What's new

Abbott tells US to welcome China's rise

China and USA will come face to face some or the other day in the future over some or the other issue, there are way too many differences between the two .

China and US can never be friends, only enemy they can be of each others, why, I explained many times as below:

1st, China wants to have every technology which US has, and superior to US also, which will bring US to the level of Africa :agree:, if it will get happen, which looks like going to happen within 5 to 10 years from now. as, if US will have lost production lines of High Tech Products to China and if China will then introduce these products in world at much cheaper prices, then how US/EU will maintain earning? it will bring US to stone age, if it will ever happen, and China is determined to have all the techs of US, with higher than US also, and US wants to resist these efforts. only Indian High Qualified professionals US have, which may help US have high techs in future, in competition with China....

2nd, China wants to have higher techs in defense arms which may help them win over any enemy including US/West, and Western nations definitely dont want this, including Australia :disagree:. US wants to put missiles in space and when China also wants to do the same, West has a problem. US want to form a 'World Government', which would govern the whole world including China, and China doesn't want this to happen when a White/Christian/Western government start governing China and other developing nations.

3rd, in western view, CHinese has been an inferior race for a long period of time while Chinese wants to prove it a superior race, the superior Chinese culture than the Western ones. hence, there is a clear cultural clash between West and CHina :meeting:

4th, US/West believe in 'grading' of nationality, with putting Western on higher place and Asians on lower national identity/grade, which is a clear clash between 'Chinese Proud' for being a Chinese and American proud to be an American..........:sniper:

India also has the same clash with US/West but India is blessed with CHina who first take an attempt on these above '4' Western aggressions... :china:
 
,
Mr Rudd and his friends simply can't stop themselves from thinking about China, as below :meeting:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/155059-kevin-rudd-says-china-rule-world.html#post3254310

EQMQNKZXL90VKRH7H83-1.jpg
 
australian media/politicians live in a threat that a fall of US/EU will finally result in enslaving Australia. like this movie as below where they showed how North Korea, backed by China, attacked on Australia and killed australians and captured australian land, a very popular movie there and many other similar TV program/articles etc in australia...... and their British Lords think, India can be the best answer to China and hence they want to get India in any case against China's rise. and thats why I always say, more India will kick a$$es of these Western b@astards, more they will come to the shoes of India, as anyhow they have no other option except help from India :meeting:

kicking these Western b@astards is more important as they first want to bring India in the state of before 1947 and then use Indian wealth, indian talent for their personal benefits and finally indian troops against China. they believe, they first need to destroy India and then only India may come in the position to do what exactly these Western forces say. there must be a full combined resistance to these enemies of humanity :sniper:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello_10 is a notorious racist anti-Australian troll who goes into every thread about Australia trolling with false information and other nonsense. This is just another thread in a long line of threads created out of hatred (See his other thread where he said Australia should be invaded by Asia) Nothing he says can be taken seriously and theres no point responding to him, It will just encourage him to continue trolling with his delusions and false information.
The guy actually believes that he is some sort of big powerful person who is friends with vladimir putin, and that he is friends with Australian politicians. He is a nutcase

He is also a previously banned member too, and despite repeated requests to admins and mods, they will not do anything about him.
 
Hello_10 is a notorious racist anti-Australian troll who goes into every thread about Australia trolling with false information and other nonsense. This is just another thread in a long line of threads created out of hatred (See his other thread where he said Australia should be invaded by Asia) Nothing he says can be taken seriously and theres no point responding to him, It will just encourage him to continue trolling with his delusions and false information.
The guy actually believes that he is some sort of big powerful person who is friends with vladimir putin, and that he is friends with Australian politicians. He is a nutcase

He is also a previously banned member too, and despite repeated requests to admins and mods, they will not do anything about him.

