A separate summary of the meeting issued by China’s Foreign Ministry said there were four requirements for Australia to improve the relationship.

First, Mr Wang said, Australia must treat China as a “partner rather than a rival”.

Second, the two countries must seek “common ground while shelving differences”.

Third, Australia must reject “manipulation by a third party”, he said, without naming the US.

Fourth, both countries must build “public support featuring positiveness and pragmatism”.

Rory Medcalf, head of the National Security College at the Australian National University, said Beijing was “likely to be disappointed” by Canberra “unless China itself changes course”.


“Wang Yi’s first two points are not so unreasonable, provided that they are read as aspirations rather than demands, and that China itself were to respect them,” Professor Medcalf told The Australian.

“The third and fourth conditions are where it gets most unrealistic. Reject manipulation by a third party? That is based on the nonsensical view that Australian foreign policy is dictated by America, whereas it’s a matter of record that Canberra has independently shown the way for Washington and others in pushing back against Beijing.

“Build public support featuring positiveness and pragmatism? Beijing telling Canberra to tell Australians what to think? That’s wilful ignorance of the nature of democracy, a free media and the character of Australians.”

Australian National University Professor of International Security and Intelligence Studies John Blaxland said the “issuing of demands” was unhelpful.

“That’s politically toxic in domestic Australian politics nowadays. Penny Wong knows that and is not going to agree to them, just like the PRC is not going to agree to a list of ‘demands’ Australia could justifiably put to Beijing,” he said.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/australia-the-root-cause-of-bre...

Frank wrote on Jul 11^th, 2022 at 8:41am:


LOL...Like the paranoid banning of Huawei by Turnbull on CIA orders, whose stated goal is to maintain US global hegemony at all costs. 

Quote:


Yes, but the constant beating of the "China threat" theory, aided and abetted by Oz "security" spooks,  is annoying to China, to say the least.

Quote:


So Blaxland is saying China's "demands" are not necessarily unreasonable, just that they are "politically toxic"  - not surprising, given the paranoia at the heart of relations in our broken world, ruled by 'security' spooks.   

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 12^th, 2022 at 1:07am:


Well of course if international law as defined by the UN - not by you - was able to be defended, then the CCP would be subject to those same international laws as you.

But you refuse to submit to internal law. Case closed.

Quote:


Pass..

Quote:


***but they would quick smart willingly "waste the lives" of Chinese people in a Taiwan war, if they knew they could get away unscathed).

Until recently, the ROC claimed THEY were the true government of China, of course the CCP, who won the civil war, disagreed. Now the ROC have decided to accept are no longer the government of China...but guess what, the CCP STILL believe they are the government of China, why should the CCP change its mind, just because the ROC has conceded?

Quote:


You mean like Iran in 1973, when the popularly-elected socialist PM Moseddagh tried to nationalize Iran's own oil production, to retain profits for the Iranian people?

The CIA had other ideas, of course...

Quote:


Indeed.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 12^th, 2022 at 1:07am:



Oh who, who is going to save you?

In his speech launching the policy, Anthony Albanese listed the countries in the industry policy arms race. There is $500bn in the US Inflation Reduction Act, the EU’s European Economic Security Strategy, Japan’s Economic Security Promotion Act, the Republic of Korea’s National Security Strategy and Canada’s moves to tighten foreign direct investment in its critical mineral reserves.

“All these countries are investing in their industrial base, their manufacturing capability and their economic sovereignty,” the Prime Minister said.  “This is not old-fashioned protectionism or isolationism, it is the new competition”.

Timeless semantics aside, the silence on one player screams from this speech. The Prime Minister name-checked every major subsidy program except the one that rules them all: the one made in China.

Each of the countries he named is reacting to Beijing’s deliberate subversion of the world marketplace. And many have made pointed statements about the method behind their madness by taking aim at China. But here the price of trade peace seems to be Beijing never has to say it’s sorry and Canberra dutifully says nothing.

Not so US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who accused China of using its “state-owned enterprises and domestic private firms to dominate foreign competitors”.

She took it one step further, saying, “This strategy has been coupled with aggressive efforts to acquire new technological know-how and intellectual property including through IP theft and other illicit means.”

In passing, lest anyone argue that China is somehow doing the planet a favour, let’s note that while it dominates green manufacturing it burns 54 per cent of the globe’s coal. It was issuing permits for coal-fired power plants at the rate of two a week in 2022 and accounts for 35 per cent of global carbon emissions. So if the intent of this green trade war is to cut emissions then the logic is missing in action.
Chris Uhlmann

With its thumb pressed hard on the trade scales, Beijing is expunging competition in some sectors from the international landscape. Start spreading the news, if you can’t make it there you can’t make it anywhere.
This second “China shock” is shaking the world. The first came after China entered the World Trade Organisation. Then, in parts of the US that were directly competing in manufacturing, a million jobs were lost. Another 1.5 million vanished from the communities where industry was shuttered.

While Americans benefited from lower prices overall there was desolation in some regions, mostly the midwest and southeast, and the effects were persistent. Thriving communities withered into poverty. There is a reason for the searing anger at Washington in parts of the US and it is bloodlessly rational. But that is another story.

Analysis of the second China shock led by Brad Setser from the US Council on Foreign Relations calculates Beijing’s manufacturing surplus now stands at about 2 per cent of world GDP, roughly $2.5 trillion. That is bigger than Australia’s economy and “far exceeds the peak surpluses run by export powerhouses like Japan and Germany”.

Highlighting China’s massive subsidy-driven surplus in manufactured exports does not imply that in a free-trade world every country including China would have a balance in its manufactured exports and imports. But any comparative advantage China may have in manufacturing is dwarfed by the Chinese Communist Party subsidies designed to crush international competition.

This presents a wicked dilemma for any government. If you want the cheapest, fastest route to decarbonising your economy then let Chinese solar panels and EVs flood your market. This also would help cut inflation even as it lays waste to domestic industries and increases carbon emissions in China.

If, however, you want a piece of the burgeoning green manufacturing market and would like to stay in office, then block Chinese goods with prohibitive tariffs and try to build a local industry behind the flood walls. This will create some jobs but it will deliver more expensive and probably inferior products. That will drive inflation up and slow down the reduction in domestic emissions.

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2024 at 8:51am:


Very perspicacious of you.

So much so - I'm guessing you are being sarcastic....