China.' That's right, the US has just militarised the South China Sea by fortifying islands stolen from littoral nations. Or is there a parallel universe?
'Your talk of democracy in the light of sovereign busting free trade agreements imposed by corporate America is a bit rich...' Well I wasn't talking about US democracy but making the point that China is not a democracy. In fact under the enlightened rule China has reverted to a dictatorship.
'The word 'massively in breach' would you use that term talking about the excesses in the West, Have a look at the colonial history of the Phillipines under the United States!'
The first question I've ever been asked that ends in an exclamation mark. ESL? Or just hopelessly confused? The fact that you can seamlessly jump from the ICJ to an implied critique of colonialism suggests the latter.
And I thought China and Russia were friends, because we all know Tillerson and Trump speak for Putin.
I think Trump was inevitable. The USA loved and revered Ronald Reagan, for instance, who was really just a puppet, an amiable simpleton who was selected by the Republicans because he could recite their scripts. And because Hollywood led the country to believe in happy endings, that the presidency is some holy office that turns water into wine (that's what happens in the movies) they think Trump will 'come good'.
But he won't. He is already a nightmare.
Well stated carnbeyleavitt. Amerika is a lost cause. Australia must distance itself from their self defeating policies and get on with living closely with our neighbours. That will be challenge enough without getting involved with American gangster adventurism.
Somebody (Keating) please tell Tillerson to pull his horns in and focus on his own backyard. It is time the US stopped interfering and causing trouble around the world.
We should be far more worried about the USA than Russia or China. That's where the problem is, and has been for a long time.
One can only hope it's all bluff. A trade war is against Australia's interests, a conventional war is against Australia's interests and a nuclear war...
The way things are trending, we need some real leadership in this country, and there will be an election sooner rather than later!
It would be great to see Keating step up into leadership role of the opposition in an interim role until a real viable party leader can be identified, as Shorten just does not cut the mustard, he has too much baggage from his union days, he's a great back room operator but that's about it.
Australia might have trouble adjusting to leadership...
We haven't seen any for several years and it isn't looking good at the moment either.
Yep, Australia has become the most juvenille of delinquents!
If Paul Keating wrote that the sun came up this morning there would be dozens of people that would comment arguing the opposite and blaming him for trying to cause natural disasters by making such claims.
It just goes to show that when it comes to the former PM some will ignore the message and attack the messenger instead. Hate and a lack of argument will always result in that. Remember that next time you read personal attacks that ignore the argument put by anyone.
The reason this is so is because haters have no brain capacity to argue civilly and no intellect sufficient to form a cohesive argument on any subject. It is a waste of time debating with them; like trying to convince a rock to move. You'd probably get more sense out of a rock
Good comment! I totally agree with your comment!
China spent billions in building these real estates in the SCS & come this cowboy trying to kick them out & bar them from the islands. If the US is prepared to sacrifice limps & blood then go ahead & not just say words during job interviews.
Problem is China stole the reefs on which they built the islands from other countries. What will they steal next? Who is going to stop them?
Chinese military strategy is protection of the homeland. The Chinese military, as a whole, simply doesn't have the means to project and sustain military power. The militiarisation of the reef islands is simply a demonstration to the US and others that Chin considers the US to be "too close" and that they should back off.
Initially the Chinese explained that the reef islands had no military purpose and their function was to improve navigation and to provide humanitarian assistance. Xi even said this to Obama. Some of us never believed the Chinese. Who will believe them now and why?
Well said Paul Keating.
Very clear leadership being shown in contrast to the Liberals attempting to walk both sides of the street.
Agree with a reader earlier that Shorten does not cut the mustard and that Keating should step up for another election likely to be held this year.
Keating is a creep & always has been, a total failure as PM after knifing Hawke, the second best PM after Whitlam.
Keating should just concentrate on keeping all his clocks on time & ensure that his calandar is up to date, this is 2017 not 1987, times up Paul.
I beg to differ. Keating was as good a PM as has governed in my lifetime, including Gough.
I agree. Some should stop inspecting their innards
Obama should take a lot of the blame for this state of affairs. As soon as China started building their naval bases on this multi trillion dollar trade route the US navy should have surrounded the first "island" and faced the Chinese military off. Much harder now the rock has built this momentum to stop it. Put another way, China stands to lose a huge amount of face if they back down at this point.
The likes of Keating should watch out as they mouth their support for China. They may come to be seen as some sort of enemy to Australia's long term interests of staying free from the control of such an anti-democratic power. As I've oft said in the past including to one former mate: "If China has such a great political system why don't you go and live there?"
Perhaps you should thank Obama for his level of diplomacy and for ensuring that we are not already at war in the region? This is not a commentary on China's 'political system'. Keating is identifying the real dangers of provoking hostile and sensitive military might, that exists at our very door step. This is not the 50's. The world cannot afford a superpower battle. It's alarming when any nation imposes their presence on a region that is questionably theirs. But Tillerson's provocative and reckless comments endanger many, including you.
1.3 billion survive there.
Australia's political system of recent years is hardly anything to aspire to.
The difference between China and AUS is that in China you can't blame the people for whatever the government does as they have no say. Contrast this with Australia where the people, ie. the voter have their say but most of the time elect some dud government.
In China, there is group of people that do very well and that is the same in AUS.
In both countries, many people just get by and there is no difference despite differing political system.
As for going to live there, many westerners work there. As for general migration, it is place where it would be a squeeze as the place is already chock-a- block with people.
As for political system generally, the US just elected a lunatic as president.
The Chinese leadership appears sane by comparison.
To rattis I would say that passivity in the face of expanding tyranny has never been a solution to world peace in the past. Indeed the longer such situations go unchecked the more likely that radical solutions must be deployed to maintain a balance. It's horrible but it's an unfortunate reality.
