Fifty years ago my old man said to me; "The Chinaman owes us nothing, we've never done him any favours, anything he's got, he's got himself." That was at a time when China was seen by the West as a backward country, made up of paddy fields and sampans, with too many inhabitants. Its true China has suffered a lot, wars and revolutions, famines and natural disasters, but despite the many setbacks they have managed to become the second most powerful country in the world, and with the decline of United States they most likely will be, at least economically, the most powerful. The question today is, with China's meteoric rise in the world, how should we engage with this new super power?
Another thing my old man said, having had many dealings with Chinese people; "Treat the Chinaman fair, and he's treat you fairly in return." I don't know if that's true or not.

Not

Trumpster,

Are you suggesting we sever all ties with China? Economic, trade for example, stop all Chinese tourism, students migrants etc. Maybe on official maps we could colour the land once known as "China", blue and rename it The Sea Of Australia, we could hold yacht races with your American buddies somewhere near Mongolia, what a Trumpian move that would be. Obviously from your extreme fanatical vantage point you are totally detached from reality.

Just as a side; How well did Putin play Trump for the fool. Donald made a great effort to kiss Vlad's backside. Ah!

Are you suggesting we sever all ties with China? "

no

Dear Paul,

«"Treat the Chinaman fair, and he's treat you fairly in return." I don't know if that's true or not.»

Treat everyone fairly, that is universal, but the implementation can be different in each case.

Maharishi Patanjali gave us the key how to treat others:

* Friendliness towards the happy
* Compassion for the unhappy
* Delight in the virtuous
* Disregard towards the wicked

[Yoga Sutra 1:33]

Since there are "Chinamen" of all 4 categories, each should be treated accordingly, one cannot treat "China" as one bland soup of people.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I have to agree with you on that, treat people as you find them. The Chinese do not have to be our enemy, in fact they have never done anything untoward as far as Australia is concerned. Our government is taking the right course in its dealings with our largest trading partner. The instigator of war in our region is America, since WWII they have instigated wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc. I ask what wars have the Chinese been responsible for, none. History tells us that if you are going to die at the point of a gun, the bullet is most likely going to be fired by an American! America with its capitalist's greed are the real danger to world peace, that's obvious.

"I ask what wars have the Chinese been responsible for, none."

The Taiwanese will be relieved to hear that.

But then the Vietnamese who had to fight off the Chinese in 1979 will be surprised that the war they fought in apparently didn't happen. As will the Tibetans.

Still, what's a bit of re-writing of history when defending the communist brethren?

Paul’s right that America’s record of interventions is long and bloody. But “China’s never been responsible for war” just won’t wash - ask Vietnam in 1979, Tibet in the ’50s, or anyone staring down the Taiwan Strait.

Neither superpower is clean.

And therein lies the dilemma for Australia: we sit between a trigger-happy ally and an authoritarian trading partner. How we navigate that tension is the strategic question.

Which is why it’s telling, mhaze, that when Paul raised the hard part - how do we engage China? - your contributions were “Not” and “No.” When it came to substance, silence; when it came to a slip-up, suddenly you’re animated.

How opportunistic.

Jeffrey Sachs:
"Let me tell you something about China's overseas military adventures.
It's easy. I'm going to give you 2,000 years of China's overseas military adventures. I'm done. There have never been Chinese overseas military adventures."

http://www.youtube.com/live/1E0Rf6M4068?t=2097

"How we navigate that tension is the strategic question."
- Neutrality.

America is circling the drain and couldn't protect us anyway, and the situation will only get worse.
http://www.youtube.com/@SeanFooGold/videos

G'day John,

I stand corrected, I concede China's annexation of Tibet was inexcusable, not so much a war as the Tibetans "agreed" to it, but certainly under duress. The brief China/Vietnam war in 1979, like all wars was inexcusable, China had no justification for its actions, although they claimed it was in response to Vietnams invasion of Cambodia to oust the Khmer Rouge regime. There also have been boarder disputes with India and others going on to this day, also questionable.

The situation with Taiwan is complex, China views Taiwan, as Australia views Tasmania. I actually have a good Taiwanese friend living in Sydney. Of course her major worry is the safety of her family back home, she is anti communist, but also has relatives living on the mainland, she doesn't want anything to happen to them, with a big war. I agree with her that Taiwan, because there is a communist regime on the mainland, should be an independent country. My friend would be happy for Taiwan to be part of greater China,if it wasn't for the Communist's being in power. Interestingly she sees America as a threat as well, believing they don't care about her people, but use them to "Make trouble with China".

