Interesting stuff

bonza wrote:

boater wrote:

Re post of GSCO.

I’m an Australian Sinologist – and never cease to be amazed how the Chinese propaganda gets through to naïve Westerners like gsco.

What you and your business colleagues say is wrong in fact and interpretation. China never been expansionist / imperialist? What about Vietnam and Russia in the past, India and Bhutan now. The decimation of ethnic minority rights in Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolians (yes, we did it in the past, but they’re doing it now). Occupation of the South China Sea against international law. Reneging on the “one country two systems” deal (Law) for Hong Kong and dismantling it’s elections, law and the media. So of course Taiwan doesn’t want to be next (reunification), so China preparing to invade, possibly in the lifetime of Xi Jinping and dragging everyone into war. In the (non-military) “grey-zone”, there are hundreds of documented cases of Chinese coercion – arbitrary arrests of foreigners, trade sanctions (incl Australia) – plus foreign interference in the media, politicians (e.g. Sam Dustyari) and universities, IP theft, cyber attacks etc. And working on multiple fronts to re-define international norms on human rights and democracy. Etc. As Chinese generals themselves say .... "we're coming".

Re your argument the West is just trying to “stop its rise to power”. The West has for decades bent over backwards to “engage” and incorporate China into the international system (e.g. WTO, UN). Australia has spent $billions on thousands of co-operative projects with China. But from 2013 the Xi era has become increasingly authoritarian domestically and in aggressive internationally. The West is (belatedly) trying to deal with it and putting together the sort of coalitions and initiatives you mention. It would be negligent, dangerous and against the national interest not to. The measures are sensible, which is why they are bipartisan and a big majority of the Aust public support them.

I prefer to think that Australians like gsco are not “traitors” (in the way the Vichy French rolled over to the Nazis). Maybe just contrarian (want to understand and argue the opposite position), easily persuaded, or it suits their business interests. What do you reckon gsco? Happy to discuss any of these points in more detail.

100%

Good post, this discussion could get interesting.

Brutus history is fascinating and interesting but past history does not mean
generations later have to pay for what accrued 100s of years ago that's just
stupidity. Might just say 3 generations ago my great great grandfather worked
14hours a day at 20cents a hour for 30 years now today I would be payed this
much so somebody needs to reimburse me this much. How ridicules does that
sound.
You tell me what did the rest of the world do to China to warrant germ warfare
especially the western world except do trade, manufacturing and make
them filthy wealthy and powerful for the ones with power the normal people
are just modern day slaves. The world is terrified of China is that because they
are nice, giving, friendly, decent and value freedom of life no it isn't.
The world should unite and totally boycott China and destroy their economics
try and make them pull their head in and stop China threatening civilisation no
that's no good to Chinese Sympathises like some clowns on here because in a
couple of centuries they would say that was bad should give it back. Fuck me.

boater, I'd love to have a rational, informed, respectful and balanced discussion about China with a Sinologist, that would be really cool, and with everyone really - everyone's opinions are valuable. (But maybe this thread isn't the place for it.)

Apart from climate change, I think the China issue is the most important issue the world is facing - how do we deal with the rise of China? I think it needs proper debate and discussion.

What I'm struggling with is, to date I've seen nothing in these forums about China that I can't read on news.com.au, including what you said boater. Over time I've expressed an opposing point of view, and some perspectives I believe Chinese people would agree with, in order to solicit opinion and response, but I just keep getting high quality, unbiased, deep and well informed news.com.au narrative...

It surprises me that there's a very large contingent of commenters here that don't accept for a second the mainstream western media and government narrative and "expert opinion" on many topics, in particular covid, but they seem to consume this narrative and opinion on China completely verbatim and without question.

If anyone cares to know my actual opinion on China, it's I don't have one since I have absolutely no idea since I don't accept for a second the narrative or misinformation or propaganda or opinion from either side. The west and China seem to be well down the curve of a wartime footing against each other, and from everything happening in the background in terms of political and strategic alliance manoeuvring, this wartime setting is just escalating. It's just warfare smoke and mirrors from both sides.

The main motivation for my comments about China is the question:

How should we deal with this rise of China?

I seriously question our current stance of increasing pressure and wartime postering towards the country. I ask:

What will be the outcome of this stance?

I can really see only a few possible outcomes:
1. The west remains politically, economically and militarily stronger than China so we can just keep the pressure on and have little ramifications. I think this scenario has a low probability.
2. The west goes to war with China and we defeat them. This is also unlikely.
3. The west goes to war with China and we lose. This is also unlikely.
4. China rises up to be the dominant power, and then we are dealing with a dominant political, economic and military power that is pissed off with us and treats us as such. I think this is the most likely outcome of the current trajectory and stance.

My main opinion is we need to rethink how we're dealing with China with a long-term perspective, carefully thinking about the ramifications of our current warfare like actions and stance in terms of dealing with a dominant Chinese power in the future who does not have a short memory.

I just don't agree with our current actions and stance. I think it will come back to bite us quite badly.

boater, I am afraid that I have to doubt your claim to be a sinologist, unless of course you meant it in the same sense as the crowds of "epidemiologists" on the other forum. I find it hard to believe that any genuine academic would post such a shallow analysis of long complicated relationships and misrepresent so many key events, not least the nature of the Sino-Soviet and Sino-Vietnamese conflicts. You also fail to to explain the philosophy which should guide our future relationship with China. Should we be totally pragmatic and consider only Australia's interests or also consider ethical issues? In that respect it is worth looking at the reaction to Tianneman Square massacre. Bob Hawke shed tears and granted student visas and then promptly returned to business as usual. The point being that we need to recognise what is achievable in terms of human rights and refrain from making counter productive pronouncements for purely domestic consumption, which is what we have experienced under the current government.

You also mention Xi's authoritarianism as if it was a new development when it is part of a long cultural tradition predating communism by thousands of years and, while he may have stepped it up in recent years, it still cannot be compared to what existed under Mao's regime. External disapproval by countries like Australia has achieved nothing beyond generating feelings of smug self-righteousness domestically and increased hostility from China.

