Secret war chapter missing in the public version of Australia's defence white paper

Who wants to fight a war? 

Not surprising, there are some who may benefit from wars. 

That's what the hushed up section of the defence white paper issued during PM Kevin Rudd's leadership. This was revealed in  a new book, The Kingdom and the Quarry: China, Australia, Fear and Greed.  

The Australian military establishment, like that of the US and other countries, have an interest in lobbying for increase defence spending against a played up enemy. Force 2030 set out in the white paper was to acquire 12 big conventional submarines with missiles, revolutionary Joint Strike Fighters, air warfare destroyers and giant landing ships to prepare for possible war with Australia's main trade partner. 

Unfortunately, it is dangerous weapons, human lives and properties that warmongers are toying with. It seems much easier to create enemies than enhance friendly relations in the post-Cold War era. 

Consistent with the overall strategic policy is reliance on close friendship with US at whatever costs. However, the contagion of global economic woes and other economic priorities has put pressure on the Gillard government to cut defence spending. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/secret-war-with-china-uncovered/story-fn59nm2j-1226381002984

"  A new book, The Kingdom and the Quarry: China, Australia, Fear and Greed, reveals how Force 2030 set out in the white paper - to include 12 big conventional submarines with missiles, revolutionary Joint Strike Fighters, air warfare destroyers and giant landing ships - was being prepared for a possible war with Australia's main trading partner.

In the lead-up to the release of the paper in May 2009, The Australian reported extensively on the debate among Australia's security and intelligence agencies over whether China was likely to pose a threat as it increased investment in its armed forces.

The public version of the paper stopped short of declaring that war with China was what the authors feared. To avoid offending the Chinese, and to create a degree of deniability, discussion of possible future conflict relied on euphemisms such as a "major power adversary".

 Even the sanitised public version of the white paper was enough to upset the Chinese. They asked Mr Pezzullo to revise the description of the regional security environment and, in particular, the references to China's military modernisation.

The Beijing media said the white paper was a victory for the "hawks" in Australia's defence establishment and that was partly because Mr Rudd wanted to show himself to the electorate as tough on China, to show loyalty to the US and to give Australia an excuse to increase its forces."

Blind Activist Chen

Who is blind chinese activist Chen Guangchen?

Unlike peaceful civil rights advocates such as Martin Luther King, Chen's methods of protests are violent and destructive to public order and safety. 

On the more positive side, "People who know Chen say he is a Gandhi-esque figure and has a deep optimism that China will inevitably become a country ruled by law,” professor Susan L. Shirk, an expert on Chinese politics at the University of California in San Diego, told NBC News. “He is not a dissident, agitating for a change in government – he just wants China to enforce its own laws." 

There's much more than the mainstream media is willing to choose to portray Chen as a heroic champion of the poor and disabled. He is not a lone campaigner, but has many secret supporters and possibly foreign sponsors. How did Chen accomplish an incredible feat? One needs a well devised and orchestrated plan to escape house detention and make his way to the US embassy. 

Most of all Chen is against China's one-child policy. It is not difficult to associate with the fact that Chen has two children. Most Chinese who wish to have two or more children would move out of China and reside overseas. Without a successful and strict one-child policy, the world population would have more than two billion ethnic Chinese. That would sound scary to some people. 

Chen has tested the weakness of the security system and pushed the limits. China's provincial officials are rough in handling criminals and disobedient citizens. Police brutality (not unheard of in the US during the 1960s) is rampant in local jurisdictions. As a result the whole nation's name goes down with the misconduct of errant state and local officials. 

Chen does not have the credentials that would qualify as a skilled migrant to a western or developed country. He must acquire international fame (or notoriety) to get on board the ship. He has risen from obscurity to warrant getting the attention of the US Congressional Hearing.

Is Chen worth US risking ties with China. Washington has calibrated the act well by using Chen as a vehicle to embarrass China in front of the world, but at the same time playing the good guy, enough to avoid a diplomatic row, by reassuring its creditor and competitor that it meant well and treasured bilateral relations. The sensitive term of political asylum has been avoided so far. Nonetheless, US taking in Chen into embassy grounds is not in line with diplomatic decorum, international laws, amounting to an unfriendly act. 

The Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is critical of Hilary Clinton and Obama's handling of the Chen fiasco. MR reveals disrespect and ignorance of international law. He ought to reflect on sharing goodies with the poor and powerless of their own country and abide by the American constitution. before aggressively interfering in other country's affairs. 

Anyway, there is not much Chen could contribute by remaining in China. In his words, Chen hopes to seek medical treatment, rest and study in the US. NYU has offered Chen a place normally reserved for the high achievers. Hopefully, his aspirations are fulfilled and he learns more about the West (not just the idealist imsge he imagined from a distance). 

Assault and Robbery of Chinese international students on Sydney train - long term negative effects

We are made to believe that racists are a minority but do not know how many harbour similar anti-foreign feelings without exhibiting in public. 

Sadly, the passengers who are supposed to help or call for help did not but chose to egg the criminals on with more racist rant. Where are the night guards who were supposed to ensure the safety of lone passengers travelling at night?

The incident begs many more questions ...

Had they been Australian born ethnic Asians, would they be targeted for assaults?

To what extent has Kevin Rudd's past tough talk and belligerent posturing against a perceived rising unfriendly China spurred anti-Chinese sentiments?

Already suffering from drop in demand for resources as China seeks alternative sources in Brazil and after encountering walls from high pricing suppliers and investment barriers. Perhaps it is good news as weaker AUD would generally attract more tourists to make up for the sure decline in nueva riche Chinese travellers. 

It is easy to be cavalier with words when good times are rolling. But when the global economic environment looks unlikely to recover shortly, it is high time that Australians ensure that they do not squander any goodwill and profits, or risk losing heavily for a long time.


Quotes from Shanghai :

"They wanted money so we gave them money. But then a caucasian woman sitting opposite told the robbers she just broken up with her boyfriend who had taken her purse," the student wrote.

"She pointed to us and shouted to the robbers: 'Rob them, they are Chinese, they are rich'."
"There were no policemen in the train, but there were many other people and even train crews." He said no one had offered help. 

http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-744879-1-1.html

Change for better or worse - China target post-Bo Xilai fiasco

Viewed with outsider lens and attempting to impose Juedo-Christian tradition, law and political mould, William Pesek presents a more pessimistic and patronising analysis. 

The subtle tussles may not be evident to most China watchers but to the experts who watch every step closely, the horse trading has been going behind the scenes, beneath the relatively calm surface. Hence the explosive scandal came as a shock to many Chinese and foreigners alike. 

Sure, focussing on the gossipy and juicy parts of the scandal would only hamper a deeper understanding of the key issues that would really matter to China's future. 

Corruption and bending rules have long been recognised as potential time bombs and have been addressed delicately by the Chinese central leadership. At times, the most severe penalty have been meted out including death sentences. However, these moves had not been implemented as coherently, quicklyand lawfully as some impatient external observers and idealists hope for. As if it had not been sufficiently drastic and destabilising.  

Even the most cynical China critic must admit that the Chinese economy, human rights record, legal system, political participation and redistribution of power and wealth have undergone immense transformation and bold experimentation. Transparency and accountability have improved despite fledging areas which seem to get undue attention. 

The bottomline is that princelings and ideologues who form part of the stabilising foundation could be removed when they ran foul of the law and commit excesses for self enrichment at the expense of the people's interests. It is a step forward in people's democracy but the road ahead is fraught with dangers. 

Antiquated political structure may be only in form whereas the economics and government has undergone incredible overhaul in essence more than any other country in the world in recent times. 

Here may be something that wealthy bankers and big business who have a stranglehold on politicians through lobbying and interest groups could take a leaf from to sort out their own unique set of problems despite having a well developed democratic and legal system in place.  

