Second airport in Sydney and fast train linking Canberra to Sydney

Comments on Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra: “Government to build second Sydney airport”, 3/05/201

Has the government done a comparative study on which would be the most beneficial and economic option to resolve the expected increase in air travel around Sydney, of the following two options: first one as the government proposal for an airport in and the second one is to build fast train between Sydney and Canberra as the first of potentially a longer eastern coast fast train line connecting Brisbane and Melbourne/Geelong? The latter would also have other benefits than simple another airport would offer.

A better approach to sharing ideas and beliefs for a better world

Comments on Jieun Baek, Oxford University: “Send North Korea media before missiles”,
2/05/2017

Firstly, I appreciate the idea and proposal by the author to send media before missiles to North Korea to avoid war and achieve better outcomes for all parties concerned, particularly those in the region which may be directly affected by a war in a huge way as opposed to those parties outside the region which may not be affected much by such a war in the Korea peninsular.

Secondly, I think we need to go beyond and above the purpose of spreading or achieving liberal democracy everywhere in the world and instead to aim at purely information and ideas sharing without hoping our own system and beliefs will prevail and dominate others'.

Now it is probably a fact that no significant forces, organisations and countries are still trying to spread communism and trying to achieve communist revolutions in other countries following the collapse of the former USSR and the East Communist bloc and the introduction of reforms and open door policy in China.

However, we have continued to see the efforts and actions including some not so subtle ones to transform the world into all liberal democracy, such as the Arab Springs and the color revolutions in some other countries.

I think it is time that we need to redefine ideas competition for the benefit of all human beings and that we don't impose our own onto others and let people to choose. Maybe that is true democracy!

Better first things first on North Korea nuclear issues

Comments on Tom Le, Pomona College: “Living with failure on the Korean Peninsula”, 3/05/2017

While it is a legitimate concern on the human right conditions of the people in North Korea, the task of dealing with the NK nuclear and missiles issue is so paramount that it would not be very helpful to mix these two issues together. Besides, while it is admirable to have high international standards in terms of human rights, it should for most cases be left to each country to handle it. Essentially that should be the responsibility of the government of each country.

In terms of the NK nuclear and missiles issues, I tend to agree with China that every side needs, has to or must give a little so that every side can gain from a settlement of the issues. That means the US should be mindful enough not to continue to post a threat to the existence of the NK irrespective what and what kind of regimes it may have. They may have a regime we don’t like, but we should not attempt too much in having each regime in the world to our own like.

I think if every side is sincere enough to resolve the issues and rid of the Korea peninsular off nuclear weapons, I don’t think it is impossible to achieve. But we need to focus on the main issues and make our best effort to do that. We should definitely avoid mingle too many issues together unnecessarily.

On China's overseas investments in developing countries

Comments on David Dollar, Brookings "The future of Chinese investment", 11/04/2017

What is the criteria for investment? It would be the return to investment, or risk adjusted return to investment. Here one may find that different investors may derive different returns for the same project, potentially due to different assessment of the risks and potential returns. There are uncertainties in risks and returns of any investment, including international investments.

The second point is potentially the differences in views towards some standards, possibly between the developed and the developing worlds.

Thirdly, is the author suggesting that the US may consider to give up its World Bank leader position? The reality is likely that it will not, at least not in the foreseeable future.

But seriously, China's investment in those countries will boost the economic welfare of those countries.

The Trump Test? But what test?

Comments on Yu Yongding, CASS "The Trump test and the renminbi", 13/04/2017

Since Trump became the US president, people in some quarters have been talking about free and fair trade and the term has come to be topical.

It now seems gone are the days of America was the leader of the free world advocating and preaching for free trade and there was no mentioning of the world fair (presumably the Americans would have forcefully said free was fair).

How quick the world has changed! Where have the WTO rules governing international trade have gone?
Now we have a new version of the “Emperor’s new cloth” or a new version of the Chinese historic story of the Qin Dynasty where Zhao Gao created the case of “pointing at a deer and saying it as a horse”.

Isn’t the argument that China has been manipulate its currency to make it low to its own advantage the same as those tales? Are there any international economic justice existing now ta the present?

But to be more serious, could countries on the the receiving end of the Trump administration's new approach to international trade, investment and business, particularly those which will stand as significantly negatively affected, be able to challenge the new Trump doctrines at any international institutions and/or courts or tribunals? Or is this really the case where the strongest can bully others with no consequences at all?