To Waeki - the fact that the Chinese people have no say in their government is true. But whether this is an alloyed good is another matter. As one young Chinese chap I was tutoring in English said: "In China the government is strong and the ordinary people weak. In Australia it is the reverse. As an ordinary person I prefer the Australian way as the best way to get ahead for people like me." In terms of whether the US have elected a lunatic as a president, let's wait and see.
It's beginning to look very much like we are in a Manchurian Candidate situation here. That Trump and/or his entourage have been groomed by the Russians for several years, and he is an FSB plant, set to wreck the USA and probably China too (by encouraging physical war and/or trade wars between them) and destabilising Europe. Thus giving the good old Ruskies the title of major superpower after all.....
Too late Paul...oztraylia is part of the US now...permanently...
Keating' views are valid. Tillerson is the penultimate mining magnate - he knows that his source of wealth (oil) is consumed exponentially during wartime. Wars are the ultimate source of gargantuan fossil fuel consumption from the hyper-manufacture of weapons to the destruction of infrastructure and cities, thence on to crony capitalism"s contractor led reconstruction - a surreal madness that psychopaths like Tillerson take to be normal practice.
Australia has no capable, active political leadership (retired politicians can talk but they can't act) so don't expect the wimps in this parliament to do anything other than grovel to the alliance.
2017 is going to be a year of political diversions, of attacks on the weak and marginalised, of sowing division and disunity amongst the TV viewing masses. Substantive issues like transforming foreign policy, clean energy transition, rebuilding public administration expertise, indigenous health and rights etc - these won't be touched unless as knee jerk responses to crises as they arise.
Turnbull is out of his depth and has given up.
During the last 60 year whenever AUS joined the US in one of its military adventures that undertaking ended in failure.
Think of Vietnam, Iraq under Howard, and Afghanistan The present involvement regarding ISIS seems to be dragging on as well. The middle east is a mess and quagmire, why get involved in that region. What benefit will accrue to AUS through this involvement? I can't see any.
ISIS is a creation that arose in the aftermath of the Iraq. One of the unforeseen consequences of blundering into this region that became a bomb waiting to off since the Syces-Picot agreement and the division of Palestine.
AUS should focus on the region where we are and that region has its own issues. No need to look elsewhere for involvement.
Well said!
What about the last 75 years?
Come back PJK - all is forgiven. It's certainly about time that Australia owned its sovereignty and told the USA to "go jump". We are not at war with China, nor should we be. It's utter madness to even contemplate it. The USA has been pushing China with Obama's "pivot to Asia", got a reaction and now the USA is saying that "we" should do something about it?
Thankfully, there's an elder statesman around to tell the current bunch of brain-dead misfits what to do.
On most issues he was best PM/Treasurer we've had. Arguably the only one who ever understood national and international economics as well or better than Treasury thus giving him ability to argue with them from an educated base. Bob Hawke was a good show pony but Keating was always the intelligence behind the operation. By comparison our 2017 kindergarten level leadership could take permanent residence in Cayman Islands and maybe get issued free dummies to suck on.
Tillerson's $500b Exxon - Rosneft oil exploration deal has all the Trumpian propagandists cosying up to Russia, and now they are openly provoking China.
What a bunch of imbeciles...
The crap going on with China is ALL about the oil mate. The geologists predict the disputed area to be the LAST great oil basin left on the planet!
Yep, it is a huge reserve and there would be zero tension with China if Exxon had an offshore exploration deal with China National Offshore Oil Corporation
Wrong. The Chinese are trying to build an exclusive strategic buffer zone within the First Island Chain that removes the USN from their coast-line. Occupation of Taiwan would be a critical part of this exercise.
WW3 here we come...
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/malcolm-fraser-warns-australia-risks-war-with-china-unless-us-military-ties-cut-back-20140425-zqz8p.html
..........................................
Past history of our 'glorious allies ' seeing us as collateral damage while our countrymen bled and died on foreign soils to save their arses.
http://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html
The Rainbow-5 war plan involved abandoning everything west of Hawaii to the Japanese if they were capable of seizing the Philippines, Australia, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies.
--------------------------------
Tried to find a suitable link but couldn't about how after war in the Pacific the USA was reluctant to "hand back" Australian islands that the had resources on during war. I read it many years ago in a history text book and I still think about that when the USA talks about China trying to assert occupation rights- Justifiable on your own side of the fence- but not for those on the other side it would seem.
Thanks for the reminder. We are finally spared a lecture from Malcolm Fraser whenever something that offends his highly refined moral sensibilities hits the headlines.
At least there is one Liberal with "highly refined moral sensibilities" - quite rare otherwise.
Not really. It's just that there are different moralities. It's a cultural thing too, and there are those who don't assume moral superiority, as Fraser did with monotonous frequency. He must have learned the trick from Whitlam.
Seems like we are heading to Version2 of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Very few people know that the World nearly ended then by ACCIDENT. A Soviet sub was accidentally damaged with depth charges by US Navy practicing for the real thing. Two Soviet Commanders voted to launch the nuclear missiles. Thank God the third said no. The Soviet sub surfaced and US and Soviet navies realized it was a serious accident.
Yes the up and coming Super Power China is acting like a gorilla. Did US not teach China how to misbehave as a Super Power? In 1823 US declared the Monroe doctrine and asked all European powers to get lost from the Americas.
US and China had worked together post- Vietnam. In Jan 1979 the China leader Deng Xiao Ping asked President Carter for his blessing and support for China to attack Vietnam and it was given. US and China were then together supporting Pol Pot against Vietnam. China attacked Vietnam in Feb 1979.