The west may have bent over backwards to bring China into the international system but to portray that as beneficial only to China, as you did, is a gross misrepresentation. The benefit of those decisions to Australia and other western economies surely does not need to be explained. It is those benefits, not goodwill towards China, that drove those policies.

China has a clear aim to be the dominant global power in the coming centuries. Its economic power is already challenging the US. If goodwill towards oppressed minorities was driving US-China policy, it would have taken stronger action decades ago. If the US had a genuine fear of China starting an expansionist war, their diplomatic and military focus would be on China. It is currently on Russia. The primary US concern is to maintain control of the international system for its own benefit. It is not now, never has been, and never will be an ethical actor in international affairs. The great tragedy of Australia's current position is that we have generated considerable hostility from China with a net benefit of less than zero.

Its definitely going end very very badly but it certainly does not mean
we just go belly-up and serenader. gsco how can you not see that its
China that's making war type moves we are just trying to protect ourselves.
Have you been brainwashed because your bias certainly indicates you have
been.

gasco and crew. Below link to an article sent to me by a mate , expat Aussie lawyer , who has lived in China for nearly 30 years - still does. He rates the author as someone who knows what he is talking about.
https://global.matthewsasia.com/insights/sinology/2021/what-is-xi-jinpin...

great post blindboy, one of your best ever.

evosurfer, I see both sides making wartime moves. I'm not as brainwashed as you think. I just try to get a picture that includes both perspectives. I value your perspective too.

If China becomes a dominant / hegemonic our current policies and approaches will have no bearing on how it treats us. It will do what it wants, regardless. How they’ve treated their SE Asian neighbours in diplomatic disputes is telling: “We are a big country, you are small countries. That is a fact”. That’s on record, July 2010 but the PRC Foreign Minister. It’s also not a one-off.
https://www.ft.com/content/a9a60f5e-48c6-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab

It’s literally a Melian Dialogue scenario.
https://aer.ph/china-the-philippines-and-thucydides-melian-dialogue/

I don’t agree that China’s rise to dominance is inevitable. My guess is that, while strong, the PRC (modern China) is far more brittle internally (politically and socially) than it appears. Hard to judge with the lack of transparency, but concentration of power does not make for flexibility or resilience.

good point etarp (re the 1st paragraph).

One thing I'd mention is an important principal in international relations and diplomacy is to create a relationship between countries for which it's not really in the interests of either country to damage.

I would argue that this has been the main guiding philosophy behind Australia's diplomatic approach to China for the past few decades, but it really seems to me that something changed during the Trump era and we are drifting away from that principal now.

Blindboy, I don’t agree with your assessment of the US’s posture prioritizing Russia over China. What’s your basis for this statement? The US is certainly big enough to do both, and the forces required to respond in each theatre are different diplomatic responses are different too.

There’s almost certainly a degree of synchronization between China and Russian actions to test US (and in Europe, NATO) responses to potential military actions in Taiwan and Ukraine. I think the US feels that Russia has form when it comes to military action on the ground in Ukraine.

Hey gsco, I don’t disagree that we certainly could have managed our shift in posture much better from a diplomacy perspective. But, it’s almost irrelevant. We’re being punished as an example to others. The problem for China is that it hasn’t worked the way they thought it would on the attitudes of the Australian population or the international community.

Haha… boater the Sinologist ;);)
That’s a good one!

In Australia we are largely uneducated as a people on other countries and cultures - China being a glaringly obvious one. And governments of all nations lack clarity and honesty in all ‘diplomatic’ engagements…

If you take our current government and compare it with the CCP - vastly different. Different history, different ideology, different aims and objectives.

Same basic premise tho : ‘we will protect our interests and do what is best for the people and (both leaders do this) reinforce intent by making absurd and false rhetoric about outside threats’

Look out our anti muslim hysteria that we created whilst sending our troops to foreign lands to decimate the local culture… past and present.

Look at our constant highlighting of Chinese mistreatment and human rights abuses … We conveniently dilute our own track record of our treatment of Australia’s indigenous population and pretend it is insignificant in comparison.

Consider China is rising and we facilitated it. The US facilitated it - and benefited enormously economically. Still does ;);)

Consider the narratives we are fed are false. Consider we effectively meddle in others affairs internationally and always have in order to maintain and continue manipulating global power to our advantage…

Consider the balance is shifting / has already shifted. Better hold the course ;)

So before the whole fuck China brigade comes out swinging, (by the way I in no way support or appreciate CCP mentality or behaviour) Australia must remember and acknowledge a few things…

Do we grow up learning about things like western imperial genocide as being western imperial genocide? Really.
Is our mentality accurately representative of historical acts that created and define our present day situation?

It was handy when the west’s bombers dropped nuclear bombs on Japan. They took off from China.

The Chinese ppl remember the invasions of the opium wars. They remember Nanking etc. Their government uses this stuff as propaganda and it is wrong.

Why though would our government be protecting the interests of its people, though, by forming a defence pact with Japan? Japan is an enemy of China. A big one. One they don’t / won’t forget about ;)

Sinologist man doesn’t even mention the Japan conundrum;) It’s bigger than we’d like to admit…

If we wish to point fingers and whinge about China’s legitimacy or methodology, we can’t ignore the seeds we are sowing for future generations…
Australia is not exactly a beacon of honesty and kindness.

Scotty is stirring the pot well tho.
Don’t be fooled ;)

And as has happened before… why no consideration that China will implode? ;);)

We can’t rule out the fact their track record of internal discord won’t win out again.

Short memories ;)

Hey Jelly, I think I did mention that.

Yes etarip…

‘I don’t agree that China’s rise to dominance is inevitable. My guess is that, while strong, the PRC (modern China) is far more brittle internally (politically and socially) than it appears. Hard to judge with the lack of transparency, but concentration of power does not make for flexibility or resilience.’

Excellent point ;)

Seems like the US is more likely of internally imploding right now. Which is kind of my whole point:

We're putting all our diplomacy eggs in one US agenda basket right now precisely at a point in history at which it seems most sensible to diversify our diplomatic exposures and hedge our bets a bit.

