What a pity Mr Little is such a lone voice in exposing our weaknesses and follies viz a viz our neighbours. We continue to ignore the realities of our geography and the long term harm to our vital interests that flows from this continuing ignorance. We prefer instead to cling to the fading coattails of American imperialism with plans apparently afoot to offer more military facilities for American strategic interests in the Indian Ocean. Is there no end to our folly?

One of most cogent articles on our relationship with China that I have seen from an Australian pen.

Would there were more that understood how we are but "fool[s] with no subtlety, or substance" in the eyes of our most important business... counterparty.

I couldn't bring myself to say "business partner", for obvious reasons.

It's strange that, as an immigrant myself, my first instinct when I hear criticisms of Australia and our attitude to the world is to get defensive. I wanted to scream back at the author that 'perhaps it's time Asia became West-literate as well'. But that's counterproductive and not really relevant.

The reality is that WE are pursuing ASIA as a source of future prosperity. Certainly we have a lot to offer Asia (especially in terms of mineral exports), but we have a lot to gain from Asia as well. How can we maximise goodwill and snaffle good deals when we inadvertently insult those with whom we wish to seal those deals? Whether we do it for our own good or for the sake of harmony, there's much to be said for at least understanding where others are coming from. As the American World Order draws to a close (which it inevitably will, in my lifetime or in a lifetime to come), we would be fools to go down with that ship while another, perfectly seaworthy vessel is waiting to take us on board. For a price, of course.

Mr. Little's article deals exclusively with "elites".
It makes no attempt to address the following question:
How in a social order in which "established ceremony and courtesy" are preferred to use of law is an ordinary Chinese person protected given the absence of rule by law, freedom of expression, an independent judiciary, presumption of innocence and so on.
In may well be that the Western tradition is in decline but there is nothing thus far to suggest that ordinary people will be protected from exploitation in a Confucian/Marxist polity.
Let us not forget that China has per capita one of the highest capital punishment rates in the world.

On re-reading the article I realise that I have left myself open to criticsm. Mr. Little intends only to concern himself with "elites" and yes, persons such as Kevin Rudd have shown themselves to be lacking in the finesse of Chinese custom.

Notwithstanding, I find the genuflection to things Chinese lacking in critical analysis. For example, the elevation of "harmony" over "truth" is not without its problems.

What I find interesting about this article is the way it evoques a sort of "clash of civilisations".

Speak to most Australians, or Americans, and they will probably say something to the effect that "I didn't know it was supposed to be a competition". A race to the top is a bit of a nonsense to a cultural milieu that values the abstract over the practical. In any case the fact that the Western world came out on top in the Cold War has I think been interpreted as a demonstration of the superiority of "our" ideas, rather than of our might and power. I think thus far we have seen China simply as a trading partner with a few undesireable characteristics in its political structure, which given our faith in the idea of the rational economic individual is bound to collapse as soon as the burgeoning middle classes realise how repressed they are.

However it seems from the article that this repression is not felt by Chinese people - and that a Confucian understanding inevitably leads to a desire for dominance and plunder, and an inabiilty to respect a point of view other than one's own - and that we have legitimate reasons to be worried about China's growing power and its ability to mobilise itself.

It begs the question then of how should the Western world react to a country like China if it does indeed have designs on its "competitors'" pre-eminent position as a force for setting the global agenda. Do we go with the flow and make sure our own interests are protected, like any good businessperson would, or do we in fact need to "beat them at their own game" in order to survive?