The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Rethinking the quadrilateral alliance > Comments

Rethinking the quadrilateral alliance : Comments

By Simon Louie, published 19/9/2016

Our prosperity is largely dependent upon us being able to sail through international waters and should this be impeded then the costs to trade would soar as longer shipping routes and higher insurance rates would be incurred.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Our prosperity relies absolutely in selling more to the world than we buy from it! And much more value added production than we do today, with its feast or famine financial outcomes

If we are prevented from accessing markets via traditional sea routes, we need to transition to overland options? Preferably via roll on roll off fast ferries and rapid rail links through cooperative nations whose own interests are also served, in both directions?

And that is better achieved if we are governed by proactive forward thinkers ahead of the curve, rather reactive numskulls so far behind it, (frogs being made warm and comfortable in nice warm water being slowly brought to the boil) they are completely flummoxed by foreseeable changes! Or when their goose is well and truly cooked along with those of the "governed"!

In the interim we need far more self sufficiency in almost every area and everything, so we can should the need arise, become an island of sanity (and cash and carry) in a world gone mad!

We could assist reduced regional confrontation by just getting on with the job of transitioning our economy, to one no longer in any way dependant in any sense on traditional fossil fuels! The cause of all the current consternation/confrontation!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 19 September 2016 10:43:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think that there is anything "inherently unstable" about the Chinese dictatorship. They have total, unwavering faith in their superiority over everyone else in the world, and there is no chance that the Chinese people will ever stand up to them. The West has only one path: to destroy and humiliate China before it destroys us.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 19 September 2016 10:53:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia is more in a balancing act than the other former Quadrilateral Countries:

- the US has undertaken net withdrawals from Australia's region when China's rapid military rise (including island building) is taken into account.

- US leadership is unstable, with the possibility of an isolationist US under Trump withdrawing even more rapidly OR the unpredictable Trump or even Hillary tilting the US into economic and military confrontation with China

1. Australia cannot be in a hard-edged alliance against China when the (by far) major ally, the US, may withdraw - leaving Australia high and dry to face China.

2. Australia needs to give more broad-based support to a South China Sea that has no excessive sea or air-space claims of Taiwan, Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea

and of course China.

More comments on Japan and India later today.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 19 September 2016 12:00:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The proposed group would be very much enhanced if Indonesia was
added to the original four. Indonesia has had its sovereignty trampled
on by the Chinese. I thought that intrusion into Indonesian waters by
China was the worse act it could have made.

Those five countries would make a grouping that China could not do
other than be very attentive their military posture.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 19 September 2016 11:01:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with ttbn that dictatorships are not inherently unstable. China has had totalitarian rule for 5000 years and they still exist as a state and a people. Democracies can become unstable through multiculturalism and much of the west is becoming unstable through the importation of unassimilable people who do not believe in democracy.

China is a new superpower and unfortunately, it is going the way of some other superpowers in being an aggressive and expansionist bully. The annexation of an entire ocean is unprecedented in human history, and it is a territorial claim which must be opposed by all means, including military ones.

China is in a poor position here. Except for North Korea, it has no allies in this dispute at all. It has managed to upset the entire ASEAN, and that even included Indonesia, who's territory was completely outside of the "nine dash line" which China claims is Chinese national waters.

China is opposed by the USA, Japan, Australia, France (which is calling for a NATO response) India (which wants to conduct "freedom of navigation" exercises with the US Navy in the SCS) Singapore, Malaya, Vietnam, the Philippines, and South Korea. China may be a superpower, but even superpowers can bite off more than they can chew.

China has not had a naval engagement for 500 years, and just because you have a lot of modern equipment does not make you a serious military power. Just ask Saddam Hussein about that.

A united front by all interested parties should prevent the Chinese government from continuing it's acts of aggression. If we had done this with Hitler in 1938, 55 million people may not have died. And unlike WW2, this time, the world is militarily prepared to stand up to rogue aggressors.

I would love to see the combined fleets of every interested nation form one giant fleet, and sail right past those shonky "islands" that China has built, with every seaman on board giving the Chinese the finger. Think twice, China, think twice.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 20 September 2016 7:34:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm "China has not had a naval engagement for 500 years,"

All experts in very obscure naval battles recall:

- The Second Battle of Chuenpi in 1841 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Chuenpi :
"After the capture, the Nemesis attacked a fleet of about 15 war junks under Admiral Guan Tianpei in Anson's Bay.[b] The junks mounted 7 to 11 guns of various calibre from 4- to 12-pounders.[13][14] The ship fired a Congreve rocket that struck a junk near the admiral,
…At about 11:30 am, the Chinese on board the junks hauled down their flags."