As for Australia, I believe, and have since my youth, that we should be a nonaligned country, having good relations with all other nations where possible. I agree mostly, with the Albanese governments approach to international affairs, including our relationship with China. I don't agree with out relationship with America, i think it is to close and very dangerous, will drag us into an unwanted war again, sometime in the future.

JD,

Your poor comprehension skills on display again.

"when Paul raised the hard part - how do we engage China?"

Paul asked two questions..."Treat the Chinaman fair, and he's treat you fairly in return." I don't know if that's true or not." and "Are you suggesting we sever all ties with China?"

I answered each with alacrity and succinctness.

My own views on China? We should sell them anything they want to buy. Treat them as the threat to world peace they are. And prepare for their inevitable economic collapse by getting ever closer, economically, to India.

Credit to you, Paul. Unlike mhaze, you can actually concede a point and keep building the argument.

I’d only add that nonalignment is easier said than done. Australia’s security guarantee has always been tied to the US, and breaking that would be seismic. The real challenge is finding room to engage China constructively without being cornered into dependence - and doing that while still leveraging the US alliance without being dragged into another misadventure.

That’s the tightrope, and no amount of wishing away America will change that.
___

"Again," mhaze?

//Your poor comprehension skills on display again.//

You need a first time for "again."

//I answered each with alacrity and succinctness.//

So now we’re told “Not” and “No” were masterclasses in succinctness, not evasions. That’s some creative rebranding, mhaze.

At least you’ve finally offered a position:

//We should sell them anything they want to buy. Treat them as the threat to world peace they are. And prepare for their inevitable economic collapse by getting ever closer, economically, to India.//

Trouble is, those don’t sit neatly together.

If you genuinely see them as the world’s greatest threat, “anything they want to buy” is the opposite of a strategy - it’s fuelling the very danger you claim to fear.

And as for China's ‘inevitable collapse’? We’ve been hearing that prediction for 30 years. Maybe it will happen, maybe it won’t.

But planning our future on the assumption that our biggest threat will just conveniently fall over isn’t strategy, it’s denial.

"So now we’re told “Not” and “No” were masterclasses in succinctness,"

When Paul asked if I thought we should "sever all ties with China? " which part of my one word answer went over your head?

"it’s fuelling the very danger you claim to fear."

Didn't use the word "fear". Comprehension again!!

And how is selling them the stuff they need to build windmills and apartments towers fuelling the danger? If we stopped selling to every nation that might be a threat, we'd be in serious economic trouble... or should I say MORE serious economic trouble.

This'll probably be misunderstood, but there is a very good argument that the west threatening to cut off Japan's access to markets (and sometimes doing so) around the late 30s and early 40s, was a proximate cause for the outbreak of the Pacific theatre of WW2. And cutting off China's access to the markets they need for resources and food, would invite them to do what they are now just threatening to do.

mhaze,

You called China “the threat to world peace” - that’s stronger than “fear,” so quibbling over the wording doesn’t rescue you.

Still no comprehension issues on this end.

As for “sell them anything they want,” you’ve just admitted trade access shapes power. Your own Japan example shows it. Which means exports aren’t neutral - they’re leverage, they’re fuel, they’re strategic. You can’t have it both ways: either trade empowers the very threat you described, or you recognise it as a tool that has to be managed carefully.

And that’s the real point. Nobody’s arguing for cutting off trade entirely. The argument is whether “anything they want” is smart when dealing with a regime you call the gravest threat to peace.

That’s not “misunderstanding,” it’s holding you to the contradiction you’d rather dodge.

Sadly you utterly misunderstood the Japan example. If you cut nations off from the resources they need then you simply encourage them to seek those resources by other means. Can't dumb it down any further than that.

Ditto with China. Their entire economic system is utterly reliant on world trade and the freedom of the oceans that Pax America has created. Cut them off from resources and food and you simply encourage them to do that which they don't need too much encouragement to do anyway.

As to fear, I don't fear China. I think that in the event of war over Formosa they and their society will be in for a severe spanking. But war is never the preferred outcome and should always be avoided where possible. Churchill..."its better to jaw jaw than war war."

mhaze,

Now you’ve invented a false choice: either (a) cut China off entirely or (b) “sell them anything they want.”