US President Nixon, advised by Henry Kissinger, saw China as a balancing power that could mitigate the threat from the Soviet Union. As an incentive, China was rewarded with access to the Western trading system and prospered as a result. Alas, the perfidious Chinese now see their power and wealth as justifying the eviction of their US benefactor from Asia, and their mercantilist policies have become damaging to the US economy. China also promotes the overtly racist line of Asia for the Asians, and seeks to expel the not very Asian Americans from Asia. Australians and New Zealanders of non-Asian background view these ideas with concern.
I don't remember the Cuban Missile crisis as I was only five at the time. My eldest sister was thirteen. We were living in England at the time and remembering this I asked her the other night if she recalled the crisis at the time. I was surprised to hear for the first time how panicked she was on one particular day, obvviously when the situation came to a head on the day you mentioned.
Imagine that. In 1961 a thirteen year old girl is petrified about the near-occurrence of a full-blown nuclear exchange. Teenagers were aware back then obviously. Chris did not want to go to Grammar School that day and pleaded with our Mum to stay home. She went anyway and at school they practiced nuclear attack drills.
I don't think in our collective complacency that we realise sometimes that this could easily happen again, particularly with that childish, sociopath US President-elect, "the man who would be king" Putin and an expansionist China.
The lines of Dylan's "Masters of War" keep cropping up in my thoughts and "Talking World War Three Blues".
They may me feel sick, these war-lords, large and small, selfish and petty.
Sorry!, Julie Bishop is at the Polo.
No, she cancelled when she knew she had been sprung. Her staff cancelled her "appearance" by contacting the organisers last night.
Did she get Sussan to fly her there.
America will never go to war with China because China fails the very first thing on the American check list.
1) Can they fight back ?
Russia....Certain death ,try elsewhere
Iran........Ooooohh no thanks
North Korea...Pffh Tried that once & got stuck with a million MASH repeats
China ????
If China lost 100 million that would still leave 1.26 billion ,Nuclear armed & an active force of 2,300,000 you can forget that fight
How tough Nicaragua these days ?
It's quite sickening to see mega rich draft dodgers talking war when some else has to do the dying.
China also holds a lot of US dollars!
Fortunately MASH repeats never get old.
Well...sniff, sniff, its not likely to be Colombia....Donald seems strangely enamoured of that little country.
When you have a 'friend' like the USA you don't need enemies! The Turnbull govt will kowtow its way to the US because it is a stooge for them. Always has been. Similarly the Labor governments except for short periods of our history. We can dump the US Alliance and save ourselves trillions of dollars and lives destroyed in illegal wars against everyone around the world! Grow Up Australia!
Just six days and the buffoon is inaugurated. Fours years of utter chaos. Government run by billionaires.
Yes Government by the rich for the rich..
Forget about paying Taxes...
objective of most billionaires, is to make more money and the only way to do so is to make it go arund Faster and more Often, which in principle gets money into the hands of the general public????? to create their increasing wealth " BEGGARS ARE NO CHOOSERS "
I think you are being optimistic... four years is extremely unlikely.
The Presidency of the Mango Madman will more likely be lived out on a day to day basis, with examples of his extreme stupidity surfacing every 24 hours.
But... but... but... Trump doesn't like wars. But... but... but... Trump is a peace-loving guy. LOL can't wait to see more shit hit the fan thanks to the Orange Buffoon.
That's "orange Meringue a tan"
Unfair on orangutans - they are beautiful creatures. And quite sane.
... and they have bigger hands...
hmmm
Paul K for PM again-- he is similar age to Trump
why not Paul - have a go
My name is Trump, Donald J,
My thumbs like to tweet, okay?!
Pink in cheek
My hair, so sleek!
My China policy
is unique!
Still love him. Even with all his faults and mistakes (which we may not all agree on anyway) he's so much more intelligent and cogent than any 'leader' we have today.
I know nostalgia is a futile emotion. But oh dear. Look far we've fallen . . .
What faults? What mistakes?
Agreed, replacing Keating with little johnny howard was a step back to the McMahon era.
It is said that history repeats itself --- are the island being created by Chine just the great southern Wall of Chine being build to keep out the Western Mongols who are bent on incessant war to dominate trade and prosecute their brand of Capitalism? Which of course is another farce when one considers the claim that it is a Christian country whose inspiring Leader abhorred usury.
Not to mention Nixon's default on the gold standard in 1971 to prevent the country going bankrupt during a war, Vietnam.
I agree with myself most emphatically. I have never met an intelligent bully in all of my 76 years on this Planet that is tired of the human nonsense that is perpetrated upon it in the name of the very one who supposedly created it.
When do we as a species behave as if there is a better future for our descendants.
Why were these bases built ? for the same rason they were forced to build up their military forces and build war ships, because of The US propoganda machine and their stupid aggression in regards to China, this stiring up world wide to keep their US god happy , the US dollar.
The difference between Trump and the others is that he is nobody's mouthpiece but his own. Ordinarily that would be admirable - Bernie
Sanders, for instance - but Trump is a megalomaniac with no moral compass
Nostrodamius predicted that the Bear (Russia) and the Eagle (US ) would join forces to kill the Dragon (China ) and he also prodicted that they would loose not in the short term but completely in the long term all of the east.
Who knows it might happen and we should keep out of it as the US is the rouge state and China our biggest trading partner.
I don't know about the US being the rouge state, but it certainly has the rouge leader.
And a very nasty colour of rouge at that.
Thank you Mr Keating for still speaking for the True Believers.
Every day we are drawing closer to the most frightening collective of cowboys who have so much power they are taken seriously.
Australia can't be led like sheep to the slaughter any more. We all need to stand up and say NO MORE!!
Come back Paul - we need you!
Sure do, 17% interest rates would solve the housing crises.
it sure would...greedy investors would have to sell at a lower price so the genuine people will then be able to afford a house
At 17% interest rates, pensioners and other savers would be dancing in the streets and international investors would be throwing their money at Australia. I'd say the true value of money at this point at time is 6-7% instead of the nonsensical interest rates of 1-3% or even negative interest rates........
