Australia's Hard Choice Between China and the US

Australia, like every other 'mid-tier' nation(I don't mean that with respect to culture it's a highly advanced and developed nation. I mean in respect to military power.) is in a rock and a hard place between world power nations with influence. This isn't just about the US-China, but those smaller nations on the Baltics feel Russia's presence as well.

These mid-tier nations will be forced to make a decision as the article implies. Honestly, if I were a mid-tier nation I'd propose a military alliance with all mid-tier nations. To hell with the world powers lol. That'd actually make the world more safe IMO, if no proxy states could be created.

 

No offence taken, we are definitely a middle power.

We are strong and influential enough that no action on the planet would attempt an invasion. Such action by small states would result in their annihilation (we have a rather useful moat surrounding our country, and a very advanced air force and navy). Such action by large states would precipitate a world war which no major power wants.

So I think middle powers are in a pretty good position defensively, Australia in particular. The nearest continent landmass is 3000km away.

We should therefore seek peaceful relations but not be too interested in integrating into the international order. We don't need to.

 

One of our major defences is large uninhabited areas in our north.
We don't need to have a physical invasion by another power. All they need is adequate investment in power generation, water supply to our cities and control of our food supply. Any threat to these would surely bring an unruly population to heel.

 

It's actually somewhat interesting, the "international order" as most foreign magazines, and most politicians(past and present) have alluded to have created a neutral standoff that has lasted since WWII. That's kind of amazing in a way. WWI(1915) and WWII(1939) were only separate by a mere 2 decades. And the warring periods throughout the ages were very constant. This is actually new territory for the Human Race.

But I don't think it's the "international order" per say that preserved the peace, as much as one recognizes the danger of a nuclear warhead. But tragically, it'll only be a matter of time before some prick launches one(Please let it not be Kim Jong or Trump.) And when that happens, all hell breaks loose.

 

I don't disagree actually. My take is that all nations should honour their sovereignty and freely trade with other nations. I suppose the problem always come down to human nature after which everything goes to hell.

 

The lesson I got from WWI was that entangling alliances make war less likely, but immeasurably more fatal when it does break out.

The issue with the alliance system has not really changed since the Napoleonic Wars: they make opposing alliances necessary, and this starts an antagonism among opposing leaders.

In fact, I view the current system as similar to that under Napoleon. The West has near total control of continental Europe and is attempting to starve the Russian opposition through sanctions. Being a nation with no warm water ports, they are effectively an island. Russia is like the UK was back then. That's entirely what the Crimean conflict is over.

We could have very easily entered a world war last week with the Hawaii false alarm. Wouldn't take that much for them to fire back.

 

And Western sympathy isn't that high for Russia, considering in its prime the Soviet Union tried to and effectively did consolidate most of Eastern Europe. Even today, in terms of land mass Russia has the most miles per kilometer. But you are right, that the West basically has a policy of Containment.

But with Containment, comes resentment.(We know this of course also from Germany's expansionist demands back in WWII). And with the speculation around 'collusion' occurring, it doesn't seem likely that Russia and the West will be able to find common ground anytime soon.

 

Its a tough choice alright, almost as tough as during WW2. Should Australia side with the USA or with the Rising Sun, Imperial Japan.. uh.. well lets take a look back in time to 1941 Dec 8th:

1. Japanese have a huge fleet and have just about decimated the American fleet at Pearl Harbor, and its looks pretty much like Japan will be the dominate player in the Pacific for the next couple of years.

2. It doesn't look like the Americans will be able to do much for awhile, and although they got that McArthur guy who says America "will be back again", that is "I shall return", Australia really cannot be for certain that he means what he says.

3. The British cannot help Australia.

4. Most of the other islands in the pacific seem to have decided to "cooperate" with the Japanese economy, so why should not Australia? Sure they are a Totalitarian government, but they will respect Austraila, we can convince them of that, surely right?

Fortunately, in 1941, Australia was not a leftist globalist controlled country, weakened psychologically by 50 years of counterproductive propaganda. Instead, Australians embraced the classical frontier heroic male figure who braves the wild and carves out of the wilderness, a homestead, a metropolis, and a nation.

So the Australia of 1941 concluded without a moment of doubt, that the only country to stand with, was America, even though their island was surrounded, and cut off by what appeared to be, an invincible Imperial Japan.