did you people go to parliament in Canberra to ask them who is this man? :what: but when you people go there, confirm to them that little loss of mental balance on any of my statement and ........ even if half million refugees will be dropped on australia, it will take only one week, and then australia as a nation will finally be finished, get the point? :undecided:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

one day I told to Ms Gillard that australia is a country where men are labors and women prostitutes, no credibility or proper educational background, and their fall is just in front of them. australia is nothing but a nude woman in Indian ocean region and just little loss of mental balance is required in the regard of anything i say here....... :wave:
 
here Mr Abbott on China in his recent speech. see, how many times he says that its mainly the China which feeds Australia, making the Australians rich, and how many times he is worried with China and want to learn from Cold War experiences etc. :meeting:

Abbott's Beijing speech got the balance right
August 02, 2012

661898-120802-lobbecke.jpg


THE single most important quality in getting China policy right is balance. China's economic development has created wonderful improvements for the Chinese, and helped make Australia rich. :china: The story is generally positive. But there is a dark side.

China remains a repressive dictatorship with a poor human rights record. Recently it has engaged in outrageous bullying of its neighbours in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

Any Australian prime minister will naturally emphasise the positive, and spend the majority of their energy on areas where China and Australia can co-operate. But it would be the height of folly, analytically crippling, politically emasculating and morally indefensible to take a vow of silence on all difficult aspects of China's rise.

Tony Abbott's speech in Beijing last week was most notable for the deep continuity it maintained with the Hawke. Keating, Howard, Rudd and Gillard policies towards China. That commentators reacted so hysterically to what they saw as minute departures from orthodoxy by Abbott is a reflection on their own policy neuroses and general discomfort with nuance.

As Abbott said: "Since Deng Xiaoping first introduced market reforms and opened China to the world, Australian governments of both sides have striven to cultivate the best possible relations with China. The Howard government's approach to foreign policy, including relations with China, was to avoid giving other countries gratuitous public advice in favour of trying to work together on matters of mutual interest."

That was the tone of Abbott's whole speech. He emphasised that a Liberal government would mostly make representations to China on human rights through the official human rights dialogue. This of course does not preclude from time to time making public statements, especially on specific cases. Similarly Abbott did call within this speech for greater democracy within China. This is brave and true and good, and need not cause any trouble in the bilateral relationship.

It is indeed the right balance. Mostly you go through official channels to avoid needless public dispute with Beijing but from time to time you do make public statements.

Most of the reaction to Abbott saying it would rarely be in Australia's interests for a foreign, state-owned entity to acquire control of an Australian business was wildly overblown and nearly hysterical. Abbott is foreshadowing at most the tiniest finetuning of our foreign investment process.

Similarly, his remarks on the South China Sea -- that Australia has no position on the merits of rival claims but hopes disputes will be settled in accordance with international law -- are almost exactly the formulation the Gillard government itself uses.

The storm in a teacup over this stuff is reminiscent of the last days of the Keating government when ministers argued that Asia would not deal with Howard -- utter nonsense.

In fact Abbott's geo-strategic outlook is almost identical to Kevin Rudd's. Both men were formed intellectually in the Cold War. The world has definitively moved on from the Cold War -- as both Abbott and Rudd understand profoundly -- and China is in no sense an equivalent of the old Soviet Union. :)

But the Cold War provided excellent intellectual, political and moral formation, if you were on the right side. :meeting: It taught, among other things, the importance of political values in international affairs, of democracy and human rights, of US leadership, of alliance solidarity, of the complexities of the US alliance system within Asia.

If you were right about the Cold War you are more likely to be right about the post-Cold War. Abbott has often acknowledged the formative experience of his friendship with B. A. Santamaria, the most important and impressive Australian Cold War analyst. Santamaria got a lot of things wrong, but on the central issues of the Cold War he was right.

At university Abbott's political activism was in part Cold War anti-communist activism. As a Rhodes scholar in Oxford he travelled to the Soviet Union and returned to tell friends that it had "not a single redeeming feature". In the Howard cabinet he was the single strongest voice in favour of granting political asylum to Chinese diplomat Chen Yonglin, who defected.