Thanks H2O

This bit below is where we are headed eh.

“Many wealthy Americans justified those gaps by hailing America’s classic faith in upward mobility—the prospect that all could achieve success. But reality no longer matched the myth. On average, 90 percent of American children born in 1940 grew up to earn more than their parents, but by the early twenty-first century, that number had sunk to 50 percent. Mobility was getting swamped by inequality because wealthy families could pay for so much that extended their lead—private SAT tutors, political influence, exclusive investments, and tax advice. The further they pulled ahead, the more likely their children were to go to elite schools, meet similar spouses, and circulate in networks that delivered further access. For all the pride and inspiration wrapped up in notions of the American Dream, the World Bank had calculated that, by 2018, the United States had a lower level of intergenerational mobility than China.”

Xi has made "common prosperity" a key feature of his domestic policies and his record suggests that he is serious about raising living standards for all Chinese citizens. In my mind this is clearly linked to the original goal of communism which was a fair distribution of wealth. It is not necessarily logical to assume that because communism has failed so far, that it will always fail All existing attempts at communism began in nations that were both poor and seriously disrupted by war. To assume that it will fail now in a wealthy, stable nation like China, simply does not follow.

This highlights another reason for US attempts to limit Chinese power. If communism was to be rehabilitated as a succesful political philosophy and created a genuinely egalitarian society, it would pose a great threat to the neoliberalism that has subverted genuine democracy across western nations and to the wealth of the corporations which hold power in the US.

The Chinese approach has been, get with the program....or face the often brutal consequences. As a culture in which the common well being has always been considered more important than individual human rights this has been much more acceptable than it would have been elsewhere. If the program increasingly delivers what people want and the need for brutal consequences consequently declines, there would be a clear example of a path to prosperity for developing nations. I assume that most Australians, like me, would prefer not to live in such a conformist society, but China has no interest in our views, or anything much about us at all, beyond being a convenient, reliable trading partner.

There is nothing communist about communist china, just as there was nothing democratic about the German Democratic Republic of East Germany. China has private property and most importantly private ownership of the means of production.

Xi has made "common prosperity" a key feature of his domestic policies so as to ensure Xi stays as head of the party and that the party retains control over China. Everything Xi does is to ensure the continued rule of the communist party and his rule of the communist party.

It's pretty funny really, even the Chinese communist party has woken up to the fact communism is shit and always fails.

indo-dreaming wrote:

It's pretty funny really, even the Chinese communist party has woken up to the fact communism is shit and always fails.

CCP gone woke then?

Maybe some of Xi's recent decrees - limiting access to tutors, limiting access to online gaming and social media, the removal of mosque domes, even the three children policy, while not amounting to much, all fit broadly into the idea of a conformist and stable society and that Xi might be looking to paint himself as a bit more Mao than Deng.

Indo , before you discount the People of China and it's failures...ol Xi has pulled 800 m people out of poverty.......where as in the west poverty is now increasing!

https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/china-lifting-80...

indo-dreaming wrote:

It's pretty funny really, even the Chinese communist party has woken up to the fact communism is shit and always fails.

Intersting discussion thanks. Would like to respond to more comments but clearly doesn't work like twitter. Seems my previous post was too light, so will try to dig a bit deeper for the audience, esp on AU-CN relations. Interested in responses / questions below.
1. Re. gsco point about bland news.com.au coverage. I agree - partly because it’s v difficult to communicate the nature of the CCP system and objectives to a western audience with western assumptions. There’s an enormous body of literature out there – too much – but one English piece that has been v influential
https://sinocism.com/p/engineers-of-the-soul-ideology-in
2. There are collorary ideas stemming from dynastic China, including of [China ruling all] “under heaven (天下), where other countries become vassal states – to conform and supply resources. The preference is not for hot war but .. .
3. Of course we all knew that China was a dictatorship under Mao, but convinced ourselves that engagement and trade was the path to opening / reform. As blindboy says we got over the Tiananmen massacre (and Hawke’s tears) in June ’89 pretty quickly. By Nov ’89 (Hawke, Keating) Aust has pinned it’s economic future on the region and the remined the dominant paradigm. I was a product of that era and have worked on projects with Chinese collaborators ever since. It’s taken a long time to admit we got it wrong. Many (incl Keating & Kissenger) cling to or try to re-invent the failed engagement strategy.
In the policy debate, it’s the engagement camp vs the realists – seeing China for what it is and what is does, not what we wish it would be. There’s a framework for you blindboy (used by the way at the highest levels).

4. The AU realists gained ascendency in 2017, when the Turnbull government responded to a wall of intelligence reports to introduce foreign interference legislation and ban Huawei. China pissed off , relations deteriorated.
5. Fast-forward to May 2020. China embarked on it’s largest ever program of economic coercion (trade barriers) against Australia. The objective of coercion is to apply economic costs on a country so that it changes it’s policy, or to motivate interest groups (esp business) to lobby the government to change policy. Or deter other countries “kill the chicken scare the monkey”杀鸡儆猴
6. The policies China was seeking to change include foreign interference policies, Huawei, human rights statements, foreign investment laws, and the research of a think tank.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/china-australia-tensions-beijing-gover...

That is, China is trying to change Australian domestic / sovereign policy and systems. And doing so by tearing up the rules and spirit of international trade treaties. Let that sink it for a moment. So no, blindboy, there’s a bit more at stake here than “domestic politics” as you claim (although most Australians stand by the government in not capitulating).
If you don’t agree with AU policy, then which of the 14 demands would you give up?

Australia would seem to be vulnerable to CN coercion – 40% of our exports go to China. But Aust has not ceded on one demand. In addition, it hasn’t really hurt us economically.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/markets-and-resilience-fac...

I can’t stress enough how helpful this lesson is for the rest of the world and in building alliances. I’m immensely proud of Australians position and leadership on this.
This is not to say there haven’t been costs. For example, this paper models that a permanent ban on China coal imports would cost the average Australian taxpayer $24 per year.
https://theconversation.com/australia-depends-less-on-chinese-trade-than....

