Comments on Mark Beeson "Australia’s twin track diplomacy", 5/07/2015
It is not necessarily problematic for Australia to have had twin track diplomacy being friends of both the US and China, at least for the foreseeable time being.
Such a twin track will work well when the relationship between the US and China is manageable and they do not become conflict with each other. This also spells what Australia should aim for for its twin track policy, that is, to work to avoid potential deterioration of the relationship between the two world heavy weights.
Australia as a friend of both and a middle power, can punch above its weights and exert significant influence over both countries. It requires Australia to maintain very close relationships with both of them and be seen as working for the common interests or common goods for all of them. It is not unachievable by Australia but must be a fine balance on the Australia part.
Showing posts with label Australia US relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australia US relations. Show all posts
2012-07-27
Abbott's foreign adventure
Comments on Craig Mark "Abbott’s stance on China needs to evolve with the times" 27/07/2012
https://theconversation.edu.au/abbotts-stance-on-china-needs-to-evolve-with-the-times-7975#comments
China is no Gillard nor Rudd.
Abbott is unlikely to be as successful in dealing with China as he has so effectively opposed to the ALP government since he became the opposition leader.
China is no Gillard nor Rudd.
If Abbott hopes his hardlining tactics may work, the US would have China measured long ago, given that the US has been and is still much much more powerful than Australia and there have been many harks there who are at least as good as Abbott in global leadership and skills.
So yes, his stance on China has to evolve with time.
Just see how American presidents changed their attitudes towards China from their campaigns once they came to the White House and began to deal with China.
Rhetoric is one thing and reality is another totally different one all together.
2011-06-08
Americans need to recognise the inevitable
Comments on Paul Kelly “US bull wants help in the China shop”, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/us-bull-wants-help-in-the-china-shop/comments-e6frgd0x-1226071257169
Are the Americans unrealistically defying historical trends in hoping that it will be able to continue to dominant in the world economically and militarily?
Simple math suggests that Asia's giants, like China and India with more than a billion population each and faster economic growth, will take over the US as world top economic powers and with it military powers too.
The speed of China's economic growth in the past three decades suggests it is likely to take over the US in between 1 and 2 decades.
With such a background, the pure dominance mentality or intention of the US, if maintained and continued, will not be conducive to world peace. To the contrary, it would be more likely to lead to instability and conflicts.
It is time for the US to be more sober and recognise the inevitable historical changes. Its power is not declining, but the powers of others are growing faster.
Australia should influence the Americans to make the right decisions. It is in the interests of both, as well as world peace.
Are the Americans unrealistically defying historical trends in hoping that it will be able to continue to dominant in the world economically and militarily?
Simple math suggests that Asia's giants, like China and India with more than a billion population each and faster economic growth, will take over the US as world top economic powers and with it military powers too.
The speed of China's economic growth in the past three decades suggests it is likely to take over the US in between 1 and 2 decades.
With such a background, the pure dominance mentality or intention of the US, if maintained and continued, will not be conducive to world peace. To the contrary, it would be more likely to lead to instability and conflicts.
It is time for the US to be more sober and recognise the inevitable historical changes. Its power is not declining, but the powers of others are growing faster.
Australia should influence the Americans to make the right decisions. It is in the interests of both, as well as world peace.
2010-09-21
What does Josh Frydenberg really subscribe to?
Comments on Josh Frydenberg “Washington is integral to our region”, 21/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/washington-is-integral-to-our-region/story-e6frg6ux-1225926937881
Similar to the concepts of positive versus normative economics, perhaps there could be similar concept in politics and international relations.
If borrowing those concepts, it appears that Josh Frydenberg has some considerable inconsistency in his argument.
On the one hand, he is saying values and similarities and differences, as well as the superior power of the US.
On the other he is arguing that potential problems for China with its projected rise, such as property bubbles, and so on.
One is left bewildered: does Frydenberg believe power politics and its implications for international relations, or does he believe value system?
Hypothetically, what will Frydenberg do should China one day become more powerful than the US?
It is likely to be an interesting test for Frydenberg!
Similar to the concepts of positive versus normative economics, perhaps there could be similar concept in politics and international relations.
If borrowing those concepts, it appears that Josh Frydenberg has some considerable inconsistency in his argument.
On the one hand, he is saying values and similarities and differences, as well as the superior power of the US.
On the other he is arguing that potential problems for China with its projected rise, such as property bubbles, and so on.
One is left bewildered: does Frydenberg believe power politics and its implications for international relations, or does he believe value system?
Hypothetically, what will Frydenberg do should China one day become more powerful than the US?
It is likely to be an interesting test for Frydenberg!
2010-09-11
Critique of Sheridan's criticism of White's paper
Comments on Greg Sheridan “Distorted vision of future US-China relations”, 11/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/distorted-vision-of-future-us-china-relations/story-e6frg6zo-1225917582189
Sheridan's article is full of criticism of White's article: nearly possible to find any recognition of any positive side of White's from Sheridan's critique.
I haven’t read White's paper and am not in a position to comment it.
Having said, I find some of Sheridan's points stretched.
For example, he criticises White's argument on economic size and possible relative change in the 4th last paragraph. He says White is inconsistent in terms of real dollar and purchasing power parity because White says China’s economy could take over the US by 2020 and that Australia is the 14th largest economy. He argues that the latter is in dollar term and that the former “is complete nonsense but is only even conceivable as a dream if you use the essentially meaningless parity purchasing-power measure”.
It seems that Sheridan may have got the fact wrong and would be better of to do some serious checking and study.
Although China’s economy is a little over a third of that the US’ in dollar terms now, it is not inconceivable for China to catch up with that of the US in 2020. This is because it only requires the following to occur: the differential growth rate is 7.2% a year and a less than 50% appreciation of the Chinese currency.
The experience in the past decade shows both are possible and can be reasonably expected to occur.
If Sheridan can get this wrong, what else couldn’t his argument and judgment if based on relative economic strengths be wrong?
Sheridan's article is full of criticism of White's article: nearly possible to find any recognition of any positive side of White's from Sheridan's critique.
I haven’t read White's paper and am not in a position to comment it.
Having said, I find some of Sheridan's points stretched.
For example, he criticises White's argument on economic size and possible relative change in the 4th last paragraph. He says White is inconsistent in terms of real dollar and purchasing power parity because White says China’s economy could take over the US by 2020 and that Australia is the 14th largest economy. He argues that the latter is in dollar term and that the former “is complete nonsense but is only even conceivable as a dream if you use the essentially meaningless parity purchasing-power measure”.
It seems that Sheridan may have got the fact wrong and would be better of to do some serious checking and study.
Although China’s economy is a little over a third of that the US’ in dollar terms now, it is not inconceivable for China to catch up with that of the US in 2020. This is because it only requires the following to occur: the differential growth rate is 7.2% a year and a less than 50% appreciation of the Chinese currency.
The experience in the past decade shows both are possible and can be reasonably expected to occur.
If Sheridan can get this wrong, what else couldn’t his argument and judgment if based on relative economic strengths be wrong?
2009-12-15
Australia playing US deputy again at Copenhagen
Comments on Lenore Taylor “Poorer countries quit the summit”, 15/12/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/poorer-countries-quit-the-summit/story-e6frg6n6-1225810400652
Australia is really playing the US deputy again by rejecting developing countries' demand for continuing Kyoto.
There is also self interest involved, because Australia ratified it very late just two years ago and now there is report that Australia's emission would be 80% higher than the 1990 level using proper accounting.
If the international community does not enforce the past agreement and let Kyoto fail, then what is the prospect for any future agreement? What is the point to have another new agreement?
Australia should not stand shoulder and shoulder with the US on everything. The alliance issue should not overwhelm everything Australia does internationally.
Australia needs to stand up as a nation and fulfil its international obligations. Otherwise it will be an international laughing stock.
Australia is really playing the US deputy again by rejecting developing countries' demand for continuing Kyoto.
There is also self interest involved, because Australia ratified it very late just two years ago and now there is report that Australia's emission would be 80% higher than the 1990 level using proper accounting.
If the international community does not enforce the past agreement and let Kyoto fail, then what is the prospect for any future agreement? What is the point to have another new agreement?
Australia should not stand shoulder and shoulder with the US on everything. The alliance issue should not overwhelm everything Australia does internationally.
Australia needs to stand up as a nation and fulfil its international obligations. Otherwise it will be an international laughing stock.
2009-08-19
Rudd's dealing with China so far
Comments on Greg Sheridan “PM's stand on Beijing pleases Obama”, 19/08/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25950437-5013460,00.html
Rudd is having a difficult task for himself in dealing with the relations with the US and China. While he may have earned praise from Obama administration, he may have created a lot of difficulties for his proposal of an Asia Pacific community (APC), in which the two most important players are the US and China.
While Rudd has seemingly more expertise in dealing with the Chinese due to his diplomatic post in Beijing and his mandarin language skill, he does appear from time to time to overestimate the tolerance of the Chinese on some sensitive issues and cause unnecessary tensions between Canberra and Beijing. That does not help his cause of the APC.
Canberra wants to play a middle power and softly influential role in shaping the outcomes of the strategic relations in the Asia and Pacific region in the next 20 years and beyond. That does require discipline and discreet and high diplomatic skills.
To manage the relations with two almost equally important partners, the most important thing is balance.
Rudd has done well in some areas so far, but not so well in some other very important areas. That is a call of judgement that only he himself can make which is which and that most commentators probably can't.
Rudd is having a difficult task for himself in dealing with the relations with the US and China. While he may have earned praise from Obama administration, he may have created a lot of difficulties for his proposal of an Asia Pacific community (APC), in which the two most important players are the US and China.
While Rudd has seemingly more expertise in dealing with the Chinese due to his diplomatic post in Beijing and his mandarin language skill, he does appear from time to time to overestimate the tolerance of the Chinese on some sensitive issues and cause unnecessary tensions between Canberra and Beijing. That does not help his cause of the APC.
Canberra wants to play a middle power and softly influential role in shaping the outcomes of the strategic relations in the Asia and Pacific region in the next 20 years and beyond. That does require discipline and discreet and high diplomatic skills.
To manage the relations with two almost equally important partners, the most important thing is balance.
Rudd has done well in some areas so far, but not so well in some other very important areas. That is a call of judgement that only he himself can make which is which and that most commentators probably can't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