Occupy Wall Street - who wishes for color revolution in the faltering economies and social inequalities in developed world. Just wondering?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-17/billionaires-make-killing-amid-china-murder-tale.html

"It’s the rare scandal that involves murder, corruption, Harvard University and comparisons to Jacqueline Kennedy. The Bo Xilai kerfuffle now mesmerizing China offers all this and perhaps more: It could forever change an entire political system.
---   ---  ---

We’re missing the true story here, though. It’s really more evidence that China’s political system is trapped in the past, while its economy races ahead. This dangerous mismatch is often dismissed by pundits and investors, and yet Bo’s ambitious rise and fall, as well as the opacity surrounding it, embodies much of what’s wrong in the fastest-growing major economy.

China is iPad central, with state-of-the-art factories, modern office towers of mirrored glass, six-lane highways, high- speed rail, expanding WiFi networks and state wealth that’s the envy of Washington and Tokyo. China’s nouveau riche are so vital to Prada SpA, Louis Vuitton and Mercedes-Benz that they have been called the “Middle Blingdom.”

Yet China’s political system dates to the days of Mao and Josef Stalin. As democracy takes root from Egypt to Myanmar, China is still mired in closed-door deliberations, backroom deals and purges. This murky world is bumping up against a burgeoning Internet culture that makes it impossible to contain and control the news.

---  ---  ----

In 2011, the richest 70 members of China’s legislature were worth more than the annual gross domestic product of Slovakia. The $90 billion concentrated among them is both emblematic of how China’s model is failing the masses and why Communist Party bigwigs will stonewall any change that crimps their income.

Because the extremely wealthy are often politicians, China may have a truly difficult time retooling its economy and narrowing the rich-poor divide. The hurdles to reform increase the odds of a hard landing in China that breeds social unrest.

We can marvel over Bo’s downfall. We can go on about how China’s leadership refuses to countenance rising political stars who challenge its clubby world. We can engage in whodunit fantasies about the wife and the dead businessman. But more than anything, this tale shows how an antiquated political system imperils a nation’s future.

Positives and Negatives of Bo Xilai Scandal

Extremist Maoist Bo Xilai would have caused much damage and negated China's achievements if he had made it to the top. While factional infighting is more stable and mature coalition, divisions must be healed and decadence eradicated by seizing this opportunity to unify and reform the flawed system. 

The chances of a comeback for Bo have been dimmed to nothingness.  Treason, crime and concentration of power in one person is incompatible with today's collective leadership.  That Deng Xiaoping was rehabilitated after several power struggles and Cultural Revolution because of his sincerity and passion for uplifting China. Bo could only rise to the post as mafia busting owing to his mafia and unlawful methods. He does not possess the essential traits for national leadership. Let this be a lesson to aspiring Chinese leaders who want the short cut and devious ways to power. 

A must-read for every one who is interested in China:

http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.aspx?id=236

Quote : Excerpts of "Bo Xilai Crisis : A Curse of Blessing?"

Cheng Li, an expert on Chinese elite politics and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution :

the dismissal of Bo Xilai is a very positive event in China’s political development. While it has already constituted the most serious political crisis since the 1989 Tiananmen incident (and perhaps since the 1971 Lin Biao incident), the Hu Jintao–Wen Jiabao administration may have successfully avoided an even bigger crisis. In stark contrast with the 1989 Tiananmen incident, China’s economy and society have hardly been disrupted, at least up until now. This reflects the maturity of Chinese society and the strength of the country as a whole. To a great extent, this crisis has been a good thing for China. It not only reveals major flaws in the Chinese political system, but may also help the Chinese leadership, intellectual communities, and the general public reach a new consensus, thus contributing to bold and genuine political reforms. However, if the leadership fails to seize this great opportunity, the CCP will be in greater jeopardy in the years to come.

Bo Xilai’s story is certainly linked to China’s present-day factional politics, which I characterize as “one party, two coalitions.” One coalition is led by former president Jiang Zemin’s protégés. While the core of this coalition used to be the so-called Shanghai Gang, “princelings” (leaders who come from high-ranking family backgrounds) have become more central since the fall of Shanghai party boss Chen Liangyu on corruption charges in 2006. Bo Xilai is a princeling, as his father Bo Yibo was a revolutionary veteran who served as vice premier. The other coalition primarily consists of former officials from the Chinese Communist Youth League and is led by President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao. These two coalitions fight with each other over power, influence, and policy initiatives. Bo Xilai’s career advancement can certainly be attributed to his princeling background and his patron-client ties with Jiang Zemin.