Nobody here is calling for an embargo, but nobody serious thinks “anything they want” is strategy. The whole game is in the calibration - what, how much, and under what conditions.

And your own Japan example proves it.

You say cutting Japan off pushed them to war - which only shows that trade access isn’t neutral, it’s strategic. Vulnerability cuts both ways. Pretending otherwise is the real misunderstanding here.

As for “can’t dumb it down further,” that’s not statesmanship, that’s a sulk. And the “spanking” line? You’ve now called China both the gravest threat to world peace and a paper tiger you don’t fear.

That’s not Churchill, that’s chest-thumping contradiction.

What a tangle you've got yourself in!

Hi John,

I fear wars of all descriptions, I believe there is just as much a likelihood of a war involving Australia, brought on by America, they have form there, as there is one started by China. On nonalignment; If you go out in the storm, then its much more difficult to protect yourself from its effects, than if you stayed at home in the first place. Like the child, there comes a time when it has to be weaned off the titty, Australia is 124 years old and still relying on Mummy Americas breast milk!

Did you know the Trumpster owns a coffee shop, the 'KKK', his best customer was a Chinese fella who came in every morning, and bought 10 cups of coffee, Trumpster would present the fella with his 10 cups, then adds the parting words; "Now F off chink, and I'll see ya tomorrow." Well a new coffee shop called the 'Warm & Friendly' opened up a month ago opposite Trumpsters KKK establishment. The Trumpster can't figure out why he hasn't seen his best customer for the past month, must be on holidays back in China, or whatever!

"Now you’ve invented a false choice: either (a) cut China off entirely or (b) “sell them anything they want.”"

I never said cut China off. That was Paul. Do try to keep up. But then that's your schtick isn't it. Completely misrepresent what I say and then tell me how wrong the misrepresented views are. Do you think that works?

"which only shows that trade access isn’t neutral, it’s strategic."

So what? I say make the strategic decision to sell them anything they want.

You know you've not voiced an opinion here, merely tried to mispresent my and then critique that misrepresentation. So it seems you're the one in favour of cutting them off completely.

Trumpster,

Have you forgot about 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies, your beloved founder of the Liberal Party, and indirect murderer of Australians. 'Pig Iron' Bob sold pig iron to Japan, which was then used to make bombs to kill Australians. The Japanese began the mass murder of the Chinese in 1937, the Americans didn't place their trade embargo until 1940, when Japan attacked French Indo-China.Maybe your folk hero Menzies was like your latest folk hero Trump, its all part of the deal!

Putin has played Trump for the fool he is!

mhaze,

I never said you wanted to cut China off. I said you keep presenting that as the only alternative to “sell them anything they want.”

That’s the false choice. And your own words confirm it: “make the strategic decision to sell them anything they want.”

That isn’t strategy, that’s abdication.

You can’t call China the gravest threat to world peace and in the same breath advocate giving them a blank cheque. Strategy is about managing risk, not feeding it without conditions.

As for your “misrepresentation” line? That’s yet more projection.

I’ve said from the start that nobody here is arguing for an embargo. My point has always been that the real challenge lies in the middle ground: calibrating what we sell, how much, and under what conditions.

That’s the grown-up debate. You’re the one stuck insisting it’s either cut them off or give them everything.

And now you’ve doubled down on the second extreme, calling it “strategic.” It isn’t. It’s capitulation dressed up as policy.

When you call surrender a strategy, don’t be surprised if people notice the dodge.

- Projection
- Shifting goalposts
- Semantic nitpicking
- Straw-manning
- re-framing yours or the other's argument
- False-choice framing
- Appeal to authority

When you are going to learn that your bag of tricks don't work on me?

"You can’t call China the gravest threat to world peace"

Well its lucky I didn't say that then. Just something else you made up.

Now you're talking about black cheques,...more fantasy.

mhaze,

Your own words were: “Treat them as the threat to world peace they are.” That’s exactly what I quoted.

If you now want to pretend you never said it, that only adds “revisionism” to the list of tricks.

And the “blank cheque” point wasn’t fantasy, it was a plain description of your line: “make the strategic decision to sell them anything they want.” Selling anything they want is the definition of a blank cheque.