Another open question. Are Swellneters out there willing to forgo that sort of money (or, say, the times that) for our values, incl in China policy?

P.S About the virtues of Chinese communism and "common prosperity" ...... China put 800 million into poverty before it pulled them out. And remains one of the most unequal societies in the world. Countries like Bangladesh have made major progress in development / poverty without the dictatorship. China is amongst the world's lowest ranked countries for democractic rights, freedom of the press and human rights. I know this is obvious / not new - but at least take a critical apprach before reciting the propoganda.

"P.S About the virtues of Chinese communism and "common prosperity" ...... China put 800 million into poverty before it pulled them out....."

Boom.

brutus wrote:

Indo , before you discount the People of China and it's failures...ol Xi has pulled 800 m people out of poverty.......where as in the west poverty is now increasing!

https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/china-lifting-80...

indo-dreaming wrote:

It's pretty funny really, even the Chinese communist party has woken up to the fact communism is shit and always fails.

Maybe you somehow read my comment wrong?

My comment is about the Chinese Communist government keeping its name but changing its beliefs, nothing to do with the people.

ol Xi hasnt pulled them out of poverty, it's the embracing the global market and capitalism that has pulled 800 million people out of poverty (like your article says), if they were a true communist country the people would be in poverty.

here guys try this one....we are buying planes /submarines / military Hardware for 100's of billions of $'s from the USA because of the threat from China....

if tomorrow China wanted to really fuck us up...all they have to do is stop all the ships and planes carrying products from China to Australia, which would no affect their bottom line at all.....but as every industry in Australia now relies on China's products we would have no building industry/electrical products/phones the list is enormous....why would China contemplate military confrontation when all they would have to do is stop the boats...and we would be completely up the proverbial creek in a barb wire canoe without a paddle!

Indo , my point is that the people of China will back President Xi , because he has made their lives a lot better...they are a not a communist regime more a Totalitarian regime......he has support from the people.....

indo-dreaming wrote:

brutus wrote:

Indo , before you discount the People of China and it's failures...ol Xi has pulled 800 m people out of poverty.......where as in the west poverty is now increasing!

https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/china-lifting-80...

indo-dreaming wrote:

It's pretty funny really, even the Chinese communist party has woken up to the fact communism is shit and always fails.

Maybe you somehow read my comment wrong?

My comment is about the Chinese Communist government keeping its name but changing its beliefs, nothing to do with the people.

ol Xi hasnt pulled them out of poverty, it's the embracing the global market and capitalism that has pulled 800 million people out of poverty (like your article says), if they were a true communist country the people would be in poverty.

brutus wrote:

Indo , my point is that the people of China will back President Xi , because he has made their lives a lot better...they are a not a communist regime more a Totalitarian regime......he has support from the people.....

Actually we don't really know if this is true or not.

Because

1. They don't vote at a national level so we have no idea what the majority support.

2. Those that come out and say they aren't happy with the government suddenly vanish into thin air.

hey boater, thanks for taking the time to provide input into the China debate in here.

To be honest there is nothing new or original you've said in your response that I haven't read on news.com.au or in here, and that I couldn't rip off for myself from the western media in 5min.

Indeed, you said:

boater wrote:

Re. gsco point about bland news.com.au coverage. I agree - partly because it’s v difficult to communicate the nature of the CCP system and objectives to a western audience with western assumptions.

But then you just rattled out the standard biased western media paradigm/worldview/assumptions echo chamber junk that we see every day. You've done that twice now.

Are you aware that you're referencing sinoism, 9 news, the Lowey Institute and The Conversation? Do you think that they have any weight or accuracy at all when it comes to the China debate?

It is my assumption that a Sinologist would seek a deep understanding of Chinese civilisation, culture, language, politics and history, etc. But in your comments so far you have just regurgitated the standard western media propaganda and misinformation claptrap.

Do you have any original thoughts on China based on your own personal experience?

How many years/decades have you lived in China and practiced Mandarin Chinese, watched Chinese TV, worked directly with Chinese people, and lived daily Chinese life?

Brutus I think you're right that China will try economic coercion before war. But the lesson from 2020-21 is that it won't really hurt AU much. China hasn't bought our coal for a year and our total world exports have increased. It's largely swings and roundabouts. China stops buying our stuff (barley), someone else fills the gap in China (Canada, France) and we fill their gap (Saudi Arabia). There's a cost, but we're def not up the creek. Plus they need our big items - iron ore and wool.

I agree with Indo that introducing China to world capitalism and then buying all their stuff - and the urbanisatin and industrialistion - is the main driver of the 800 million

boater, you would need to back up the claim that China "put 800 million people into poverty" since I can find no evidence for it. Your claim that China is one of the most unequal countries in the world would appear to be just a straight up lie as its gini coefficient is lower than that of the US and numerous other countries. Quoting John Garnaut's views on China ignores the fact that he is likely to be biased as well as having been found unreliable when losing a significant defamation suit brought against him for accusations of bribery by a Chinese businessman. On the 14 "demands", they were not demands, merely a list of ways Australia had offended them. For the rest, we continue to engage with China, as we always have, on our own terms and for our own benefit. If attitudes in government were as tough as you suggest we would ban iron ore shipments.......have you got the figures on that? I suspect that even the dodgiest calculation would find a greater impact than $24 a head.

boater...it's not what China buys off us , it's what we buy off them.....and how dependent we are now just like the USA/Europe on Chinese goods...our Governments (Labor or Coalition ) just keep cancelling locally made in favour of China.....
We all now know our Health system is a debacle , underfunded/under staffed....but we spend $100's billions on Military....I mean check this out...https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/australia-commits-to-3-5-bill...
In the article it says we are spending between $30-42 b on armoured vehicles ....for what?

boater wrote:

Brutus I think you're right that China will try economic coercion before war. But the lesson from 2020-21 is that it won't really hurt AU much. China hasn't bought our coal for a year and our total world exports have increased. It's largely swings and roundabouts. China stops buying our stuff (barley), someone else fills the gap in China (Canada, France) and we fill their gap (Saudi Arabia). There's a cost, but we're def not up the creek. Plus they need our big items - iron ore and wool.

