- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 83 Hour
- Reading permission
This post was edited by leiztorc at 2015-12-19 14:17|
HailChina! Post time: 2015-12-18 15:29
China should intimidate US allies in the region like Australia. Australian capitalists do not want t ...
China and Australia relationship has to go beyond trade and both sides politicians know just that.
If one really gets to know the Chinese, most will agree that the Chinese are reluctant war goers even when they should. Its only when no other viable solution is available that they would. Nonetheless China needs a very strong military.
The East Asia's South China Sea issue is clearly about the control over the vital trade routes. It is reminiscent of 1970s oil control by US over West Asia and in particular the Arab peninsular. At that time who in the world could threaten the US especially after it exhibited its unrivalled military supremacy in WWII? USSR was a nation catching up militarily then and had it got past Afghanistan, it won't be difficult for it to occupy the Arab Peninsular by which time both Turkey and Iran will bank absolutely with Russia to control the Arabs. To avert this US needs absolute control over oil very badly. Without oil, US cannot create a world economy that must be dependent on it which in turn will bestow it global control. This is why US must control the entire Arab region. Strong economic nations in the 70s that depended very much on oil like Germany, France and Japan all must fall into US' ambit and with UK and Canada already in, US controlled global trade totally denying USSR any share of global economic power. And with the Russian people's character unlike either the Germans or the Chinese who are both commercially industrious by nature, Russia has no answer to US' economic attack. USSR lost support in particular the East Europeans, eventually even breaking USSR up and throwing the entire Russian economy into free fall. Of course the other grandmaster mistake Russia made was having a leader who listened too much to US without having a mind of his or her own.
Fast forward to 2015, US now wants control over the entire South China Sea for the same reason. China's economy had picked up while US' had slowed not because of a rising China but because US became too addicted to ammunition and killings than keeping lives alive. And there is no way to reverse this sad episode because the US military industrial complex is now controlling the entire US. There is suggestion on a country to country basis that China's economy could parallel that of US. To US this will deny it a necessary tool to control the world politics and also weaken the perception of its superpower status. Hence like the Arab Peninsular in the 70s, today US must control the South China Sea and the Indian subcontinent. With comprehensive control over South China Sea and the Indian subcontinent, China's trade can be threatened by the US giving US absolute control over China and that will mean absolute control over all countries in this world. Its as simple as that. Australia's interest in the long run because of good behavior will not suffer much but neither will Australia really experience true freedom. In the 70s Australia wanted a more independent political platform, not a divorce from US just more say on its on matters but even that the US cannot accommodate resulting in then's administration being brought down much like what happened in Japan not long ago - in-out fast rotating prime ministers.
Are there major contradictions amongst China, US and Australia. Let's just talk about daily livelihood except for work hours and work days - macro wise all three are largely the same just that Australia is influenced by the UK system. China is a "Johnny Come Lately" even though its has a historical timeline of 5,000 years. It didn't understand modernization until 1900s much later than Australia who knew that by 1800s and US much earlier. China is now busy catching up to be on par with the likes of US, UK, Australia and Canada qualitatively. Which means they aren't trying to be different entirely. In particular, they are trying to achieve a good degree of "meeting of minds" with the British Commonwealth and US systems but with their entire culture in tact that's all. They still want to be able to use their chopsticks to eat their noodles, write Chinese calligraphy, celebrate their Lunar New Year with fireworks, alcohol and massive dinners etc. but those are not bad things. Outside, whether in Europe or Asia, many Chinese quickly learnt to use fork, knife and spoon for fine dining and the English they've spoken is probably better than some 50% of Europeans and Asians. Now its Christmas time and inside China's major cities there are good atmosphere for Christmas celebration. With characteristics exhibiting an accommodating foreign culture they don't need to control others since they can blend in so easily just like that. With 1.3 billion headache, why want the headache of managing 7.0 billion. If US is willing, am pretty sure China won't mind sending them 100 million Chinese.
For the next 85 years there are so much to do inside and outside China with the world globally, so why does China need to fight military wars in foreign territories? Any reason China need to send nicely packaged armies like Japan did to control Australia to kill, murder and rape? Japan religiously believes everyone must behave like them and observe their instructions in particular the Chinese and Koreans but the Chinese and Koreans both don't hold such believes - they are just as adept using fork, spoon and knife for fine dining, even enjoying Christmas. Evidence - Chinese in Hong Kong, Canada, Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia etc. At the end of the day, as a state, China still needs to employ people to do the work or outsource such work - means must pay money anyway. So why the need to spoil good sentiments with war to create awful resentment in work place? Its most unintelligent. By not controlling Australia and by working out billions of good business arrangements mutually especially when economic characteristics are complementary - both China and Australia can become enduring happy partners. Security wise China and Australia complement each other best again, as their respective ideology does not contradict the other and both belong to the same geographical sphere, Asia sharing similar security concerns. One-partied system or multiple-partied system - as long as one doesn't insist the other must follow the same, its actually a freedom of choice and as said China doesn't need additional administration headache. In politics, one-partied system, two-partied system or multiple-partied system all needs money to move things. So why insist on similar political ideology? Having good friendly nations with different political system is good, don't like this one, move to another, fed up already with the new one go back to the original old one. The Chinese knows how to enjoy themselves so why do they need wars like many others do? While China is atheism officially writing its rules over all religions (its a fair disposition) they are for good reasons - to prevent over-superstition, religion militarism and politicalism. China won't be bothered with what Australia wants - but this is not necessary what some others in the region or world might think. With proximity, meeting of minds largely and sharing similar security concerns can't see how China and Australia do not share more in common than either with others.
One good option is that China and Australia cement their collaboration for good and engage the US positively together with Singapore in too. A strong lobbyist team made up of China-Australia-Singapore-US can be helpful. After all China, Australia and Singapore can collectively increase their investments into US too. This way US won't feel so threatened or left out.