You can deny your words or dress them up, but it doesn’t change the contradiction: calling a nation a threat and simultaneously advocating “give them anything they ask for” is not strategy.

"Your own words were: “Treat them as the threat to world peace they are.” That’s exactly what I quoted."

And then added the word 'gravest'. Which is neither what I said nor what I think.

"Selling anything they want is the definition of a blank cheque."

If you say so. But again, this is merely your unargued assertion. You say it and think that's the same as it being true. Sad.

If they want our coal, sell it to them. If they want our iron ore, sell it to them. Sell as much as they want. Uranium too. Beef,. Lobsters. Grain. Cotton. All for sale in whatever quantity they want.

So, again, just critiques. No substance to your posts. So what is it you DON'T want to sell to China? You keep avoiding that question

Trumpster,

You said; "threat to world peace they (China) are". If they are not the greatest threat to world peace, then who in your opinion is? America, Australia, maybe you believe its Tuvalu. From your first couple of one word answers I was thinking, you don't know anything about China, you've since confirmed that fact.

mhaze,

You’re back to the usual two-step: semantic nitpick then forced challenge.

//And then added the word ‘gravest’.//

Irrelevant.

Your own line was: “Treat them as the threat to world peace they are.” Whether you rank that threat #1 or #2 doesn’t fix the contradiction I pointed out.

//Selling anything they want is the definition of a blank cheque.” / “If they want our coal…iron ore…Uranium too…Beef…Lobsters…Grain…Cotton… All for sale in whatever quantity they want.//

That is the blank cheque. Not my “assertion” - your words.

You keep trying to trap me in an embargo vs. everything binary. I’ve said repeatedly the real work is calibration. Since you asked for “substance,” here’s a sketch of a grown-up middle course:

- Sell with guardrails: bulk commodities on volume caps tied to risk (market share/price shocks/coercion triggers).

- No “anything they want” in dual-use or strategic inputs: advanced machine tools, aerospace/propulsion, satellite/space systems, military-adjacent electronics, cyber/surveillance gear, sensitive AI/quantum stacks, and anything enabling repression or power projection.

- Nuclear/fuel-cycle materials: only under airtight safeguards and enforceable end-use verification - otherwise, no.

- Critical infrastructure & data: no sales that create leverage over ports, grids, telco cores, or citizen/industry datasets.

- Diversify & hedge: grow India/ASEAN/EU trade, yes - but don’t pretend that’s a magic swap; spread exposure so any single buyer can’t weaponise demand.

- Use leverage deliberately: export controls, screening, and snap-back measures that trigger if economic coercion is applied.

That’s strategy: manage risk, use leverage, keep options. Your line - “make the strategic decision to sell them anything they want” - is not strategy. It’s abdication with a shopping list.

And spare me the word games. Quibbling over “gravest” while you simultaneously write “All for sale in whatever quantity they want” doesn’t make your position coherent; it just proves the list I posted:

- Semantic nitpicking
- Straw-manning & re-framing
- Projection
- False-choice framing

When you’re ready to move past slogans and tell us which risks you’d actually manage and how, we’ll have a debate. Until then, calling surrender “strategic” is the only “misrepresentation” in this thread.

gravest...the most grave. Now suddenly it no long matters if I think its the gravest. So why add it? More fabrication.

"advanced machine tools, aerospace/propulsion, satellite/space systems, military-adjacent electronics, cyber/surveillance gear, sensitive AI/quantum stacks, and anything enabling repression or power projection."

Struth. What we actually sell them and what you fantasies we sell them is rather far apart. "sensitive AI/quantum stacks" You're quite the comedian.

You’re still proving my point, mhaze.

The “gravest” nitpick is tired. Whether you rank China as threat #1 or threat #2 doesn’t change the contradiction of calling them a danger while handing them “anything they want.” That’s the core issue, and you keep running from it.

And mocking the examples is just another dodge. Swap in whatever categories you like, the principle doesn’t change. Strategy means drawing lines. You refuse to draw any. That’s the difference between policy and surrender.

You can sneer at “AI/quantum” if it makes you feel clever, but the grown-up question remains: is there anything you wouldn’t sell to a regime you call a threat to world peace? So far, your answer is no. And that’s the incoherence you can’t laugh away.

Ridicule isn’t a substitute for strategy, mhaze, it’s just what’s left when the argument runs out.