Rudd was equally a Cold War warrior. His honours thesis at the Australian National University was on Wei Jingsheng, the legendary Chinese human rights activist. Rudd was greatly influenced by the writings of Pierre Ryckmans, the great Belgian sinologist. It would be wrong to reduce Ryckmans's magnificent work to Cold War politics, but his bitter, withering analysis of the savage Maoist iconoclasm was a central artefact of the Cold War. As a diplomat in Beijing in the mid-1980s, one of Rudd's tasks was dealing with North Korea. Within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Bill Hayden once got Rudd to write a comprehensive review of the outlook for the Soviet Union. It was a sober and hawkish document.

Rudd had his problems with Beijing in 2008 and 2009. A wholly mistaken orthodoxy has grown up that this was because of Rudd's inconsistency towards China. In fact China was having troubles with almost everyone in Asia at the time.

Beijing gets a vote in how the relationship goes, and it caused the problems, not Rudd, nor any general defect in Australian policy.

Malcolm Turnbull, who has a much less secure strategic map in his head than Abbott or Rudd, and who tends to reflect zeitgeist prejudice, exemplified the mistaken orthodoxy in a piece in

The Australian on July 21. Turnbull wrote sneeringly of "Rudd's own provocative speech about human rights abuses in Tibet, delivered in Mandarin to the Peking University".

Turnbull has his facts wrong. Rudd's speech was not about human rights. In nearly eight pages of speech there are 1 1/2, extremely mild, sentences on human rights. It is a very wide-ranging and positive speech about China's emergence into the world and Rudd's own love of Chinese culture.

Having praised China's advances, Rudd said: "There are significant human rights problems in Tibet." Only someone indifferent to the facts could label that provocative.

Abbott's reaction to Rudd's speech was altogether different and in every way much better. In a book of essays edited by my colleague Peter van Onselen, Abbott wrote: "There's no doubt that Rudd handled himself well" and he praised Rudd for "stating the obvious" about Tibet.

Australian leaders need to handle China with care. But problems often arise because Beijing chooses to act like a bully.

It is a dysfunctional feature of our political culture that whenever the Chinese Communist Party has a disagreement with a democratic Australian leader, so many commentators automatically choose the side of the Communist Party.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
 
there are too many languages in world, even many tribes of Africa also have separate languages. and few things are psychological, like if we have a look on the way former Australian PM, Mr Kevin Rudd, is abusing Chinese language as below, a certain type of inferiority complex can be seen on his facial expression. the same we noticed on those class 6th/7th passed Australian citizens who were attacking the international students doing master level studies from australia in 2009/10. a certain type of 'Hate' which always result in Hate Crime in Australia for the successful migrants there. most of the new generation of Australia are from Single Mothers so in fact they have 'Identiy Crisis' by birth, and at the same time when they see successful Chinese/Indian, they respond like this.........

if we have a look on this former Australian Prime Minister, his facial expression while abusing chinese language does confirm that he knows that its the Chinese money in the Australian resource sector which feed common Australians, and he is abusing the same chinese culture? but in fact its the human nature, as, its the same feeling to be fed by China why he has this type of facial expression while abusing chinese language, the sense to be fed by Chinese ...........


just have a look on the face of this man, how much hate he keeps for high qualified/high earning migrants while even if his daughter was one of those Aussie girls who passed nights with all the type of asian, african, afghanies, refuges etc, she could get a decent Chinese guy after all. but still this man abuse the same chinese culture, while every Australian knows that its mainly the Chinese money which feeds Australia :tdown:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
just have a look on the face of this man, how much hate he keeps for high qualified/high earning migrants while even if his daughter was one of those Aussie girls who passed nights with all the type of asian, african, afghanies, refuges etc, she could get a decent Chinese guy after all. but still this man abuse the same chinese culture, while every Australian knows that its mainly the Chinese money which feeds Australia :tdown:

WTF, Inferiority complex
 
Hello_10 is a notorious racist anti-Australian troll who goes into every thread about Australia trolling with false information and other nonsense. This is just another thread in a long line of threads created out of hatred (See his other thread where he said Australia should be invaded by Asia) Nothing he says can be taken seriously and theres no point responding to him, It will just encourage him to continue trolling with his delusions and false information.
The guy actually believes that he is some sort of big powerful person who is friends with vladimir putin, and that he is friends with Australian politicians. He is a nutcase

He is also a previously banned member too, and despite repeated requests to admins and mods, they will not do anything about him.
 