I agree with Indo that introducing China to world capitalism and then buying all their stuff - and the urbanisatin and industrialistion - is the main driver of the 800 million

BB ..what if the reverse happens and China just bans all exports to Australia?

blindboy wrote:

boater, you would need to back up the claim that China "put 800 million people into poverty" since I can find no evidence for it. Your claim that China is one of the most unequal countries in the world would appear to be just a straight up lie as its gini coefficient is lower than that of the US and numerous other countries. Quoting John Garnaut's views on China ignores the fact that he is likely to be biased as well as having been found unreliable when losing a significant defamation suit brought against him for accusations of bribery by a Chinese businessman. On the 14 "demands", they were not demands, merely a list of ways Australia had offended them. For the rest, we continue to engage with China, as we always have, on our own terms and for our own benefit. If attitudes in government were as tough as you suggest we would ban iron ore shipments.......have you got the figures on that? I suspect that even the dodgiest calculation would find a greater impact than $24 a head.

gsco wrote:

hey boater, thanks for taking the time to provide input into the China debate in here.

To be honest there is nothing new or original you've said in your response that I haven't read on news.com.au or in here, and that I couldn't rip off for myself from the western media in 5min.

Indeed, you said:

boater wrote:

Re. gsco point about bland news.com.au coverage. I agree - partly because it’s v difficult to communicate the nature of the CCP system and objectives to a western audience with western assumptions.

But then you just rattled out the standard biased western media paradigm/worldview/assumptions echo chamber junk that we see every day. You've done that twice now.

It is my assumption that a Sinologist would seek a deep understanding of Chinese civilisation, culture, language, politics and history, etc. But in your comments so far you have just regurgitated the standard western media propaganda and misinformation claptrap.

Do you have any original thoughts on China based on your own personal experience?

How many years/decades have you lived in China and practiced Mandarin Chinese, watched Chinese TV, worked directly with Chinese people, and lived daily Chinese life?

Your counter argument seems to be…. How Chinese are you? You don’t have to be Chinese to form a view on how China conducts itself on a world stage, surely. Are we going to apply that standard to all commentary on international affairs? I guess BB’s Fuk Amerika thread is bunk then? I think boater has provided a more than reasonable basis for his position and experience in the field. As have you, fwiw.
Not so convinced about BB though, other than being perpetually angry at just about everyone…

Lowy publish some really interesting content on China. They’ve got some deeply qualified people doing it too. What’s your alternative?

Or is it just a Western media echo chamber?
Go through this list please, and rip apart the credentials of any or all of these people:
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/people/experts

For the wider Swellnet wider audience, who don’t speak Mandarin, haven’t spent decades living in China, and who perhaps want to gain ‘a’ perspective on current affairs, I commend this resource:
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/issues/china

blindboy wrote:

boater, you would need to back up the claim that China "put 800 million people into poverty" since I can find no evidence for it. Your claim that China is one of the most unequal countries in the world would appear to be just a straight up lie as its gini coefficient is lower than that of the US and numerous other countries. Quoting John Garnaut's views on China ignores the fact that he is likely to be biased as well as having been found unreliable when losing a significant defamation suit brought against him for accusations of bribery by a Chinese businessman. On the 14 "demands", they were not demands, merely a list of ways Australia had offended them. For the rest, we continue to engage with China, as we always have, on our own terms and for our own benefit. If attitudes in government were as tough as you suggest we would ban iron ore shipments.......have you got the figures on that? I suspect that even the dodgiest calculation would find a greater impact than $24 a head.

Blindboy, Ross Garnaut was the ambassador to China for 3 years. He might have somewhat of a sense of things from both sides of the equation. That’s what diplomats are good at.

What bias exactly are you accusing him of?

Got my Garnaut’s mixed up. My bad. John not Ross. Related… and I guess John would have lived in China as a kid…
I will ask you though Blindy and gsco, did you read the John Garnaut article / speech that boater linked? What parts of it do you take exception to? Or is it a ‘vibe’?

fair enough etarip.

But I think it's very hard to get a balanced perspective on China by reading, watching and conversing only in the English language with other westerners. You'll only ever be looking at it from the western perspective, belief system, bias, worldview, echo chamber and interpretation of history.

For example, I noticed it mentioned above a number of times that the west has tried to bend over backwards to incorporate China into the global system and institutions. But do you realise that those institutions were established by the west to suit and benefit the west? China had nothing to do with their establishment and structure. So the west is really trying to "bend over backwards" and bring China into a biased and rigged western system that is intentionally designed to suit and benefit the west. China is never going to play that game ever again after its lessons from history. Same with Russia.

Lowy Institute definitely has some highly educated and intelligent people commentating on China, but always remember they also have their own bias, agenda and echo chamber. There's a reason for what they publish, and it's not out of benevolence for the good of humanity. It's to frame things in a particular way.

I personally don't recommend following any of the western media commentary on China.

One thing I found useful over the years is to actually talk to Chinese people. Due to always having one foot in the door in academia over the past 15 or so years as an economics and mathematics lecturer, I was always very open to befriending Chinese international students. Once they got to trust me, which often took some time and effort, I was able to ask - well probe them quite deeply - and talk to them about their and the general Chinese perspective on all kinds of issues. Um...err...my experience is most know far more about Chinese society, history, culture and foreign policy than anyone at the Lowy Institute or any sinologist...

To be honest, in order to kind of round or balance out the western perspective, I'd recommend trying to take an open-minded perspective and putting one's western worldview aside for a minute and take regular notice of Chinese government news websites like say Xinhua or China Daily. One thing I find interesting is their media is not hyper out of control chaotic warfare like ours - it's very sane and balanced.

Of course you could also read full blown university style textbooks and monographs on Chinese history, religion, politics and civilisation etc that are written by Chinese authors and have been translated into English with the intention of presenting things from the Chinese perspective (as apposed to reading from the western perspective).

(btw c'mon etarip go easy on BB, he seems to have had a rough trot lately...)

Actually on that, one final thing I wanted to comment on is China lifting people out of poverty. This idea really intrigued me, and I was determined to find out if it was true. I spent months travelling the Chinese countryside and rural areas of China learning about how Xi claims to have lifted the population out of poverty. It's roughly actually true, and it's not due to adopting elements of western style capitalism. Did you know that the Chinese government literally lifted huge chunks of the very poor, rural population off their lands, often by paying large sums of money to the owners, and put them in brand new units and apartments in towns and cities that were built specifically for this purpose? Then the Chinese government pays them a basic subsistence in order to live, and they don't actually have to work. Usually the rural lands are converted to tourism or large scale agriculture, and then the people who were lifted from these lands are given the opportunity of employment in the resulting use of the land. This has been done on a massive scale across the country. It is quite a sight to witness.

(And actually it was the west that lent a major hand in putting the Chinese population into poverty in the first place...)

Im simply disgusted and appalled that people who I presumed are Australian citizens
are here defending China after what its done to the world, peoples lives, businesses,
livelihood, sanity, freedom and more. I don't care about their own people its up to
them to take care of that. Then you got China intimidating countries and so on.
You clowns have a good look at yourselves the way of life and freedom you have
you all seriously need a smack in the mouth and shipped to your beloved Chinese
suppressed dictated life. Absolute arseholes you don't deserve to live in Australia.

Hey gsco, I’ve said a few times that I genuinely appreciate your perspectives on here. I also respect your approach to discourse. So really happy to keep it going - I’m learning!

There’s a real trap in ascribing bias and malign motivation to Western institutions as much as there is to doing the same for Chinese ones. There is a difference though. With regards to Lowy, I can go online and read their charter, understand their funding model, research their contributors, and know that it is a not-for-profit, non-aligned institution. Do I have the same surety and confidence in Chinese government websites? No. But I’ll look at them. I’ll ask you though, what’s my Chinese counterpart’s, surfing Chinese swellnet, access to resources like Lowy? I reckon absolutely zero.

The other trap is viewing the world as binary - western and the other. It’s simply not representative of how the world operates. There’s so many multilateral institutions from the UN down that simply can’t be dominated by a single country. To assume that the ‘West’ is aligned or synchronized in suppressing China is quite fanciful - look at the EU as a prime example. It doesn’t just play to the US tune on other issues like Iran, so why would it on China? It’s like this self-perpetuating confirmation bias for China doves that they can step no foot wrong in the international arena because the whole system is set up for them to fail - when it’s quite the opposite. The false West / China dichotomy that you present also fails to even consider the perspectives of India, African nations, SE Asia, North Asia… all of whom have their own unique (and often testy) relationships with China.

The CCP are bullies. Whether one reads or parrots the accusations of CCP corruption and interference documented via Murdoch news is irrelevant. Prove it wrong or you can make excuses for it.

Gsco: Most people don’t have the access and opportunity that you’ve had to deal directly with what’s obviously a pretty educated and worldly group of Chinese.
So, people can only deal with what they see happening in the world. Yes, that’s presented through a Western lens, but it’s fanciful to suggest that there’s any other way to ingest this information. You can’t write off someone’s view as being wrong because they’ve sought out knowledge in their own language.
I haven’t personally had a lot to do with Chinese people, outside of Aussies with Chinese backgrounds. Two of my closest school friends had ethnic Chinese backgrounds - Hong Kong and Malaysian Chinese. But they were quite different to each other. More recently, I was fortunate enough to have a classmate from one of my post-grad degrees who is a serving Lieutenant Colonel in the PLA, studying in Australia. He’s a nice enough guy. He asked me to explain ANZAC Day to him, which was hard enough because tbh I don’t even know what it means…
I watched him duke it out with a couple of the lecturers on China issues, in animated Mandarin and broken English. It was apparent though, that he had very little capacity, more likely mandate, for thought outside of a narrow set of speaking points. What was interesting for me was seeing that it was the Asian and Indian students who were most pointed in their criticism of China to him. The Aussies were almost too reserved. He genuinely could not see why a. Anyone questioned the PRC claims in the South China Sea, b. Anyone questioned China’s right to take Taiwan by force, and c. Why Australia even cared about any of this… (Big country small country and all that jazz…)

gcso if you really want to talk about references / credibility …

Sinocism / Bill Bishop is the China Watcher’s China Watcher. I cited John Garnaut because he has probably had the biggest influence on modern Australian China policy.

I cited Channel 9 because that was who the Chinese consulate passed the list of 14 demands to.

I cited the Lowy Inst because it summarises the full paper here – on SSRN which not many SN readers prob sign up to. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3945451

I cited the Conversation because most SN reader prob don’t subscribe to AJARE. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-8489.12422

That is, I cited references to suit the forum – I’m not the sort of researcher that deliberately obfuscates.
The account I wrote is well grounded and documented. If you’re looking for a “new” angle try what you call “sane and balanced” Chinese media like the Global Times.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202105/1222899.shtml

I could rave on about an academic topic on this forum, for example a piece we’re writing on China’s dual circulation policy 双循环体系. Here are some refs – but doubt many SN readers read Chinese.
Xi, J.P (2020) Several Major Issues in the Country’s Medium- and Long-Term Economic and Social Development Strategy’”, Qiushi, 31-Oct-2020. 习近平, 国家中长期经济社会发展战略若干重大问题, 求实http://www.qstheory.cn/dukan/qs/2020-10/31/c_1126680390.htm

If you’re questioning my Sinology I propose:
a) we define a Sinologist by qualifications, Chinese reading or speaking level, time spent in China, fieldwork, travel in China, books and publications in international Chinese studies journals, collaborations and projects in China, number of banquets/karaoke sessions, policy impact, anything else?
b) Then you, blindboy and whoever else enter into a bet that I meet the criteria – say $100,000 each.
c) Then I’ll PM my staff profile and CV – to blindboy because I know he’s legit.
d) And then compare to your China credentials.
e) Bet?