Bo’s downfall is also related to his own egotistical personality and notorious ambition. While his ambitions were most recently focused on achieving a seat on the Politburo Standing Committee, it would have not stopped there. In the months preceding the crisis, members of Bo’s staff spread the rumor that he could become China’s next premier. In addition, Su Wei, a scholar close to Bo at the Chongqing Party School, compared Bo Xilai and Chongqing mayor Huang Qifan to former leaders Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai in comments circulated in both the Chongqing and national media.

The Bo episode is also related to ideological conflict, as he was associated with China’s “new left” thinking—especially through his Mao-style campaigns, such as the “smash the black” anti–organized crime campaign—and advocated an ultra-egalitarian and ultra-nationalist development model for China, known as the “Chongqing model.”

But this episode is really more than the sum of these factors. Most importantly, it involves Wang Lijun’s attempted defection to the United States and the charges against Bo’s wife related to the murder or assassination of British citizen Neil Heywood. The Chinese public has been shocked by both incidents, since this is a very unusual set of events in CCP history. How is it possible that national hero Wang Lijun and one of China’s top leaders are capable of such actions? When these kinds of charges are involved, all Chinese leaders—regardless of which faction they belong to—will not support Bo Xilai any longer, because the current crisis poses a challenge to the legitimacy of the CCP itself. The stakes are very high, and the challenge facing the CCP leadership is intimidating.

factional politics: the tensions between the princelings coalition and the Youth League coalition.

Specifically, the other princeling leaders wanted to use Bo to their advantage. Within elite circles, Bo was nicknamed “the cannon” because he was always ready to attack his political rivals, including Hu Jintao, Wen Jiabao, and Bo’s liberal counterpart—Guangdong party chief Wang Yang. Thus, he was considered a much-needed weapon by the other princelings, though they did not necessarily like or trust him. On the other hand, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao saw Bo as a liability for their opposition because they believed Bo’s campaigns were doomed to fail and that he ultimately would undermine the strength of the princelings due to his divisive tactics. In addition, his Cultural Revolution–style initiatives were seen by Hu and Wen as remnants of the past with no hope of succeeding. Therefore, they may have been even less concerned about Bo than some of the other heavyweights in the princeling camp.

In fact, Bo had many enemies, including at least four major groups: (1) liberal intellectuals, who often regarded him not only as a Maoist, but also as a Nazi-like leader who often singled out particular social groups as targets; (2) lawyers and legal professionals alarmed at his roughshod treatment of Chinese legal practices in Chongqing and Dalian; (3) the majority of political and military elites, who feared Bo did not play according to the rules and would take China down the wrong path; and (4) entrepreneurs in China and abroad alarmed at Bo’s anti-market tendencies, evident in his rough handling of Wal-Mart stores in Chongqing.

At the 2007 Party Congress, Bo had aggressively sought two positions, membership in the Politburo and a vice-premiership. In my view, the fact that he got the former but not the latter was the result of a compromise between the two camps. Assigning him to an interior city like Chongqing was an effort on the part of Hu and Wen to reduce Bo’s influence and power. While there were some unconfirmed reports during his first few months on the job that he was deeply dissatisfied with his new assignment, in the end he did a remarkable job of putting Chongqing on China’s political map and, for a time, effectively turned it into his own personal kingdom. Regardless, prior to this most recent scandal, there had been long-standing concerns among the Chinese political establishment that Bo would go too far and undermine the unity of the central leadership of the CCP. Even before the latest scandal, some in Beijing felt that Bo would not receive a seat on the Politburo Standing Committee because he was so divisive and could cause trouble for the CCP as a whole. Certainly, with Wang Lijun’s actions, Bo Xilai’s career was over immediately.

Although the princelings did support Bo and used him when convenient, this does not mean that they gave him a blank check to do as he pleased. Just as there is political infighting within the political parties in the United States, the relationship among members of a Chinese coalition is both cooperative and competitive.

