Non-discriminatory policy on foreign investment for Australia preferred

Comments on Shiro Armstrong, Sam Reinhardt and Tom Westland "A Swiss-cheese approach to foreign investment isn’t in Australia’s interests", 15/06/2015

Undoubtedly, there are benefits in adopting non-discriminatory foreign investment policies similar to WTO most favoured nation provision. Economists and polling often, however, do not see eye to eye with each other. Pollies often take short term approach based on electoral pressures and will always find and use discrimination approaches to please powerful and vocal sections of the electorate. They probably don’t want to lose their power to do so.

On the other hand, economists argue for free trade. Yet the reality is there are enormous difficulties to negotiate really free trade agreements.

Sino-Russian strategic accord?

Comments on Tom Lairson and Ilan Alon "Disparities limit the scope for a Sino–Russian strategic accord", 16/06/2015

While it is true that there are significant dissimilarities between China and Russia that may possibly mean certain barriers for them to become close allies, whether they will develop into close strategic allies or not is also dependent on how the US and NATO behave. 

For example, should the latter pose existential security threats to the former, then it is not inconceivable that they would develop into strategic allies to defend themselves together. Even though they may be currently seen as unlikely strategic allies, they may not have other and better alternatives to them if both faced with that kind of threats.

A welcome change in China's foreign policy

Comments on Jonas Parello-Plesner, Washington and Mathieu Duchâtel "How Chinese nationals abroad are transforming Beijing’s foreign policy" 16/06/2015

It has been a nice and welcome change of Chinese government policy, not only by overseas Chinese nationals but also likely by other countries, given that other nationals may also get assistance by Chinese evacuation operations. As the authors argued, it is also likely to lead to China's more willing adoption of multilateral intervention for the common goods of the international communities. This is an example of globalization leading to better behaviour and policy, and possibly a demonstration of China’s peaceful rise claim.

India may play a greater role in AIIB than Bery argued

Comments on Suman Bery "Why the AIIB could work for India", 17/06/2015

Amomg the three spheres that Bery identified India’s interests could be partitioned, namely political, financial and intellectual, I share the author’s view on the last one completely that collaboration between China and India could be transformational. I would further add that other countries which have successfully transformed from low income to middle income and then high income countries such as Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan into the partners of collaboration intellectually, if they are the members of AIIB.

The second sphere, namely financial, I share Bery‘s view only partly. I would also include sovereign guarantee as a preferable criterion but not as the one that would veto if there is no such a guarantee.

On the political sphere, however, I have a different view from that of Bery's. Even though China and India are not allies in the same way as the USA and Britain have, the former do have strong shared common interests as emerging economies wishing to reform the outdated governance structure of some existing international institutions, such as the world bank and the IMF. It is these shared interests that have driven their formation of the BRICS and that will outweigh their political dissimilarities.

In summary, I see that India is likely to play a greater role in AIIB than Bery envisaged.

Neutrality on South China Sea issues important

Comments on Mark J. Valencia "New round of China-bashing over the South China Sea", 18 June 2015

I must confess that I have little knowledge on international laws on seas and the legality of the claims in the South China Sea by the various states including China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Taiwan. It seems to me the author has reasonably argued that the current state of affairs by the US is China bashing as opposed to an unreasonable China. What China has done in terms of reclaimed feature is no different to what some other states have done. By singling out China to criticise the US position seems stranger than what it criticises.

What is the purpose of such unbalanced critique?