You’ll have to excuse me for not posting my name here publicly because as you know there are risks in criticising China. I have a career, friends and colleagues in China, and I travel. Which underscores everything I’m saying about the Chinese regime.

Blindboy.
1. Think about it – if China claims to have lifted 800m out of poverty, then obviously this many were in poverty. Due to, you know, a stagnant Qing Dynasty, missing the boat on the industrial and scientific revolutions, a disastrous Central Planning era, and biases in the early reform era.
2. For inequality, I was working off a 2018 IMF report https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2018/06/05/Inequality-in-C.... But yes appears Gini coefficient seems to have decreased over the COVID years. But the (urban-rural) inequalities are deep, China has no redistributive income tax system, so has to resort to edicts like common prosperity. The point is if you think China is a communist model …..
3. As outlined, the point of coercion is to change policy – as it has successfully done with the Philippines, Norway, Sth Korea (and now working on Canada, Aust, Lithuania). China smashed trade on our biggest export items – and then the CN consulate handed over a list of grievances to “fix” relations. If you don’t think that’s coercion then … I this would be completely contrary to accepted wisdom and you’d need a good reason for it.
4. So let me ask again …. What set of grievances do you think Australia should back down on to placate China?
5. Australian has never even considered export sanctions for iron ore etc. or whatever you’re talking about.

etarip they're really cool responses. I recall you commenting when the China discussion previously heated up in here a few times but I didn't respond, my apologies. I'm enjoying the conversation and your own original thoughts and opinions.

etarip wrote:

There’s a real trap in ascribing bias and malign motivation to Western institutions as much as there is to doing the same for Chinese ones. There is a difference though. With regards to Lowy, I can go online and read their charter, understand their funding model, research their contributors, and know that it is a not-for-profit, non-aligned institution. Do I have the same surety and confidence in Chinese government websites? No. But I’ll look at them. I’ll ask you though, what’s my Chinese counterpart’s, surfing Chinese swellnet, access to resources like Lowy? I reckon absolutely zero.

True on the first sentence.

Do you have the same surety? I'd say things are more sure from Chinese govt websites in the sense that it's material published by the Chinese government itself! So you know exactly where it's coming from and its agenda, neutrality and bias..! I find it to be an interesting perspective on how the Chinese government wants the world to perceive things. It's an insight into the mind of the Chinese government, not a gospel of fact or truth.

If you want to get some real insight into the inner workings of the Chinese government, you could get it pretty well straight from the horse's mouth at the National People's Congress, the "highest organ of state power and the national legislature (parliament) of the People's Republic of China" (wiki). And the website of the CPC Central Bimonthly journal that boater provided is also very useful.

Regarding Chinese access to the outside online world, it's basically a myth that there is some kind of "great online wall" and that they can't access the outside world. You can just download VPNs enabling complete and unrestricted access to the internet. Some friends (US, UK, Can and Chinese) are primary and high school teachers in China, and they and the students all have unrestricted access to the whole internet while on campus...

etarip wrote:

The other trap is viewing the world as binary - western and the other. It’s simply not representative of how the world operates. There’s so many multilateral institutions from the UN down that simply can’t be dominated by a single country. To assume that the ‘West’ is aligned or synchronized in suppressing China is quite fanciful - look at the EU as a prime example. It doesn’t just play to the US tune on other issues like Iran, so why would it on China? It’s like this self-perpetuating confirmation bias for China doves that they can step no foot wrong in the international arena because the whole system is set up for them to fail - when it’s quite the opposite. The false West / China dichotomy that you present also fails to even consider the perspectives of India, African nations, SE Asia, North Asia… all of whom have their own unique (and often testy) relationships with China.

You're exactly right about the binary viewpoint, and I've reread over some of my previous stuff in here going back a yr or so and cringed a bit about exactly that!

But make no mistake, the current global political, economic, financial and legal etc institutions and system was architected by the US after it rose to hegemony and dominance out of the ruins of world war II. It doesn't necessarily suite the Chinese case and China is very cautious and selective about how it engages, much to the anger and disgust of the US which just wants every country to engage with the US on the US's terms in order to exploit and make as much money out of those countries as the US can...

etarip wrote:

Most people don’t have the access and opportunity that you’ve had to deal directly with what’s obviously a pretty educated and worldly group of Chinese.
So, people can only deal with what they see happening in the world. Yes, that’s presented through a Western lens, but it’s fanciful to suggest that there’s any other way to ingest this information. You can’t write off someone’s view as being wrong because they’ve sought out knowledge in their own language.

Of course that's correct, impossible to argue otherwise. I was lucky in that regard.

etarip wrote:

I watched him duke it out with a couple of the lecturers on China issues, in animated Mandarin and broken English. It was apparent though, that he had very little capacity, more likely mandate, for thought outside of a narrow set of speaking points. What was interesting for me was seeing that it was the Asian and Indian students who were most pointed in their criticism of China to him. The Aussies were almost too reserved. He genuinely could not see why a. Anyone questioned the PRC claims in the South China Sea, b. Anyone questioned China’s right to take Taiwan by force, and c. Why Australia even cared about any of this…

Yes exactly! And I really like what you mentioned here. Most Chinese equally have ZERO capacity to see a different perspective and side to the story as we do!

One thing I'd mention is boater claimed that he didn't want to publish his identity for fear of repercussion from saying negative things about China. That's not really entirely accurate. I've been pinned down in very animated and heated debates about China, in China, in which I took very careful note of the fire exits out of the unit block or restaurant and very careful note of the next flight out of the country, and after which I nailed timber across every door and window of the unit I lived in! In that regard, you just can't do and say what our media does: spam completely provocative, negative, inflammatory, abusive, baseless, wild lies and accusations about China and the CPC.

1. "if China claims to have lifted 800m out of poverty, then obviously this many were in poverty. Due to, you know, a stagnant Qing Dynasty, missing the boat on the industrial and scientific revolutions, "

The population of China in 1900 was only 400 million, so your point makes no sense. If we wanted a more realistic starting point for the progressive policies that improved standards of living it would be the deah of Mao, by which time the population was approaching 1 billion.