Much has been made of Xi’s visit to Chongqing in December 2011, interpreted by some as an endorsement of Bo. Five Politburo Standing Committee members visited Chongqing, and Bo interpreted this as an endorsement of his leadership and his Chongqing model.  

It is unclear whether Bo would have fallen if Wang Lijun had not gone to the U.S. consulate. I believe it would have been much more difficult to purge Bo without Wang’s actions due to strong factional tensions within the leadership, as Bo not only represented himself but also a social movement. Even today, some people are suspicious of whether this entire incident is true and whether the death of Heywood has anything to do with Bo and Gu. Some even accuse the United States of involvement in a conspiracy. However, the evidence provided by Wang Lijun made the case against Bo much easier and clear-cut. Thus, without Wang Lijun’s dramatic visit to the consulate, removing Bo would have been much more difficult for his opponents to achieve, though given Bo’s actions and the ongoing investigation of him, he may have fallen eventually even without this crisis.

The party leadership will be extremely cautious and not expand the scope of the Bo Xilai case to other leaders. Purges will be relatively limited. The fact that certain leaders closely affiliated with Bo, such as Huang Qifan, are still free implies that the top leadership does not intend to punish too many people. The fact that the country is on the eve of the 18th Party Congress, with so many destabilizing factors, will also lead the leadership to limit the scope of targeted officials.

Therefore, though the Bo case is a victory for Hu and Wen, this victory will not necessarily translate into more seats for their coalition on the Politburo Standing Committee. To a certain extent, this explains why Guangdong’s liberal party chief Wang Yang has been reluctant to claim victory since there still could be a backlash against him. The makeup of the future Politburo Standing Committee will largely be determined through compromises between the two coalitions. The balance of power within this system will not be easily changed. If the princeling faction collapsed, this would constitute an unimaginable revolution with implications for Chinese politics and social instability ten times greater than the Bo scandal. Thus, at the moment, there is a tremendous incentive for the party’s top leadership to preserve the current structure of “one party, two coalitions,” and show unity and solidarity.

Evidence of the Chinese leadership’s unity on this matter can be found in the man who replaced Bo as party chief of Chongqing, Zhang Dejiang, a protégé of Jiang Zemin and part of the same princeling coalition as Bo. This appointment means that a deal has been made and the top leadership of the party is united. To a certain extent, this is similar to what happened in 2006 with the fall of Shanghai party boss Chen Liangyu. All those who have followed Chen as Shanghai party boss, including Xi Jinping, have been protégés of Jiang Zemin, just as Chen was.

Consequently, it is highly likely that Bo’s potential seat on the Politburo Standing Committee will be taken by someone from the princeling coalition. Zhang Dejiang would likely have attained a seat on the committee regardless of Bo’s fall, though he will now probably receive an even more important position. Zhang Gaoli, the party chief of Tianjin, and Shanghai party chief Yu Zhengsheng, both protégés of Jiang Zemin, are now likely to go further with Bo gone. Though we do not know for sure which specific officials will receive which posts, I do think it is highly likely that the factional balance of power on the Politburo Standing Committee will remain unchanged with five seats for one coalition and four for the other.

The Cultural Revolution and the 1989 Tiananmen incident are two of the great disasters in the history of the CCP, but in the aftermath of these events you see opening and reform after the Cultural Revolution and the acceleration of China’s market transition and integration with the outside world after Tiananmen, respectively. Positive political developments came out of these terrible events. There is hope that something similar may yet happen following the Bo crisis. Lessons will be learned, a consensus will be reached, and bold decisions will be pursued. Wen Jiabao, in recent comments at the National People’s Congress, said very clearly that the party-state leadership system needs to be changed and that the rule of law should be emphasized in the handling of Wang Lijun’s case in order for the CCP to endure the test of history.

Learning from this crisis is not a choice for the CCP as much as it is a necessity. If nothing changes, the party will continue to lose its credibility. I believe the characterization of the Chinese political system as “resilient authoritarianism” is incorrect. While the prevailing view had been that this year’s leadership procession would go smoothly, two years ago I argued that the upcoming succession would be highly problematic and feature some sort of major crisis. Now the general sentiment is that China is in a terrible situation due to a vicious power struggle, but I am more optimistic. China has removed a major danger and avoided the worst scenario, which would have been taking the country down a Maoist, ultranationalist path. Of course, Bo’s chances of accomplishing this were always slim, but now they are close to zero. This is solid progress, and a reason to be more optimistic about China’s future.