- Battle of the Yalu River (1894) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Yalu_River_(1894)
"The Battle of the Yalu River...was the largest naval engagement of the First Sino-Japanese War, ...It involved ships from the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Chinese Beiyang Fleet.
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 20 September 2016 12:02:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In a Quadrilateral Australia would have problems being allied to:

- Japan. Because Japan, has intense strategic problems with China (in the EAST China Sea) and with North Korea's Navy and nuclear missiles. Australia doesn't want to be obliged by (non-US) alliance to get into shooting wars against China or North Korea.

- India. India may get into:

= yet another war with (now) nuclear armed Pakistan, AND
= another war with now nuclear armed China on the India-China border (noting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War_of_1962 ). Another war against Pakistan or China may have a naval aspect that (non nuclear armed) Australia may get dragged into.

+ India has long term aims of dominating the Indian Ocean (bordered by Western Australia). As India's Navy and nuclear weapons arsenal grows India may actually become a strategic threat to Australia. This India-future-goals aspect may or may not justify alliance with India.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 20 September 2016 12:19:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Picky,picky, Plantagenet.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 20 September 2016 7:22:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert Conquest, arguably the greatest historian of the 20th century, used to argue in favour of a world-wide 'anglo' alliance ie USA, England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, with membership open to non-white societies who had absorbed the ethics of British enlightenment eg India.

Others such a Thatcher and Niall Ferguson (Mr Hirsi Ali) have supported the long-term notion.

It is clear that the values that Britain gave the world are going to be under sustained attack in the course of this century just as they were last century and it will take a monumental effort to defend them all over again.

A mutual defensive alliance between like-minded nations seems not only advantageous but probably inevitable given the challenges a resurgent and expansive China and Russia pose.

If Trump gets up, Britain moves to regain its independence, and, seemingly, India continues getting its act together, the times might be right for such a defensive alliance lest the world descend into the darkness that a Chinese hegemony would entail. Others such as Japan and the smaller ASEAN nations would then be able to shelter under that defensive umbrella - provided that, this time, they made their fair contribution to the joint effort.

Mark Steyn has observed that China will get old before it gets rich due to its demographic problems. But as its rise begins to falter, it will become increasingly dangerous to its neighbours. Russia will go along for the ride. By 2050, China will either be in decline or triumphant world-wide. There is no middle ground.

A grand alliance will become obligatory and strong action is becoming urgent. A surrender on the South China Sea islands isn't the equivalent of Munich but it is a Rhineland 1936 moment. Just as a strong, determined alliance would have averted so much misery had it acted in 1936, a strong determined alliance acting now will avert the coming disasters.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 21 September 2016 9:05:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've long been a supporter of Australia becoming a Republic, a 'neutral' Republic. Let's revisit the OLO thread from January 2014.

It became a bit 'religious' with some of our contributors, but the highlights cut n pasted below:

"...Before we can become "neutral," we need
to become an Independent nation first."
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 4 January 2014 12:25:49 PM

"...So no thanks, let the stupid Americans provide the deterrence instead: yes it comes with a price, but not as high.

At least, let us not be involved with the rest of the world any more than the minimum required to maintain the American deterrence."
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 5 January 2014 12:46:10 AM

"Becoming independent would be the quickest way possible to become subjected.

We wouldn't last a year, without big brother, with that big nuclear stick standing behind us. We have too much wealth in the ground, & too little a defense force.

Greenies don't like the idea of nuclear, but it is the only thing that has prevented a major war, for the last 60 years, & kept us free."
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 5 January 2014 7:39:40 PM

"...Building much closer relationships with this part of the world would serve Australia's interests far more that some 60 year old consultative treaty, which at the end of the day may prove not to be worth the paper it is written on."
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 6 January 2014 6:33:22 AM

"...I think it was FOXY who said we must first, be truly independent. And we do really need our powerful ally, the USA to protect us from just such a scenario as described above."
Posted by o sung wu, Monday, 6 January 2014 2:49:21 PM

To expand a little on my feelings...I'm not an economist/financier like you Shadow and I'm only a soldier/tradesman who turned lawyer in the last few years, so no, these are only my opinions fwiw.

Set up legally binding agreements with India, China, Korea, etc (a Sth East Asia Forum if you like). I don't subscribe to the UN.

(TBC)
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Thursday, 22 September 2016 9:07:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued... the UN has become irrelevant post Glasnost, nothing more than an unofficial mercenary squad for the likes of Neo-Con entities.
Witnessing what went on in Timor - Leste and the Solomon's, it disgusted me to the core.

I keep thinking of Smedley Butlers speech from 1933 quite often, in which he says: "WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

See: www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Thursday, 22 September 2016 2:00:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy