Good old Julie!

Another lolly-water piece to strut her stuff.

Perhaps it might be a sort of megaphone diplomacy? But if she has anything useful to say perhaps it might be better to say it in private to the Chinese and Japanese counterparts.

I would suggest though that it may not be diplomatic to tell the two sides about the perils of national pride, or tell the Chinese not to underestimate Japan's military capabilities, especially if we remember that it was Billy Hughes' arrogance at Versailles in 1919 that gave the Shantung Province to Japan as a compensation for the loss of face. This afforded a legal bridgehead for the rising militarist Japan on Chinese soil that aided the invasion of Manchuria, the Rape of Nanking, the establishment of Unit 731 that experimented germ warfare with live Chinese subjects ...

On a tour last year the guide in Nanjing told us, an Aussie group, that they hated still the Japanese for their 1937 atrocities. No doubt we move in different circles, but I doubt if there is any need to tell the Chinese what the Japanese, in cahoots with the American empire since the War, is capable of.

Chek

I'll sleep much better tonight knowing that Auntie Julie has been busy helping China and Japan to solve their differences.

Yeah, knowing that Julie and Julia are both in the pockets of the Yanks shows to the world our ability to offer neutral advice to the Chinese and Japanese (or anyone else for that matter).

Of course, both of these nations have had extreme differences in the past. The Rape of Nanking comes to mind and people have long memories!

If Australia adopted a more neutral role in world affairs instead of its pathetic, cringing support for everything that the U.S. does no matter how criminal it is, its advice might be worth listening to.

Until that happens, Julie, keeping one's mouth closed might be the best strategy!

Yes, where was Julie's call for diplomatic restraint etc etc when her great champion of "freedom", namely the Lying Rodent, followed the USA all the way (no questions asked) into the illegal shock and awe invasion of Iraq.

Always a joy to compare and contrast the tone of Julie's measured comments to those of her detractors who resort to childish personal insults rather than a reasoned debate of the issues.
How about a challenge to those who have made negative comments on this blog?
Write a more authoritative article on the same subject with a similar word length, and those who come to this site for information can pass judgement on your efforts.
Julie is absolutely correct to warn both sides about miscalculation because that is what often leads to war, and particularly when both sides have a long history of hostility towards one another.
Personally, I find it reassuring that someone in government is taking a broad interest in world affairs because I am not confident that Bob Carr or Julia Gillard are doing so.

Jon Swift, Wars are caused by people interfering in other peoples business, and Julie Bishop does not have the offcial status or right to interfere in sovereign countries.
Iraq is an example, when you do!

Chek and Kipp,

Japan and China are close neighbours of ours. Of course their problems are our concern too. They are both large trading partners with our country.
Its not unusual for our representatives to have talks with leaders all around the world, so fail to see why you single Julie Bishop out over a visit and discussion with these two countries. It in is our interests too to keep us current on just where they stand at this moment. Also since when did the definition of discussion become "interference in other people's business?

As for your comments regarding America, in the event of a threat to our country, we would be only to happy to accept their help, just as England did during WW2. For some years they have been the only [often probably sometimes reluctant] superpower we have been able to turn to when help has been needed, and the collapse of the Soviet Union placed them in that position - they did not actively seek it. Imagine the cost they have incurred doing this.

To me it is quite obvious that we should offer our very small [by comparison] support to them in return when if or when it is required.

The attitude of all take and no give is surely the not the perspective any country should entertain. Please try and broaden your thinking, rather than use this thread as it exists to be used - for discussion, not as an opportunity to denigrate Julie Bishop.

JonSwift,

It is reassuring to hear that Julie Bishop has had these discussions. We need to be informed about all matters within our region, and without such dialogue we would remain unaware or prepared for consequences which would affect us too. reliant on only the various media for their opinions obtained secondhand, or which they dream up for good headlines

Then on your premise Worldwatcher, the Australian Defence Force should be in Australia defending Australia, and not particpating in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Dear Jonswift

Your post does not seem to respond to anything I posted.

A general response to your post would be that good old Julie trots out this Middle School stuff that should be way beneath a would-be Deputy PM.

She demeans the position she holds. Her mouthings are akin to the ra-ra stuff that a good looking girl might use to run for head girl or school captain.

But she persists. Why?