Hi mhaze,
"My own views on China? We should sell them anything they want to buy. Treat them as the threat to world peace they are. And prepare for their inevitable economic collapse by getting ever closer, economically, to India."

They are both members of BRICS

Trumpster,

You're a smart guy, does ya think we should sell the Chinese everything we've got in them K-Mart stores? You said to sell em everything. How about we re-brand YOU as the ANKO Everything Tool, you could run on a couple of AA batteries, it cooks, it cleans, it will even walk the dog and feed the cat!

"it cooks, it cleans, it will even walk the dog and feed the cat!"
- Reminds me of the servant robot that delivers food to your table down at the local 'Lil Red Dumpling' restaurant in Victoria Point.
I think I'd prefer the robot than mhaze doing the waitressing.

Hi AC,

Unfortunately, they installed a Trumpster Bot to wait on tables down at the "Aussie Tucker" eatery in Klansville where Surprise Boxes and XXXX beer are the only things on the menu. You may know the joint, its the establishment with the sign out front that reads; "No Wops, Spicks, Towel Heads, Slope Heads, Dagoes, Chinks and definitely no Black Fellas Allowed, White Fellas Only". Everything was going fine, until a party of Korean tourists, couldn't read English, accidentally wondered in, did Trumpster Bot short circuit, he opened up with his inbuilt twin AK-47's, Korean tourists splattered everywhere. "Aussie Tucker", cleaning up was a mess, has gone back to employing local knuckle draggers only to wait tables, but they do keep Trumpster Bot fully loaded out the back, just in case another bunch of undesirables, like those Korean tourists should wonder in.

"does ya think we should sell the Chinese everything we've got in them K-Mart stores?"

Pretty much everything in them-there K-Mart stores came FROM China. I suspect they don't want them back.

I probably should clarify what I mean by selling them anything they want. I've taught you before about how the previous management in Australia (you know, before 1788) used to sell young women to Chinese traders visiting Arnhem. I'm not advocating that we sell them our young women even though China ha a massive shortage of sheilas due to the inane one-child policy.

So there are limits to what we will sell them. But as regards the things that current management sells - coal, iron ore, grain, cotton, etc....well let it rip.

_____________________________________________________________________-

"They are both members of BRICS"

BRICS is defunct. Neither Putin nor Xi bothered to turn up for the last meeting. And when Iran, also a member, was being smacked around by Israel and the US, BRICS was nowhere to be heard.

Trumpster,

"Pretty much everything in them-there K-Mart stores came FROM China." Ya don't say Trumpster! Well, lets rip all that Chinese made junk out of K-mart, toasters, and pencil sharpeners etc, and replace it with dinky-die Aussie made toasters and pencil sharpeners etc. In fact we should make those Aussie toasters and pencil sharpeners play Waltzing Matilda every time they're used.

"I've taught you before about how the previous management in Australia (you know, before 1788) used to sell young women to Chinese traders visiting Arnhem" Got any proof, or is it something you made up to suit your mantra. BTW I thought the Aboriginals were selling the Chinese Aussie made toasters and pencil sharpeners before 1788. I have as much proof as you do.

On the subject of men and women just as China has a percent more men than women, Australia has a percent more women than men, time to put in practice that pre 1788 Aussie trade. We have a surplus of old women on this forum, we've got stock to sell, a lick of face paint and you'll pass for a young 85, the Chinese like their women experenced. BTW, have you ever seen the Great Wall, you'll enjoy it.

"Got any proof, or is it something you made up to suit your mantra."

Pretty funny Paul. By my count this is now the eighth time you've asked me for evidence of the trade in young aboriginal women between the Arnhem tribes and China (mainly Macau). Each time I provide the evidence, you suddenly drop out of the discussion, only to return at a later date professing scepticism as to the accuracy of the issue. So I won't go through and regurgitate all the evidence. I'll simply point you to Blainey's 'Triumph of the Nomads' where the practice was discussed and verified based on records in Macau and Lyndall Ryan's discussions as the collapse in aboriginal population in the region.

(I could also point you to Windschuttle's book on the 'Fabrication of Aboriginal History' but you'd reject that out of hand).

"On the subject of men and women just as China has a percent more men than women,"

Actually its way way more than "a precent". "For the age group 15–19, the sex ratio in 2023 was approximately 117.22 males per 100 females. For the 20–24 age group, the ratio is around 114.61 males per 100 females". China had about 31 million more males than females across all ages. And that's if you accept the Chinese government data. The truth is probably much worse than that.