India escalates tension and shows aggressive posture with intercontinental missile tests

India's military buildup is uncalled for. It is clear as day who is the hostile party. 


China, on the other hand, tries to play down the threat and calm fears.  However, we know that China is only putting up a confident front. The motivations of one's neighbour in showing its military capability and war readiness are of serious concerns. 


Why didn't India's aggressive posture draw the same criticisms and objections from western powers?   For instance, Iranian acquisition of nuclear capability pre-weapons manufacture and North Korea's failed attempt.


US has been providing both political and technological support (hedging its bets against Pakistan turning). However, we have learnt dearly that wars do not help to end wars. 


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/19/india-missile-idUSL3E8FJ1KZ20120419

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1196249/1/.html

Quote :

Beijing on Thursday downplayed India's successful launch of a missile capable of striking anywhere in China, saying the neighbouring giants were not rivals.

India earlier on Thursday test-fired its new Agni V missile, which boasts a 5,000-kilometre (3,100-mile) range and is capable of delivering a one-tonne nuclear warhead.

"China has taken note of reports of India's missile launch," foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin told reporters when asked for comment on the launch.

"China and India are both big emerging countries, we are not rivals but cooperation partners."

Analysts have noted the Agni V extends India's missile reach over all of China, including military installations in the far northeast.


http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-743246-1-1.html

Quote : 


Only the permanent members of the UN Security Council - China, Russia, France, the United States and the United Kingdom - along with Israel, are believed to have such long distance missiles.

The launch will be closely monitored by India's nuclear-armed rivals China and Pakistan and by Western countries, but is unlikely to draw the kind of criticism aimed at North Korea after its own failed long-range rocket launch on Thursday.

India has a no-first-use policy and says its nuclear weapons and missiles are for defensive purposes only.

Australia taking China for granted

The world's greatest power (military and economic) as most see it at present has not missed any opportunity to show its contentions with its next arch rival China.  China has reached maturity in economic reforms and is looking ahead for more comprehensive governance. It has not dedicated sufficient time in addressing concerns of declared enemies and cold friends. This game willbenefit  neither China nor the West. 


Differences cannot be swept under the carpet. They must been talked about and resolved amicably. Concerns over Chinese acquisition of advanced technology has deprived the US of increasing export and close the chronic trade deficit problem. 
Similarly, Australia has also ruled out investments from Huawei on national security grounds. However, such issues have largely been ironed out or overlooked with such US investors. 


http://www.afr.com/p/technology/fortescue_chief_dragged_into_huawei_AF7FO9wwz63UedD664v2sO


On the other hand, America's good friend across the Pacific Ocean Australia has been ignoring China, given up business opportunities and learning, to its detriment, for the last 10 years and many years into the future.  Says Andrew Forrest who owns a notable mining conglomerate Fortescue Metals.  

http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/local-business/australia-taking-china-for-granted-andrew-forrest/story-e6frg2s3-1226330681528

Mr Forrest says Australia is not engaging with China ``anywhere near enough'', citing a lack of senior ministerial representation at what Boao Forum for Asia meetings.

``I see other countries with their senior ministers and prime ministers out there selling their own countries and I look around and say where is my country,'' Mr Forrest told reporters after speaking at a business lunch in Sydney on Tuesday.

``Now people don't need our legal services, they can get them elsewhere.

``They don't need our investment banking services, they can get them elsewhere.

``They don't need our resources, our energy. They can get them elsewhere, so let's not take it for granted,'' Mr Forrest said.

Mr Forrest's comments follow those of Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Secretary Dennis Richardson, who said last year that Australia's footprint in China was lagging behind comparable Western nations.

``If you go back 15 or 20 years, we were leading the pack in terms of representation. We've now fallen off the pack,'' Mr Richardson said in October.