 

So are we just putting off an inevitable world war then? How is the alliance system going to deal with that?

 

Hi - to continue our interrupted conversation, I had some ancestors from Llanelli and my great-grandmother lived in Cardiff (I was born just outside) and they showed no particularly 'natural' corruption, just the effects of particular class-positions in a more-or-less colonial society. I can't really believe, myself, that there is any such thing as human nature - just different sorts of programming.

 

Australia would be wise to do what the rest of the world is right now and put the United States on hold for awhile, until we figure this out. Most of our friends know we are going through a tough time and have decided to blow TrumpCo off while keeping the fundamental relationship intact under the Radar.

 

That also appears to be the domestic internal liberal response to losing the election

Just shut down the government without actually tearing up the Constitution

 

Well, it's a government that lost the election vote, after all, and is trying to set up a racist dictatorship!

 

What trump wants is merit based immigration where only the best people are allowed to move here

Thats not racist

 

Our issues go deeper than that, the person with the most votes actually lost the election. Our system is fundamentally flawed and we have been forced to notice it now.

 

I have found that "average people" do not express this corruption UNLESS they are put into a position with the opportu nity for personal gain (e.g. money, power, sex) ONce in power, it is a constant struggle to rebuff the corruption of that power while wielding it.

 

Much like the Napoleonic Wars: It isn't. It'll be started by something small(maybe the North Koreans get cocky or the heads-up from Russia, Iran, China that it's okay to be aggressive and they attack Japan.) NATO is effectively invoked by the US and the US gets involved(as well as our European allies). That brings Russia and China together and yeah the whole thing is going to be one violent bloodbath that could surpass WWII.

 

Australia has the national advantage of bring an Island / Continent nation.

Too bad they don't take more advantage of it.
Blame the Globalist Capitalists who don't care about "the people".

With good planning and investment they should be able to manage their peoples' need for water, food, power, and such services.
They should also stop importing Asians. There is lots of space in AsiaLand. Let them make it bloom!
Moi does not "buy" that Australia needs more people so must import them.
I mean it ain't like they gotta compete with India
Be a lower population, advanced nation. And self sufficient too.
Australia certainly has enough or should have enough agricultural product to "barter" for any shortcomings,
without bringing expense or hardship to their peoples.

The Natural Gas arrangement is a shame creating an expensive market for Australians while Japanese pay less per BTU of Aussie gas. Who profited?
Such boondoggles need to be stopped by "law".


Australia has a unique place on the globe.
Will they learn how to use it, invest in it and keep it for the people who built it.
Doubtful in today's internationalist climate.

​

Moi
Nationalist.

 

better start dropping those nukes now. Get a jump on the opposition. The japanese were very successful on dec 7,1942 with it. Hey what could go wrong?

 

We can't rely on agricultural produce and mining for our income. We are undercut by other countries who can produce the same products cheaper, often because of tariffs or other government support. Our manufacturing base has been scuppered , often for the same reasons and occasionally by the idiocy of conservative government who cannot see the advantages of supporting an automotive industry.
No argument from me about the Natural Gas.
I wonder if we'd be better off with a committee of accountants running the country and perhaps we wouldn't get mired in these debacles! We probably wouldn't have any investment in the Arts, etc, but we'd be financially secure and there would probably be plenty of work.
No one seems to have a "vision" of where Australia is going , or what sort of country we want to be.

 

I don't think that Marx had any illusions about human nature.

Don't confuse him with the sweet little muddle-heads on elite campuses screaming about how bad capitalism is. He believed that, in general, people pursue their economic interests -- standard Economics 101 stuff. He just believed that it would be in the economic interests of the proletariat to own the means of production in common, since they could not own them individually. The proletariat would act in the interests of all humanity, not because it was made of up of nice, idealistic people, but because the proletariat was the first class in history whose class interests coincided with the interests of humanity. (It was a kind of transfer of Adam Smith's famous statement about the butcher providing us with our dinner not out of kindness but out of self-interest.) So when Marx says, at the end of the Manifesto, as I recall, that 'the workers have no country', he is not saying what they should believe, but what their economic position will make them believe -- eventually.