,
now Australians are scared that India may also become like China :meeting:

India should not copy China's model :)
October 19, 2012

IN 2006, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh heaped considerable praise on the so-called Beijing Consensus approach to economic development, arguing India could learn much from China in terms of reinventing, rebuilding and rediscovering itself.

With the Chinese economy now stumbling, Julia Gillard is desperately hoping India can take up some of the slack, declaring that her goal is to double bilateral trade between Australia and India to $40 billion by 2015. For that to occur, India needs to reject the Chinese approach:) and look instead to its vibrant private sector to lead the country into the future.

Like China, India has an economy that is too big to ignore. With two-thirds of the population still in rural areas, it has a faster rate of urbanisation than China at 2.5 per cent a year. With a population that is set to exceed China's within the next two decades, and an age demographic that means it will remain a young country well into the middle of this century, it has an economy that has been expanding at about 7 per cent a year since the early 1990s.

This means a rapidly growing India will need even more of our coal. It will need huge quantities of food for its growing population. As a consumption-driven economy with a more sophisticated services sector than China, English-speaking India should welcome Australian services expertise. And to top it off, it is surrounded by weak or small states, meaning India will need to look further afield for meaningful economic partners during the next few decades.

In theory, this all bodes well for an advanced, resource-rich and agriculturally strong economy such as Australia. But there is no such thing as inevitability when it comes to continued economic growth and reform. A telling signal of how a country is really faring is what private entrepreneurs are doing with their capital. In the latest figures available (2010-11), outward investment from India more than doubled, while inward investment plunged. If India is well on its way to becoming an Asian economic superpower, the $US20 billion net outflow from an economy that desperately needs investment does not make sense.

A closer reading of why Indian and foreign entrepreneurs are investing abroad rather than in Asia's second fastest growing economy is troubling. India is in a weaker structural position now than it was several years ago. An entrenched socialism, combined with widespread admiration for the Chinese approach, has meant the re-emergence of Indian economic statism, the conviction that the government needs to take the lead in steering economic development into the future.

Take the present Indian five-year plan (2007-12). In line with the Chinese approach and as Derek Scissors from the Heritage Foundation puts it, "state-led infrastructure is the centrepiece of economic policy and growth strategy". Of the $US500 billion spent on infrastructure development across this period, only 17 per cent came from the private sector and almost all of that came from telecommunications firms.

For the next five year plan (2012-17), the government has set the target of $US1 trillion in infrastructure spending, with half to come from the private sector. No one in the Indian private sector believes this is an achievable goal.

Why are domestic and international private investors so reluctant to commit? One problem is that regulatory conditions and tendering processes are biased against private firms, while cheap loans generally are offered only to state-owned firms. In proposed public-private partnerships, the government's attitude is skewed towards socialising profits and privatising losses. Partly from a legacy emphasising the co-operative and collective ownership and exploitation of land, little progress has been made on an effective land title registration system. This means it is unclear who owns various pieces of land and investors cannot be sure that their infrastructure projects will be granted legal sanction.

Moreover, because the state still dominates - or else limits foreign firms from participating in key industries such as banking, insurance, agriculture, mining and minerals, energy, retail and transport - extremely inefficient and protected state-owned firms allocate and receive far too much capital while delivering far too few products and services at too great a cost. The impact on the agricultural sector is particularly troubling since some indicators suggest productivity in this sector has declined, a worrying trend for a country with a large and growing population to feed.