With Trump's ascendancy to the top job and his appointment of right wing nutters to his top posts, I guess we can now say that US democracy has officially been incorporated and commercialized. As Putin and Trump have shown, principles and values are simply ignored in the pursuit of wealth. Now all that remains is a war that US corporations can benefit from and so that they can also sacrifice poor, uneducated, black and Hispanic youth of America to protect the beautiful country for the rich. Keating is right, the US has different values than Australia and we should not be drawn into another war with this mob. We have paid enough for the Coral Sea Battle.
Thank you Brad 100% spot on.With loony right politicians here at home in government ,we will always be at risk of becoming drawn into American instigated hostilities.We should never be allowed to forget the Menzies Gov. inviting Australia with National Servicemen to join in a diabolical disgusting invasion of Vietnam.This was done as Menzies feared his reign as PM could be under threat at the Polls.Exactly the same reason Howard committed our Troops to join in another outrageous invasion of Iraq.Again Howard was getting the jitters as to his hold on his Prime ministership.I despair as to what could become of us.
American foreign policy in the space of a week: Taking territory that isn't yours a sin when it's China but the right of Israel to keep building settlements is sacrosanct ?
Thought the same thing myself! The hypocrisy is gob-smacking.
Thanks Jackie. It needed to be said.
If I were Mr. Xi I would send a check of a few billion bucks to a Mr. Trump offshore account. Then we would have a peaceful four years.
Every country is paying protection fee, why not China?
The voice of reason. Scarce as hen's teeth these days. Seems Mr Tillerson does not mind an increase in damaged war veterans. He ever 'shouldered' arms? By the way, how did that Exxon Valdez clean-up progress?
Let me assure you, in case you've missed the message, The Howards and the Bush's and the Abbotts, Trumps, and Turnbulls of the world don't "shoulder arms" That's for the mugs.
They simply follow the dictates of the weapons and arms manufacturers.
"Let's send the kids off to war! Just not our kids!".
The race is on to develop gene-specific Ebola virus that only affects Chinese !
Come on Paul you are kidding aren't you???
We both know that Australia is the bootstrap of the US and that we go into every war the US gets involved in no matter which side of politics is in power. That is the price of protection.......which will likely be forgotten if/when the Chinese become hostile to us.
Time to spend more time with the clocks Paul. Your claim is cuckoo.
Is the same Keating who ended a housing boom by forcing up interest rates to over 17%? Who sidled up to Suharto sending millions of Aus tax payers $ to a corrupt Indonesian government and on losing a election sold his pig farm to Indo at a multiple of its value?
Why does any paper give this guy any credibility? I and I expect many others never will.
Better PM than John Howard or Julia Gillard who were shit PMs and prolifigate wasters of the taxpayer dollar.......
Not to mention John Howard as a war criminal . . .
and traitor. not at all in Australia's interests what he did. His own ambition was all he served,
China's arrogance must be stopped. They have already been told by the UN that they have no valid territorial rights. If Trump can do one thing then this should be it! It is China looking for a fight not the US. And furthermore Australia should be with the US & not be a sycophant to China just for $!
But Australia has been told by the U.N. that it is in breach of the Human Rights Act, the Children's Protection Act, and several other breaches connected with the illegal detention and cruel punishment of innocent people seeking sanctuary.
No comment Eric?
Yes, yes, the UN. They convicted the Chinese like a neegar.
It was the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) which ruled that China's claims to the waters or resources in the South China Sea has no legal basis, not China's claims to the islands/reefs. The PCA is only an intergovernmental organisation and has nothing to do with the UN. Don't BS if you don't know anything about the territorial disputes in the SCS.
It wasn't China that had sent aircraft carriers, destroyers, bombers, surveillance planes etc to the Gulf of Mexico to challenge the US. Who is actually looking for a fight?
What is left silent by this oil and gas man is that he is waving a red flag for the U.S. like it did with the Middle East to intervene on the possibilty of oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea. You can fool someone all the time or all people some of the time but not all people all the time. Who are the Yanks fooling? The U.S. is less than 250 years old and in that short time it has expanded beyond its original 13 colonies to world wide supremacy and global hegemony with its power hungry Illuminati oligarchs. It presumes to know what a 5000+ year old living antiquity of the Chinese people and civilisation know what is rightfully theirs in terms of its ancient demesne! Has the Chinese people ever in its history incite wars to conquer other nations and people? The Chinese people have instead been conquered by the Mongols and the Manchus and more recently humiliated by the White Colonial Powers forcing the Chinese to trade in return for payment by opium in the Opium Wars. I do not think the Chinese people will put up with this bullying nonsense ever again or allow its dignity to be humiliated a second time.
HEAR HEAR. It is extraordinary that we make a convenience of the history that suits us. So correctly said the Mongols tried to force trade, hence the Great Wall of China, as did the English, hence the Boxer Rebellion. Now we have the USA and the Great southern wall of islands.Not of course to mention the Japanese who are now allies with the USA despite the reality of Pearl Harbour and that short lived "will go down in infamy" quote.
Your right...they will just work behind the scenes...tightening the thumb screws...
You know people outside China have a sense of humour too and we see that you tried to make a joke there!
Did you forget about Burmah (1765-69)?
India (1962)?
Or Vietnam (1st century AD, 600s, 1400s and again 1979)?
Had you forgotten about Tibet too? Or Korea?
Yeah, China has just never invaded anyone ever! It's just that you got your backsides kicked out of the subject country by the native population.
Thanks for the laugh, Mr Comedian.
In July 2016, an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ruled against China's maritime claims in Philippines v. China.
I wouldn't call it an arbitration hearing when only one side partipates.
That's only because the Chinese were too arrogant to attend and pre-emptively announced that they would ignore the findings. Which of course tells us all we need to know about China's attitude to the rule of law and possibly of our own tenure on this continent, come to think about it.
China ratified the UNCLOS with certain provisos, one of which was that the UNCLOS couldn't be used to settle territorial disputes. No big power has ever complied with international legal verdicts and China is no exception. The UN commission on the limits of continental shelf has recently ruled that the Falkland Islands lie within Argentina's territorial waters. The Brits just ignored the verdict.
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm
http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/of-course-china-like-all-great-powers-will-ignore-an-international-legal-verdict/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/29/falkland-islands-argentina-waters-rules-un-commission
Rex Tillerson is a loose canon who cannot be serious about what he says.
Agreed and Keating is correct on the risks associated with sort of speech. The USA have a strong and urgent outlook against other nations when there's risk to their economy. Iraq was all about Kuwait and oil supply. Bin Laden was also a threat on oil supply.
Hmm North Korea don't seem to matter as they don't have anything the USA wants = no action needed. They do however, want the comfort of knowing North Korea wont attack them first.
Perhaps it's time for people to finally choose either China or the US and stop trying to ally with both.
alliance with neither of the two. EU is the one Canada and Australia should ally to.
Then you might want to cut ties with the UK due to Brexit
Lots of countries have opted for neutrality.....
PJK Aussie icon. JWH war criminal, AJA failed PM. MBT failed leader much like the B part in his name
Ad hominem irrelevance. Refute what he said.
Keating's views seem to be out of place. The enduring alliance with the US remains Australia’s most important defence relationship; that is the basic given that should not be altered. However, Australia and the US now have strong opportunities to engage with China and other regional partners to work through this uncertainty and strengthen areas of cooperation. That should be the way forward rather than what we have seen in the last few days (veiled sabre rattling and silly loose talk).
That's nothing but a fairy-tale! If you expect the US and Australia to normalize relations with China then it stands to reason that you would also expect the two nations to normalize ties with Russia, Iran and Syria. I doubt very much that's likely to happen. Iran, not China, is Congress's next military intervention. The last 15 years of military build up throughout the Middle East has suggested such an occurrence. If you think continuing Australia's military alliance with the US is a good thing then your critically mistaken.
" Iran, not China, is Congress's next military intervention."
I've got a U.S. armored brigade moving into Poland that suggests you're wrong.....
“If you think continuing Australia's military alliance with the US is a good thing then your critically mistaken”.
That’s your opinion only. I suggest that the vast majority of Aust. voters would want to continue with the US defense Alliance! I’m not sure if Guardian commenters would agree, but if not, I don’t think that matters much.
Bargaining with China doesn't have to imply military action or even threats of it. That’s very negative thinking by you. The US’s great strengths now are in economic bargaining chips rather than relative military power. What they can do economically remains to be seen, but will unfold “diplomatically” in coming months.
Remembering Bob Brown, an independent voice in a cowed country.
During World War 2 , America had a very wise Admiral appointed by Roosevelt in charge of America's Pacific Fleet operations. His name ; Admiral Chester Nimitze.
3 questions pinned above his desk the proper of any proposal was expected to answer -
1
Is the proposal likely to succeed?.
2
What might be the consequences of failure?
3
Is it in the realm of practical availability of material and supplies?.
I'm yet to be convinced what Tillerson and Trump are saying about China and the South China Sea would have Admiral Chester Nimitze's approval.
Since WW2 America has been involved in many conflicts all in the name of world peace and its God the US Dollar, the dollar won by the way, but how many have of these conflicts has they been defeated and compromised but never coincided defeat.
N/Korea Vietnam South America Philippines. And as far as reliability unless they can make money first they back away. WW1 started 1914 Americas help 1917. WW2 1939 till 1945 America 1942, No they sell first then procrastinate as they have with N/Korea .Why by hanging off they can arm all the surrounding countries Japan Taiwan S/Korea Philippines and any one that falls into the trap, but the God has to approve first and he says How much money can we make , And its money that is pushing Trump against China, nothing else, what I am waiting to see is what will happen to all the US firms there because of this extra cash they can make.
'The dollar won.'
In Korea?
In Vietnam?
In Nicaragua?
In El Salvador?
In Iraq?
In Afghanistan?
In Libya?
Etc.
Fair comment. Once it starts, where does it stop? If the US does blockade the Chinese land-grab in the SCS, the Chinese might seize the moment to shower Taiwan with missiles, and so on.
The USA has nothing economically, politically or socially that we want to replicate here. Of course I could say the same for China but at least they buy stuff from us. China has as much right to the spratly islands as the US has to Hawaii
Ticks all round. But please don't forget Guantanamo Bay. Dave Diss, 14/1/2017
China is clearly in the wrong here. It is annexing sea and building land far outside its legitimate territorial claims. We should help China to take back the rebel Taiwan on condition that it doesn't extend its territorial boundaries any further.
Mutual exclusive propositions, sport.
The rule is one land two states. The people of Taiwan have self determination.
And helping the PRC be agressively imperialist is not going to stop them being agressively imperialist.
People are sooooo naive to be falling for all this nonsense. Tillerson, Mattis, Pompeo, and whoever else will be dealing with foreign policy have been grilled to the teeth this week to satisfy the neo-cons, warhawks and haters of Russia, Iran and China. Tell me how these nominees could answer any differently with the hostile questions being thrown at them from both sides. Honestly, use YOUR critical thinking skills.
And Keating has not really added anything. It is a bit of a 'State the bleedin obvious' comment.
Sometimes a jog to the old memor is good.
Trump says he will review sanctions if Russia '... is helpful.'
I read that as code for '...hands over the originals.'
He said he'd keep them for the time being.....with all the neo-cons and warmongers around him I don't think he has a choice.
By the way, just to cheer you all up. Of course ultimately few of us will have any say in what goes down. Guess that's democracy. Sigh! Although can't see how Keating's grovellings to China are going to help.
Anyway. On with the fiddling!
Better to grovel to Trump? Or Bush? Look what that did for us! Keating's advice might keep us (and everyone else) out of a war. Not a bad idea.
I don't see any grovelling just common sense.
Junkthemonk all right! I thought we'd already junked the bugger. But no harm doing it all again, as a special case. Dave Diss, Glengowrie. 14/1/2017
Time for Australia to worry about itself in the strategic sense.
Become a nuclear power.
We have the means and the material.
We need to be able to say "no" to those who wish to embroil us in wars of occupation.
We must destroy th e notion of New American Century type adventures.
Let's be a player instead of a follower..
For christ sake NO! Dave Diss 14/1/2017.
"Become a nuclear power....we have the means and the material"..... But hopefully the sense not to.
We can scarcely afford to assist Pensioners, and you want to spend trillions on becoming a nuclear power?
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahah
The only way we would have even the slightest chance of peace in this horrific world would be to ban all weapons! Can't see that happening even on a small scale though as the Americans love their guns!
China is far more important to Australia than America- do the maths- our exports alone to China are worth almost double the total value of trade with the US.
Paul Keating is absolutely right- but in the Australian PM we have a nicer natured Trump- but a Trump none the less. A multi- billionaire who through being able to accrue obscene personal wealth has been able to buy his way to the political leadership of a country. He is about as capable as telling the Americans to stop destabilising our part of the world as sprouting wings and flying.
Goon!
Agreed. Dave Diss. 14/1/2017
I normally don't like Paul Keating. He's a mongrel with a dark heart but he's at least well-dressed and the most sharp witted and sharp tongued polli in the history of the country if not a Labor whore in $5000 suits. The dichotomy puzzles me. But he's right here, and I support his integrity on the times we (as Australians) need to separate ourselves from time to time on individual issues from America---without forgetting they are our greatest and most needed ally. But we aren't their sycophant. Other than that, Keating needs to moisturize more and come out of the closet and he'd be a happier man... :)
Yes a sharp tongue, but always played the man not the policy and would suffer a melt down if the attack was on him.
Is your little :) on the end supposed to demonstrate what a clever little man you consider yourself to be? Actually it exposes the exact opposite.
Interesting what do you get around in, tracky dacs and a Howard for PM T-shirt? Share with us what moisturiser you use and the inner knowledge you have of Keating's relationships. You just sound like a Liberal whore.
I don't get this nonsensical bit: "...our greatest and most needed ally...". The rest of the world, including Australia, would do far better to sever all military ties with America, if ever we're going to learn from past disasters, and before it's too late. Dave Diss, Glengowrie, South Australia. 14/1/2017
Turnbull will agree to do whatever we are told to do by the US, even if it means a war we cannot win and would place us in harms way. That my friends is the Liberal Party way, forelock tuggers extraordinaire. If Trump started his war with China and things went poorly, we would be left standing like a shag on a rock in a flash, while Trump took his army and went home, guaranteed.
Oztraylia disappeared years ago...
We are Uncle Sam's bitches now...
Who is Paul Keating? That's right a PM from the last century who got elected once then suffered the biggest bashing known by the voters. He is irrelevant you Keating sicophants. And Guardian, please give up on him. He is the Peter Beattie of Australia. They need to just go away these narcissistic has beens. But then again, Keating is at the big end of town isn't he Bill?? Hawke and Howard are the only past PM's living with cred. Past leaders and PM's like Keating, Latham, Hewson, Rudd and Abbott add nothing. They're such "wise" losers.
Well said Mr Keating. Australia should have an independent foreign policy. China is our biggest trading partner. We must ditch the "all the way with LBJ" and Howard's "Deputy Dawg Sheriff" policies. We were dragged into pointless foreign military conflicts on the lie that it was in the interests of "the free world". Any dispute should be dealt with via diplomacy. Australia is a very small power and we should remain out of conflicts that do not directly affect us and which are ideologically based.
Learn to spell. It will increase your readability. Dave Diss, 14/1/2017.
Funny I must have missed PMs Hewson and Latham, Keating has more cred than the entire Howard, Abbott & Turnbull govts put together, and he once said of Turnbull: "He's a cherry on top of a compost heap"
History demonstrates Liberal governments take Australia to war. Labour/Green/Independent governments clean up the mess.
Keating is spot on. With the very unstable, unqualified Trump & his corrupt cronies in charge, Turnbull should cut the US umbilical cord and reposition foreign policy within our neighbourhood. Look at the figures - US Imports far outweigh Australian exports, in fact, the large imbalance deserves some scrutiny.
Australias in an enviable position being so close to evolving markets and with good policy and management this country could thrive.
Unfortunately the hopeless, self-serving Abbott/Turnbull LNP and their incompetent ministers are the worst people to lead us through such dangerous years.
But we have the most able, nimble and agile Ambassador to the USA. A man of scholarly vision to navigate Australia's interests through treacherous shoals.
Agree. I reckon the US will, at their peril, push and push China on any and all issues, simply to try and regain control of industrial Capitalism. That's a stoush we need to consider closely and remain neutral.
No we don't. We have the arch leaner and triple dipper Joe!
This Tillerson geyser seems to be another cast in the same mould as the banana-head soon to be confirmed as President of the United States; no more stable mentally than his boss. Heaven help America! Dave Diss, Glengowrie, South Australia. 14/1/2017. Paul Keating remains vigilant, thankfully.
Did you mean geezer?
Although geyser works too, as Tillerson seems like a blowhard, spouting rubbish.
Dave, is it wise to continually advertise your name and address?
If I were a nutter taking exception to your posts, surely it would be easy to drop round and leave a prune-fuelled pile of digestive solids on your doorstep.
Or worse.
No offence intended, trust none taken......
Banana head!! That's gold!!! I also would have accepted ass clown!!!
Never mind all this talk of war, instead of cruise missiles send cruise ships to the islands, for now they are furbished they make a nice stopover for tourists, after all they are now sea and wild life sanctuaries, aren’t they.
China is already sending tourists to the disputed islands in the South China Sea.
Good, then it must be okay for any cruise ship globally to visit them, given that they are in international waters.
As the sites are sanctuaries I’m sure that there are many conservationists who would be interested in seeing the progress made so far on marine conservation at these unique scientifically important places.
The islands are claimed by China and are therefore not in international waters, but such waters exist outside the 12 NM zone around them. Perhaps you could check out the UNCLOS.
You can tell those conservationists to go to Hainan Island and book a ticket then.
Thank goodness we still have in this country leaders who come out and call out dropkicks Turnbott will do as all liberals have before him be the sycophant and go with uncle sam according to the well trodden path of Howard and his daddy Menzies. Like Trump he is a deal maker and hasn't a clue. We're fucked.
Nobody is being asked to follow the way the US has suggested.
Politically, Beijing must be stopped in its land grabs which it has been doing relatively successfully for 70 years.
Beijing's actions in the SCS are illegal at every level and is simply theft.
Not being asked to follow the US............. yet !
Mr Keating is absolutely correct in advising the US not to assume Australia will fall for another Iraq.
Given the nutter about to enter the White House the message should be sent without delay.
Australian airstrikes in Syria and Iraq are illegal. Australia is part of an invading force that cares nothing for International law. Australia is complicit in the deaths of untold thousands of innocent people. Shame on this nation.
No they are not. Iraq invited the Australians and the UN has backed the strikes in Syria. Note that they are not bombing Assad but only ISIS so Assad is fine with it too.
Come back Paul - you are a legend (the best PM ever).
Oh yes. What bewildered lap dogs we have now
Yea 18% interest rates and 9% unemployment was a gem.
Try 22% and 11% under Howard and Fraser.
I know who's opinion I'd trust and it isn't the American.
Luckily it isn't about opinion. It is about treaty and law.
How about international law, the finding of the international court, and the territorial integrity of the small democratic states being bullied by the communist empire?
See the stated aim of Chinese agression against the post war peace here.
I corrected you earlier for that false map you have presented here, for a second time. That anonymous map states it shows China's territorial sea claim, but it does not.
Here is China's claim on the South China Sea, for the second time. As you can see China is not claiming the entire sea zone, but the islands and a 12 nautical mile zone around each island, as it is entitled to do so under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Do you think that simply repeating an untruth will be more convincing a second time?
Henri
And so it begins..a new bunch of dick waving idiots in Washington
In fairness I don't think that even 'The Donald' can match Billary's schlong.
So very true. Like little boys in the sand pit.
War with China should not be compared to Iraq. War with China will pretty much be WW3. It will be orders of magnitude worse than Iraq. Unlike the Middle East China has the capability of striking directly at the US and even more easily at Australia.
Yes, you're quite right but perhaps not WW3. The least worst result would be the exchange being limited to conventional weapons. In that case, both sides would see most of their non-submersible Pacific assets wiped from the board in the first one or two days.
Much like the aftermath of Pearl Harbour, American technology and the scale and depth of its military assets and infrastructure would start to overwhelm the Chinese in the weeks following an initial conventional sea-bourne exchange.
A key issue for decision makers on both sides would be whether to target mainland assets with conventional weapons (e.g American naval assets in San Diego). A decision to do so would be a major escalation that would be fundamentally different to an exchange at sea. An escalation to a nuclear exchange would only be a short step away.
One could expect the Russian Federation to take advantage of situation and move to "protect" the Russian minorities in the Balkans and the Ukraine. That would be the price of their neutrality.
The aim is to stop Chinese warlike agression. Not to have a total war to do it.
What Chinese warlike aggression? It hasn't attacked any country in over 30 years. How many countries has the US attacked during the same period?
I'm preparing for WW4. I've found a nice cave and I'm getting in a good supply of sticks and stones.
I'm not sure appeasement is the best policy to contain aggressive territorial expansion.
And I am not being entirely rhetorical when I ask 'appeasement of whom' exactly? The US or China??
Agreed, the US should be forced out of Afghanistan and its bombing of countries such as Syria, Pakistan and Yemen should cease immediately. Further its hundreds of foreign military bases should be ordered closed and it should be asked to reduce its nuclear weapons stockpile by 80%. Just for a start.
'Further its hundreds of foreign military bases should be ordered closed and it should be asked to reduce its nuclear weapons stockpile by 80%.' On whose orders? China? Russia? The international community? The OIC? Do tell.
Never mind the bombastic rhetoric from the likes of Tillerson. China has the American economy by the throat - and can easily throttle it.
Wait and watch.
Sorry but thats the simplistic type of nonsense Trump comes out with; affecting economy cuts both ways. Without US demand for Chinese goods then things will go very badly in the Middle Kingdom too.
Likewise the US has been putting the squeeze on the Russian economy over the past few years, aided and abetted by their OPEC chums. Had it not occurred to you that this may be the reason why Trump and Putin are so 'chummy'?
Wait and watch.
Nonsense.
Tillerson probably had not thought through the logic of his statements. If the US insists the vast South China Sea being international waters, China will have access to the waters just like everyone else, whoever owns the islands. If Tillerson becomes Secretary of States, someone in the State Department will have to straighten him out with simple facts like this.
It's not quite as simple as access to the south China seas.
Everyman and his dog knows China is a revisionist state and wants to become a hegemony in the area by occupying Taiwan and south Korea, impose communist rule and take complete control of the south China seas. The US military presence in the south China seas is the only thing keeping things stable and without this presence, South Korea and Taiwan would already have been annexed by China.
China is currently taking the steps required to annexe these countries by firstly..trying to take control of the first island chain, which they are currently trying to do by illegally occupying the Spratly islands.
China knows it cannot win a full blown military war with the US, but if they put America in a position where their aircraft carriers might take heavy losses from missiles (aircraft carrier killers) which are being installed by China on the disputed islands, the US might not have the stomach for a fight over them.
This assumption could be China's first mistake.
The US have long standing defence agreements with both Taiwan and Japan and there is NO chance they will walk away and leave them at the mercy of China and North Korea. the US would lose all credability and render all other defence treaties it has as with other countries worthless. By walking away from South korea and Japan, it would almost certainly lead to a nuclear build up in the region by both Japan and South Korea and as sure as day turns to night, there will be a nuclear war between japan, South Korea, North Korea and China. The cost for pulling out of the region is too great for the US and it's allies. This whole picture isn't about the future of these worthless islands, it's about the future of the whole region.
The bottom line is, you can be sure the US will have to stop China from accessing these islands in the very near future in order to avoid a bigger conflict further down the road. If China wants to start a war between the US and Japan over islands that they don't even own...there will only be one winner. Personally, I think China will retreat and leave the disputed islands, but you never know.
What about The United States of Amnesia's taking over countries and taking away their resources? The US is the greatest terrorist organisation in the world. Funding civil wars or activity involving themselves in ruining countries.
I'm not sure what you mean Geoff. Can you be more specific? What countries have they 'taken over' and 'taken away their resources'?
Always liked Keating - one of the last true principal politicians.
Not like the gimme gimme gimme pollies of today
Very true.
Me too. He calls it as he sees it. Keating is a big thinker and definitely a great strategist.
Politicians of both sides today seem to have slogans as their strategy and no obvious tactical plan to match the strategy that includes getting the budget passed in government. Collaboration is a thing of the past when reform is required as they cant get over their ideology. The press doesn't help either. They used to work with Government to promote key direction and get general opinion on board. Now they prefer to bag ideas before any plan of detail is started so the Pollies no longer waste their time on the hard work as ideas are thwarted before any start is likely. The population then believe nothing happens and rightly see no planning or preparation.
Process has to change if things are to get better.
Oh, yes. Keating was SO principled. Timor Gap Treaty, anyone?
Why is Australia silent on the implications of Tillerson's comments? This has the potential to become quickly out of control by the cowboy Trump administration. Not at all surprised that it has taken the only person with guts to sound the alarm on this.
Your right, silence is the key word here. Looks like 'we' might join them too. Rotten way to get over unemployment and the money from munitions, the conservative dream world, you can count on it.
Labor said we shouldn't help start another war? Shit, now there's enough reason for the coalition to help start a trumped up war!
Tillerson's comments about China taking control of land that is not rightfully theirs sound rather hollow given Trump's intended support for continued settlement building by Israel on land that does not belong to it.
That certain Americans feel threatened by a challenge to their perceived hegemony in Asia and the Pacific, is no reason for Australian lives to be sacrificed in defence of such fears. China is doing what America has done for many years - establish outposts that safeguard their trade routes. This is not something Australia can prevent under any circumstances and we should not allow ourselves to be bullied or coerced into thinking otherwise.
Bullshit. China is building islands where none existed before, militarizing them and claiming its their territory. They lost in the international court, have threatened their neighbors and all this in one of the worlds busiest seaways. Their behavior does resemble 1930's Germany. America is standing up to them because it can. If Australia doesn't that their choice.
"Their behavior does resemble 1930's Germany. " = The cry of a loon.
Tillerson's comments are really no surprise, coming from one of Trump's "bottom-of-the -barrel" picks. Clearly an ex filthy fossil fuel merchant is a fine prime pick for such an important position .. The idea that the US has the right to take whatever it wants anywhere in the world and nobody must challenge them is clearly enunciated foreign policy .. and has been since they stole Hawaii, back in late 19 century.
Thank the gods that Paul Keating is still able to command attention .. partisan comments apart, one of Australia's better thinkers and politicians... one clearly worth his pension and other benefits.
Rather than people making comments about WW#, how about we take to the streets and demand that OUR country have no part in any future mad military adventurism, whatever previous grubbiments in somewhat better times might have made??
I hope we do. However Australia's workers work harder for longer hours and less pay than previously for decades. Police would arrive armed to the teeth and intimidation would occur. Those folk on welfare would suddenly find "please explain" letters demanding why they were not out looking for a job on a certain day or taking care of their kids, even if the kids were at school. Modern repression in bourgeous countries is much more insidious and sneaky than outright fascism.
True. Turnbull is getting the Black Shirts armed to the teeth and those guns won't be pointed at China.
I don't hear President Duterte complaining.
'I don't hear President Duterte complaining.'
True. A bit of a mystery that. He went to China just after the ICJ ruling and came back all smiles. Any ideas?
Mass murderers are busy people. But he will join China if it starts. But first as the Exxon administration throws Australia at them, China will throw North Korea at us, giving Exxon and Putin a clear shot at the real target - Ukraine oil.
He might be busy throwing guys out of helicopters?
Independent foreign policy? You're dreaming!
Of course they'll need permission from China to berth in Darwin to refuel...
China is a threat to freedom of speech and democracy...and Keating is really fine with this.
China must be peacefully contained lest our future be one where there are no journalists and no newspapers like the Guardian...
Classic verbal strawman , Keating did not say that or even imply it, in fact he doesn't mention China at all.
He simply doesn't want us following the US into yet another unnecessary war
“We should tell the new US administration from the get-go that Australia will not be part of such adventurism, just as we should have done on Iraq 15 years ago."