Chinese imperialism and future Australian sovereignty

[Morrigu]

[stui magpie]

[pietillidie]

^That's pretty much my view, too.

David, there's MAD and there's absurdly MAD. The objective is to move from arms race to a process of disarmament (mutually-assured pain, as Tannin mentioned somewhere above). Even if we assume and will the best, that doesn't stop things going awry. Think of it more in terms of risk management and insurance, but with the bright side of being able to talk to the other party and mutually reduce the risk and cost. With insurance policy tucked away in back pocket, the goal should then be mutually-assured benefit.

That said, I have great sympathy for the counter argument that the arms race becomes self-fulfilling because perverse incentives are merely shifted to the military-industrial complex. So, I would be keen on seeing strategies for dealing with that as part of the process.

[David]

I think it’s very clarifying seeing how much the announced spend, $270 billion over ten years (which our brains tend to file away as just another incomprehensibly big number), could achieve in terms of public sector expenditure – making university free for 6 million people is one claim I’ve seen, for instance, or expanding medicare to fully cover all dental fees. So even for those of us theoretically and conceptually on board with defence spending, I think we need to ask ourselves about where our priorities lie.

[Tannin]

^ Yup. As you say, David, it is really quite a simple choice.

(a) Spend the $20 billion on defence and do without free university education for everyone

(b) Spend the $270 billion on something else and .... well, you've seen the situation in Hong Kong for yourself.

One or the other. There is no third choice.

[David]

The question is, how much do we need to buy into this fantasy – and it is a fantasy – that Australia is remotely likely to become another Hong Kong to justify such a spend? As much as I’m horrified by what’s happening over there and fully support the pro-democracy movement, there’s also the uncomfortable reality that it’s Chinese sovereign territory. They can interpret and enforce "one country, two systems" however they like. It’s fundamentally different to the invasion of another country, which is apparently what this is all about (because if we’re not at risk of foreign tanks rolling in, what’s the point of anything more than a token defence budget?).

I would wager that we could have $0 in defence spending and would still be safe from that scenario. And how do I know that? Because there are quite a few much poorer countries between us and China with much tinier defence capacities that have hitherto escaped invasion from them of any kind in recent history, and China has shown no signs of even considering anything of the kind. We can’t say it’ll never happen, but that’s essentially what we’re gambling on – $270 billion says I’m wrong. It’s a big bet.

[Tannin]

Because we are at risk of foreign tanks rolling in. Every country is. All the time. Read some history. Or look around you.

Do you think for one instant that the Chinese troops massed on the Indian border are still sitting (mostly) on the Chinese side of the border because they like it better on that side of the hill?

They cross the border now and then and fire off a few shells just to see if India is still ready to defend itself. Taiwan, same deal. Russia, same deal. Vietnam, same deal. Spratley Islands - you've seen it for yourself. They are on the march.

Our turn next. Get ready or die like Hong Kong. Your call.

[David]

It’s precisely because of history that I’m sceptical. How many territorial annexations or ground invasions have there been since World War 2? Largely, they seem to fall into two categories: imperialist meddling (usually by the US), or claims of long-disputed territory. Traditional expansionist invasions like that of Japan in Manchuria, Nazi Germany in Poland (etc.) and Iraq in Kuwait have become very rare – the only twenty-first century example I can think of has been Russia in Ukraine, and even that deserves an asterisk given the two countries’ intertwined history. This is a world in which, just 100 years ago, the entire ballgame (particularly in Europe) was constantly shifting lines on a map; in contrast, in my lifetime, national borders have generally been stable and rarely violated.

As I’ve argued previously, the much more commonplace attack method in this day and age is more like pre-Maidan Ukraine, in which an economically dependent country essentially ends up with a puppet government that acts like a proxy for the imperialist neighbour. In such cases, you could have the best defence money can buy and it won’t help you one bit, because there’s no military threat and, in any event, the loyal client government is in control of the very weapons that were stockpiled! That pretty clearly seems to be the Chinese hegemonic model going on recent history.

Of course, history doesn’t run in a straight line, and global dynamics could change. Maybe it’s prudent to be prepared for that. But I think the current situation makes military build-up an old-fashioned and out-of-touch response, and like bringing a knife to a gunfight – the gunfight being economic subservience leading to a gradual surrender of sovereignty.

[pietillidie]

^I agree with you significantly, but would still err on the side of taking out insurance on an unlikely but not impossible disaster. I also see security as something that underwrites the stability you need to enact decent policy of the sort you want. The trick, though, is keeping defence in its place.

That said, if someone can work out how to get tax from the mining companies which control Canberra, you can have your cake and eat it too. Last time their scare campaign against being taxed for the national good was so successful they reduced the revenue to a bag of mixed lollies and somehow made national embarrassment Tony Abbott seem electable.

[Sicks Bux]

Speaking of Australian sovereignty, I'd prefer it if we had our own nuclear missiles and weren't beholden to the US for protection. The US government doesn't even look after its own citizens, so how can we be certain that we can count on them?

[David]

I’d feel a lot safer in a world in which aggressive denuclearisation was pursued, frankly. Us getting nukes only encourages more hostile countries around us to do the same. It’s amazing how many people don’t understand that.

[Sicks Bux]

That's no reason to leave ourselves beholden to the US and to risk them leaving us hanging in an emergency.

[stui magpie]

Stan Grant's view.

[roar]

[David]

But are we even pursuing bilateral arms reduction initiatives? I fear that there's little appetite for it, not when so much political capital can be wrung from militarism (and literal capital from defence industry contracts).