This means that the economic model, like China's, grows increasingly addicted to throwing more and more money at poorly performing state-owned firms to guarantee growth.

One consequence of heavy reliance on cheap money (in addition to subsidies, tax breaks and protective tariffs) offered to undeserving firms to drive growth is a government debt-to-gross domestic product ratio of 50 per cent - large for a developing country with a small tax base, and one that spends little on welfare - meaning interest payments absorb more than one-fifth of the annual budget. Another is that the money supply is growing three times faster than GDP, contributing significantly to 7 per cent to 8 per cent annual inflation in the past few years. As in China, the state-led mobilisation of resources is preferred over an emphasis on efficiency and productivity.

India's problem is not its democratic past but its socialist legacy. Across the past two decades, India can boast the rise of world-class private sector firms in areas such as telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, vertically integrated manufacturing and bio-technology, which occurred despite government policy.

The most vibrant economic sectors are dominated by domestic private firms that can compete with the best in the world on equal terms. If Australia is hoping an Indian economic miracle can match or surpass the Chinese one, then New Delhi needs to move on from its history and look beyond Beijing for inspiration.

John Lee is Michael Hintze fellow and adjunct associate professor at the Centre for International Security Studies, University of Sydney, and a non-resident senior scholar at the Hudson Institute, Washington, DC.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
 
sir, the Natural Economic Order of World is as below, and it can be changed only when different wars are orgaized, like how Western Nations organized different wars in 19th century and changed this economic ranking. and for Indians, I said many times, "China will always share the top two economic spot with India like till 18th century, or, both will come down together like since 19th century after different Western organized wars." and if CHina may achieve highest economic size like in 16th and 18th centuries, then India will simply replace China to second spot, how Indian economy was on the top till 17th century, excluding the 16th century, as below: (we just want the China to remove Western Hurdles for India. then think, Indians here want China to go up or go down?????????)

List of regions by past GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(US/West simply dont recognize territories of those countries who dont follow Western orders and if India gives them space in India then it simply means you want to help these Western Champions to get their work done in India. I always told to the government agencies of India/Diplomats, "you know they dont recognize your state until you follow them, then if you give them space in India then it simply means that you want to help them in breaking down your 'State' by buying all the corrupts of India....."

India would only stick with the norms of WTO and keep fcuking those Western B@astards who only want to harm India. even on the trade side, India suffer heavy Trade Deficit with EU while Indian Software companies provides them the best projects for the least price with paying very high tax to US government also. just keep kicking those b@stards who only look for the ways to harm India.....)

Exports to Europe up 16%; imports 29%
 
'
and this is how the whole Australian economy get shocked if demand from China falls, even for one month as in August 2012, as below: :meeting:

Australia's trade deficit blew out to its widest in three-and-a-half years in August as falling prices for iron ore and coal ate into export earnings, just the latest sign of how China's slowdown is hurting the resource-rich country.:meeting:

Australia Trade Deficit Blows Out in August - Asia Business News - CNBC

Aussie Falls as Trade Gap Spurs RBA Rate-Cut Bets

Australia’s dollar fell to the lowest level in almost a month after a government report showed the country’s trade deficit reached the widest since 2008. :meeting:

The so-called Aussie extended declines against most major peers amid speculation the Reserve Bank of Australia will have to lower interest rates again following a quarter-point cut yesterday to cushion the impact of slowing global growth.:meeting: Demand for the Australian and New Zealand currencies was also limited as Asian shares fell and data signaled slowing growth in China’s non-manufacturing industries.

Aussie Falls as Trade Gap Spurs RBA Rate-Cut Bets; Kiwi Weakens - Bloomberg
 
because a strong America means a safer world.

Tell that to the Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghans, Syrians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Pakistanis and dozens of other nations that have suffered and continue to suffer from the "peaceful" terror of America.
 
Tell that to the Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghans, Syrians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Pakistanis and dozens of other nations that have suffered and continue to suffer from the "peaceful" terror of America.
Tell that to the World Wars that might have started.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom