| He needs an editor. It's too long, it rambles, it uses language repetitively like "western elites" who exactly does this mean, beyond hand waving dislike of academia? Last time I looked a room full of academics was a disagreement, not really influential to public policy. The agencies engaged in China are mostly commercial like Tesla, apple, car manufacturing and media like News Ltd. Intellectuals my arse! There's a point to be made, and it's made: do not trust propaganda coming out of China which disagrees with basic measurements you can make from outside, or comparable situations outside which disagree by orders of magnitude in health and economics. Do not trust any licence or contract which retains substantive control inside China of a bilateral outcome, without significant evidence of mutual benefit to the state. Accusations against intellectuals and politicians in the west are at best polemic, and at worst bad faith. The author appears to want to bash western intellectuals they disagree with. Very little we do in the west would alter the trajectory inside China, and parallels with interwar Germany are over stated: the modern state of China post 49, at no point has been subject to partition (Taiwan and Hong Kong noted) or oversight or forced to pay reparations. It's grievance with the global free market economics is about the cynicism of trade agreements, the historical disagreement over Taiwan & Hong Kong and the utility inside China of harping on about Japan, Britain and the west's perfidy over time. Calling out a protest against Japan or Britain is as trivial for the Chinese state as it is for the Iranians to remind people about Jimmy Carters helicopter fiasco. If you want realistic views on China, talk to Vietnam. The Vietnamese I know from inside that economy are careful how they engage for a reason: little brother grew up, big brother doesn't fully understand it. China hasn't invaded anywhere outside its own territory for a long time. (Other states dispute what its own territory is, eg the spratleys) It bickers with India along a border. China draws attention to western military forces having been active in multiple unrelated territories consistently across the same timeframe: this is a point of some substance inside China, and in client states in Africa and pacific Islands. They sell this story to source "Coltan": we invest in you for minerals and fish: repression inside your own polity is your own business. Contrast this with world bank economic obligations or social requirements to get western funding. (We're not wrong to seek the social justice. It's hurt us economically because China doesn't and pays well) Australia and New Zealand dropped the ball in their own backyard, China picked it up. There's been a massive about face by the west reinvesting in the places China opportunistically invested in, for fisheries rights and for future military/police relationships. China asks for friendly faces in votes at the UN and related agencies on matters which don't directly affect the states it engages in. It's a low bar, easy payback. It probably has raised the price for western re-engagement which is of course beneficial for those same states. The spratleys and the other islands and sandbars of the China Sea are the major worry. The Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore and japan have food for thought there. Australia's refusal to accept international court jurisdiction over its bullying and spying of East Timor undermined its own standing in the same courts acting against what China is doing. I accused the author of rambling. I've committed the same offence. |
The comparison to Nazi Germany is on point.