Trumpster,

"While historical evidence suggests the Macassan fishermen traded goods with Aboriginal Australians, including items like cloth, tobacco, and metal tools, in exchange for trepang (sea cucumber), there's no definitive proof or widespread evidence of Aboriginal women being traded to the Macassans. Some accounts mention Macassans taking Aboriginal people, including women, back to Makassar, but it's not clear if this was through trade or other means, and often involved voluntary participation."

Things in modern European books are not evidence, just speculation based on something or other. As for "verified (evidence) based on records in Macau " Can you provide any proof that these "based on records" actually exist?

"BRICS is defunct. Neither Putin nor Xi bothered to turn up for the last meeting. And when Iran, also a member, was being smacked around by Israel and the US, BRICS was nowhere to be heard."

- No, Putin and Xi's absence showed the block isn't LEAD BY Russia or China, its an economic block focused on de-dollarisation, specifically countries bypassing the dollar by trading with each other in their own currencies.
BRICS is economic, not defense.

SCO Shangai China Organisation

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is a Eurasian political, economic, and security organization, not a defense alliance, though defense cooperation is a key aspect of its activities. Established in 2001, it includes China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Belarus as member states. The SCO aims to enhance cooperation on various fronts, including security, and its member states regularly conduct joint military exercises and engage in defense dialogues.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Not a Defense Alliance:
While defense cooperation is a significant aspect of the SCO, it's not a formal military alliance like NATO. It's a broader framework for cooperation in areas like security, economics, and culture.

Focus on Security:
The SCO's security cooperation includes combating terrorism, separatism, and extremism. It also involves information security, border security, and joint military exercises.
Defense Ministers' Meetings:
The SCO regularly holds meetings of defense ministers, where member states discuss security challenges and deepen military cooperation. For example, a meeting was recently held in Qingdao, China, where defense ministers discussed strengthening cooperation and addressing security threats.
China's Role:
China, as a founding member and current rotating president of the SCO, plays a prominent role in shaping the organization's agenda and activities, including those related to defense and security.
Potential for Counterbalance:
Some see the SCO as a counterbalance to Western influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region, but it's not explicitly framed as an anti-Western bloc, according to the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS).
India's Stance:
India has, on occasion, expressed reservations about the SCO's joint statements, particularly concerning the language used to address cross-border terrorism, according to Newsonair.

Dear Paul,

Referring to your post on page 1:

«America with its capitalist's greed are the real danger to world peace, that's obvious.»

World peace in our times is a dream as we were born in the wrong era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_Yuga).

Yet no matter when, as individuals we can always find peace within our own heart and need not have any enemy whatsoever.

If America's capitalist's greed sets us off-balance, then the solution is to work on eliminating our own greed.

«Our government is taking the right course in its dealings with our largest trading partner.»

Why "Our"? I don't have a government - search my pockets if you will...

Treating people collectively is problematic and cannot be the right course because they are so different from each other. You are not trading with every Chinese anyway, nor should you - trade and sympathise with the good ones and disregard the evil ones, including the Chinese government which oppresses the ordinary Chinese, not to mention the people they conquered.

Actually, not all Americans are greedy and evil either - just ignore their government too, as well as their greedy large corporations.

In fact, it is best not to relate to any governments at all, only with people.

«The instigator of war in our region is America, since WWII they have instigated wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc»

I supported the American war on the Taliban, because I care for the Afghani people, especially the women, but then it appears like the Americans only fought for their own interests and bitterly betrayed the Afghani women the moment it was no longer convenient to protect them.

I think what mhaze was referring to when he mentioned Japan was that - Japan went to war with the west, when the League Of Nations denied Japan oil, because of the Sino-Japanese War. I think mhaze is implying that to deny China too much would be to force them to invade Australia. Personally I believe that Western Trade has created the current problem with China- they have taken what the west has been willing to give, in exchange for aspirational good behavior, and stabbed us with it. The West thought they could use Soft Power to set an example for China, a taste of the benefits of free trade, to encourage them to give up Marxism on their own terms. The Chinese have misused our good faith attempts, now is the time to take away our benevolence, but we can hold out any malevolence. But just remember Machiavelli says we only delay war to the enemies advantage.