2. "But yes appears Gini coefficient seems to have decreased over the COVID years."

The drop in the gini coefficient has coincided almost precisely with Xi's time in power.

3. "As outlined, the point of coercion is to change policy..."

My point has never been that China should be trusted. It is that Australia should act in its own interests. I think there are several items on that list, including the call for an inquiry on the origins of the coronavirus and the provocative comments on the South China Sea, which were clearly not in our interests and, I still maintain, were primarily for domestic purposes.

4. "What set of grievances do you think Australia should back down on to placate China?"

This is a pretty silly question. It is not a matter of backing down from an existing position it is about formulating policy based on rational analysis of Australia's interests rather than those of the government or the USA.

5. "Australian has never even considered export sanctions for iron ore etc"

Which is my point exactly. Why haven't we? Because it would have real economic and political consequences.

You are so wrong Blind boy its in Australia's interest and everyone's interest to know the origins of Covid.

Its also clearly in Australia's interest to cool off the relationship with China a little, sending out the message to the public and business that the China-Australia relationship can't be relied on to be stable moving forward, the message was to diversify.

That can't happen overnight

It was perfect opportunity to send this message, to not send this message and keep on relying on China for so much trade is crazy.

And China should also know how us and other countries feel about the South China Sea.

It was actually very very good leadership.

Re above Indo-dreaming 100% agree

gsco wrote:

fair enough etarip.

But I think it's very hard to get a balanced perspective on China by reading, watching and conversing only in the English language with other westerners. You'll only ever be looking at it from the western perspective, belief system, bias, worldview, echo chamber and interpretation of history.

For example, I noticed it mentioned above a number of times that the west has tried to bend over backwards to incorporate China into the global system and institutions. But do you realise that those institutions were established by the west to suit and benefit the west? China had nothing to do with their establishment and structure. So the west is really trying to "bend over backwards" and bring China into a biased and rigged western system that is intentionally designed to suit and benefit the west. China is never going to play that game ever again after its lessons from history. Same with Russia.

Lowy Institute definitely has some highly educated and intelligent people commentating on China, but always remember they also have their own bias, agenda and echo chamber. There's a reason for what they publish, and it's not out of benevolence for the good of humanity. It's to frame things in a particular way.

I personally don't recommend following any of the western media commentary on China.

One thing I found useful over the years is to actually talk to Chinese people. Due to always having one foot in the door in academia over the past 15 or so years as an economics and mathematics lecturer, I was always very open to befriending Chinese international students. Once they got to trust me, which often took some time and effort, I was able to ask - well probe them quite deeply - and talk to them about their and the general Chinese perspective on all kinds of issues. Um...err...my experience is most know far more about Chinese society, history, culture and foreign policy than anyone at the Lowy Institute or any sinologist...

To be honest, in order to kind of round or balance out the western perspective, I'd recommend trying to take an open-minded perspective and putting one's western worldview aside for a minute and take regular notice of Chinese government news websites like say Xinhua or China Daily. One thing I find interesting is their media is not hyper out of control chaotic warfare like ours - it's very sane and balanced.

Of course you could also read full blown university style textbooks and monographs on Chinese history, religion, politics and civilisation etc that are written by Chinese authors and have been translated into English with the intention of presenting things from the Chinese perspective (as apposed to reading from the western perspective).

(btw c'mon etarip go easy on BB, he seems to have had a rough trot lately...)

Actually on that, one final thing I wanted to comment on is China lifting people out of poverty. This idea really intrigued me, and I was determined to find out if it was true. I spent months travelling the Chinese countryside and rural areas of China learning about how Xi claims to have lifted the population out of poverty. It's roughly actually true, and it's not due to adopting elements of western style capitalism. Did you know that the Chinese government literally lifted huge chunks of the very poor, rural population off their lands, often by paying large sums of money to the owners, and put them in brand new units and apartments in towns and cities that were built specifically for this purpose? Then the Chinese government pays them a basic subsistence in order to live, and they don't actually have to work. Usually the rural lands are converted to tourism or large scale agriculture, and then the people who were lifted from these lands are given the opportunity of employment in the resulting use of the land. This has been done on a massive scale across the country. It is quite a sight to witness.

(And actually it was the west that lent a major hand in putting the Chinese population into poverty in the first place...)

Cgso ……
I know what you’re talking about with Chinese students … good insights from smart kids that of course know China. But having taught and supervised many, there are invariably problems in critical thinking - partly because they’re worried their Chinese classmates are going to report them back home, and partly b/c of the Chinese education system. In this regard, incomparable to the calibre of analysts at Lowy that etarip linked to. Although think tanks are under pressure to simplify things for the public and policy-makers.

It’s a bit similar to the state media you cite (China Daily and Xinhua). Of course there’s good info on what’s happening from within China, but any “stable and balanced” analysis is within the boundaries of censorship of an authoritarian regime that ranks 177 out of 180 in the World Press Freedom index. https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2021 (AU is 24). If you’re getting your info from state media, it explains why everything you’ve written in the last 2 days are CCP talking points – without a single reference.

If you’re not reading modern Western writing – Geremie Barme, Jude Blanchett, Michael Pettis, Scott Rozelle – then you’re not in the game. If you’re taking seriously the ramblings of Jiang Shigong about redefining human rights, then you’re genocide denialist. If you follow Chen Hong on AU-CN relations … it’s a joke.

The best popular / state sources from within China are probably Caijing – if you can you read Chinese - who even tried to report the COVID situation accurately & constantly on the cusp of being shut down. Or Sixth Tone has some v good social stories.

Your claim that Chinese media is not inflammatory. Here’s the Editor in Chief of the state paper Global Times Hu Xijin - https://www.memri.org/tv/chinese-journalist-xijin-australia-chewing-gum-...

Having spent at least ten times more time than you in rural areas of China, your depiction of happy farmers being “relocated” etc. is like the Truman show. There are protests every single day in rural China about land appropriation, relocation, under-compensation. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10670564.2020.1790897

Rural China has abysmal child education and health levels. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo61544815.html

So cgso … you ask me for China credentials. What are yours?