He used his formidable intellect to analyze the contradictions, as he saw them, of capitalism, not to speculate about how socialism would actually work. He had contempt for the Utopian socialists who proposed elaborate schemes for the perfect society. He just assumed that, just as the bourgeoisie, replacing feudalism, eventually evolved a set of economic and political structures that worked for them, so also the proletariat would work out the details of socialism. He didn't even have much to say about how the workers should organize themselves to overthrow capitalist society. He looked to the Paris Commune as an example of a workers' state, and encouraged any attempts at workingclass self-organization, such as trade unions.

And at first glance, socialism would seem to have many advantages: the workers, under socialism, know that they are not working to make profit for their boss, but for themselves. So they will have a material incentive to propose improvements, in the process of production. But more than this immediate material incentive, socialists posit that the whole me-me-me ethic of current society will begin to be replaced by an us-us-us worldview: because there will be a material base for it. (Just as modern game-theorists posit that co-operation of a certain type results in maximizing individual players' rewards.)

And he had reason to believe this: you can see self-sacrificing behavior for the collective all the time: soldiers who volunteer for dangerous missions, popular fund-raising for charities ... and the famous example of the Lancashire cotton workers who would not join with their employers to demand that the Federal blockade of cotton from the South be broken. There is no doubt that during the 'heroic period' of the Soviet Union, many young people went to do things like build the Dnieprstroy Dam, fired by idealism and the idea that they were building a new world.

After all, 'human nature' -- or rather, its manifestation in behavior -- depends a lot on the surrounding matrix of law and customs the 'culture' -- and above all material circumstances. Danes used to be ferocious Vikings. Now they're the nicest people in the world. Same 'human nature' ... corrupt or otherwise. But very different behavior. But let some disaster reduce the food supply in Denmark to starvation levels, with no prospect of quick relief, and you would see another, very ugly, side of human nature emerge there.

There are lots of human institutions, made up of ordinary people, that work pretty well under conditions of even moderate material well-being, running on a mix of selfless idealism, desire for praise and general social approval (or fear of disapproval), custom, material incentives ... I think Marx just assumed that you could run a modern economy that way. (Trotsky used the example of how food is shared out around the table in a decent boardinghouse.)

He was wrong in his assumption, and if intelligent socialists would think deeply about it, they would have to admit he was wrong, and that their political ideals need to be realized within the framework of a market economy. Which is why they don't think about it, and which is why you don't find any defense of the superiority of a planned economy any more. (Or at least, I haven't been able to find any. Recommendations gratefully received.)

 

Numero Uno

Vision! A self sufficient Australia.

Don't buy into the idea importing food is cheaper than producing it.
Food production is a means of National Security.
And Australia could be a food producer if it decided to do so.
And make food cheaper too.
Consult the Israelis for low water use agriculture. Fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, etc.
Besides fisheries, there is certainly beef, lamb, chicken, and I hear tell - rabbit.
What of AquaFarming. Can Thailand really farm shrimp cheaper, and crab, oysters, clams, etc.

And do NOT allow non Australians to own Australian food production!

And do get some major desalination water systems up and running.
Don't end up like Cape Town, South Africa today. Soon to be out of water

Got Vision?
Australia First!

Just like every nation, ( fill in the blank ) First!


Moi
Nationalist.

Globalism sells out the working person in better off nations.
It is that simple.​

 

Thanks for your considered and informative reply.

I think the excerpt below is his biggest mistake.

The assumption that original interest would not diverge with the interests of retaining and increasing the system's power as vested in the individual and the direct benefits that accrue to them and others of their own class. Many a tyrant rose up from the depths without a second thought to those he left behind as his power grew.

 

We know that it's best to be self sufficient in food. We do pretty well at producing our food.
The returns for farmers can be lean and some farmers have found that it is more profitable to sell their business or farm to a well heeled Asian investor.
The food we import is balance of trade stuff. What else could you take in trade apart from rice, from Pakistan? Thailand produces seafood more cheaply than we can because they use little kids, who should be in school, to shell the prawns and similar practices. Little kids aren't allowed to work in Australia.
We have desalinators in Victoria and Western Australia. The Victorian one is a backup in case of drought, and the Perth desalination plant provides drinking water.
We have world class health care which is universally available, reasonable living conditions, we have a workers compensation scheme, we subscribe to world standards in food production, we don't put tariffs on our imports(unlike many countries which protect their own industries with quotas etc- NB Canadian wine), we have a social welfare scheme which allows our elderly to live in reasonable comfort and not need to do three part time jobs when we are 60. All these things add to the cost of production .
I don't think any country can exist independently of the rest of the world.