Some sort of campaign to anesthetise our mind?

And she never responds to any of us, but week after week she delivers her sermon - perhaps a lolly drink to take away the bitter taste of the Abbott's doom and gloom?

I don't consider the criticism of this piece to be unwarranted. In fact, I'm not sure which worries me more - the Year 11 essay-standard of the article itself, or the fact that it is viewed as "valuable" by some readers. There are literally dozens of weightier, more insightful commentaries published every day, so quite why Ms Bishop believes her contribution is worth presenting is itself a mystery.

I found this observation from worldwatcher somewhat disturbing, to say the least.

>>It is reassuring to hear that Julie Bishop has had these discussions. We need to be informed about all matters within our region, and without such dialogue we would remain unaware or prepared for consequences which would affect us too<<

What, I wondered, is at all reassuring about the piece? It contained nothing new - let's face it, anybody who wasn't already aware of every single fact it contained should take a long hard look at their reading habits. Furthermore, we are given no insight at all into Ms Bishop's contribution to the "dialogue". With whom did she have discussions? Who were the "officials in both countries", and on whose behalf were they speaking? For all we know, they could be far distant from mainstream thinking, or even entirely irrelevant.

This is not intended to be more criticism of Ms Bishop herself, although she would do well to raise her game a notch or two. It is an expression of sadness that even a few people here could consider her offering as a valuable contribution to debate.

We should demand far higher standards of our elected representatives. And we should start demanding it right now.

Dear Chek and others,
Rather than meet the terms of my challenge, you repeat your personal insults.
I have no interest in your personal vilification of Julie Bishop or anyone else.
If you have a constructive contribution please make it with an authoritative article on a topic of your choice.
Surely it is better to add to debates rather than detract from them?
In my experience, the first person to resort to personal insults has lost the argument.
Perhaps it is time to lift YOUR game, rather than call on Julie Bishop to do so?
At the very least, it would be good for your insults to be more mature.

Pericles and others,

Be charitable to the lady, and consider she may feel that - to get her points across - it is preferable to state facts simply.
As an accomplished lawyer she obviously has a far greater repertoire of words to draw from ,but that would only confuse some people.

Her latest trip to Japan and China was the result of an invitation from their ministers for foreign affairs. As our Shadow Minister for foreign affairs she has paid 4 visits this year, so obviously she is aware that the ties with them are as important [ or even more so ] as our affiliations with other countries.
No, we don't know what was discussed in private, but assume it wasn't just the weather.

As for not responding to our comments, why should she? I for one would rather she carry out her duties on behalf of this country, while taking time occasionally to remind us of important matters, thereby stimulating more thought and debate, or even fresh perspectives on subjects she puts forward.

Kipp,
Sorry, don't quite follow your post about any premise I appear to have. Would appreciate if you would clarify to which particular premise you refer.

Kipp,

Would like to hear your views regarding the fighting in Syria as well.

The civil war in Syria is the outcome of despots controlling the people, and is a matter for the Syrian people only to resolve.

In Julie Bishop's defence I must commend her in continuing to post on OLO.I'm one of her greatest critics.I did not think that Julie would last this long.

Saul Eastlake who used to post here, spat the dummy when I confronted him about the unnecessary debt inflicted upon us by our banking despots.He was quite rude and demanded to know who I was and would not enter into debate.

China, Julie, is only reacting to Western Imperialism.The lies of the Iraq invasion and many other countries like Afghanistan,Pakistan,Somalia,Lybia etc are wearing very thin.

If you want a real education see http://www.globalresearch.ca/

Kipp,

I agree with you on one point. The civil war in Syria should be exclusively between the two sides and be solved internally. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case, as muslims from other countries have decided to support the opposition.
Russia and China have abstained so far from entering the dispute. However, they do so as they have vested interests in the country. As I am sure, so do the Western countries.

As I have no dialogue with any Syrians, I can only rely on hearsay regarding Assad. You call him a despot, and you may be right. Others have said that he has held together a country comprised of different religions, and until the "Arab Uprising" Syrians cohabited peacefully.

My thought is that Syrians should be allowed to sort out their own problems with no outside help or advice.

Not only foreigners from Middle East countries are interfering in Syria, also Australians.

Source The Ausutralian 22/12/12