Gareth Evans: China now ‘rule-maker’, Australia should say no to US more

[beijingwalker]

Gareth Evans: China now ‘rule-maker’, Australia should say no to US more

• The Australian
• 12:00AM April 13, 2017

Former Labor Foreign Minister Gareth Evans will urge Australia to say ‘no’ to the United States more and recognise that China is now a “global rule-maker”.

The arguments will be laid out in a speech to the National Press Club on Thursday where he will speak alongside former Paul Keating adviser Allan Gyngell who has recently written a book on Australia’s ‘fear of abandonment’.

While Australia should not walk away from the alliance, the country should demonstrate “less reflexive support” for the United States’ foreign policy, Mr Evans will argue.

“My own experience strongly suggests that periodically saying ‘no’ to the US when our national interests are manifestly different, makes for a much healthier and productive relationship,” he will say.

He said the Coalition’s support for the Trump administration’s missile strikes was defensible but had “problematic dimensions”.

Last Friday both the Coalition and the Labor Party supported US President Donald Trump’s move to launch cruise-missiles on a Syrian air base.

Mr Evans will accuse the Turnbull government of “absolute capitulation to US pressure” over nuclear disarmament after Australia joined the United States and Britain in skipping March talks on a nuclear weapons ban treaty at the United Nations.

He will say that the ANZUS guarantee may prove to be “flimsy” but it offers “notional deterrent protection”.

Mr Evans will say that in order to take a more independent stance Australia will need to build up its military and “keep an open mind” about nuclear submarines.

“In military terms, this certainly means building defence capability that involves not only more bucks than we are usually comfortable spending but getting a bigger bang for each of them,” he will tell National Press Club.

While Australia should not become “Beijing’s patsy”, he will argue that Australia should recognise China is now a “global rule-maker and not just rule-taker” and allow the superpower to have “some strategic space”.

Mr Evans will say he agreed with former China Ambassador Stephen Fitzgerald who recently said Australia should consider that the country could only have influence over China’s actions in the region if Australia was closer to China.

“It means getting close enough to the Chinese leadership to be seen, as Stephen Fitzgerald puts it, as a genuine ‘friend at court’, influencing positively their bilateral and multilateral behaviour,” he will say.

China had “overreached” in the South China Sea and Australia should be prepared to push back when it came to this issue, he will caution.

Mr Evans has recently raised concerns with the Coalition’s approach to foreign investment after two Chinese majority bids for infrastructure and agricultural land were blocked by Treasurer Scott Morrison.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...e/news-story/facae8e243f14cf94c1ab5188016b17a

 

[ChineseToTheBone]

Our country already makes up a third of total international trade conducted by Australia, so being recognized this way is just the start really.

 

[anon45]

US still controls the seas globally. As long as that is the case, Australia is duty bound to side with the US, just as it was to the British Empire.

 

[Jacob Martin]

I think this is confused thinking. Taking a different stand on US strikes in Syria is not the same as taking a different stand on South China Sea. The former may be based on a disagreement on responsibility for the chemical attack (for example, the possibility that it was a false flag attack). The latter would be solely based on a realpolitik calculation not to antagonize China, without reference to facts on the ground. They are chalk and cheese.

 

[jhungary]

US still controls the seas globally. As long as that is the case, Australia is duty bound to side with the US, just as it was to the British Empire.

I think this is confused thinking. Taking a different stand on US strikes in Syria is not the same as taking a different stand on South China Sea. The former may be based on a disagreement on responsibility for the chemical attack (for example, the possibility that it was a false flag attack). The latter would be solely based on a realpolitik calculation not to antagonize China, without reference to facts on the ground. They are chalk and cheese.

LOL, once again, you guys have been hacked by half quoted article.

Read the whole thing in newspaper (Not an online subscriber so I cannot quote the whole article) in the article, Gareth Evan said Australia should be periodically saying no to the US to reflect the actual national interest toward China (talking about FIRB reject deal with China on US Behalf), and less depending on US as a defence partner, however, Gareth also suggested that having more independent politics to our own National Interest does not mean Australia should abandon the US Alliance in this sense.

He also contested that Australia should not be Beijing Patsy and should reign on China regarding Human Right and not over-reaching SCS issue.

In short, it say nothing reflect to current geostrategic position. The only thing changes is OP basically selectively reporting on the article. That's it.

By the way, Gareth Evan is the chancellor in my school. I have attended his seminar, he have a Pro-US view, just anti-Trump.

 

[Jacob Martin]

LOL, once again, you guys have been hacked by half quoted article.

Read the whole thing in newspaper (Not an online subscriber so I cannot quote the whole article) in the article, Gareth Evan said Australia should be periodically saying no to the US to reflect the actual national interest toward China (talking about FIRB reject deal with China on US Behalf), and less depending on US as a defence partner, however, Gareth also suggested that having more independent politics to our own National Interest does not mean Australia should abandon the US Alliance in this sense.

He also contested that Australia should not be Beijing Patsy and should reign on China regarding Human Right and not over-reaching SCS issue.

In short, it say nothing reflect to current geostrategic position. The only thing changes is OP basically selectively reporting on the article. That's it.

By the way, Gareth Evan is the chancellor in my school. I have attended his seminar, he have a Pro-US view, just anti-Trump.

That is fine. However, when you propose a significant shift in your foreign policy, one must be very clear about the reasons and motivation. I would still say that taking a principled stand on issues is not the same as pleasing China.

Let me give an example. If, tomorrow, Australia rejected an American request for sending ground troops to Syria based on their own assessment of the situation, that would be a move against the US. That would have not have anything to do with China. OTOH, if Australia decides to join a coalition patrol fleet against China in SCS, it would still u be an anti-China move,, regardless of their earlier issue-based rejection of American demands. That will not get them any brownie points with China.

In other words, to achieve the stated goals, Australia will have to avoid siding with US or specifically side with China on common issues. It will then not remain a matter of saying no to US "occasionally", but will become a more permanent affair.

Which is why, the reasoning has to be crystal-clear.

 

[jhungary]

That is fine. However, when you propose a significant shift in your foreign policy, one must be very clear about the reasons and motivation. I would still say that taking a principled stand on issues is not the same as pleasing China.

Let me give an example. If, tomorrow, Australia rejected an American request for sending ground troops to Syria based on their own assessment of the situation, that would be a move against the US. That would have not have anything to do with China. OTOH, if Australia decides to join a coalition patrol fleet against China in SCS, it would still u be an anti-China move,, regardless of their earlier issue-based rejection of American demands. That will not get them any brownie points with China.

In other words, to achieve the stated goals, Australia will have to avoid siding with US or specifically side with China on common issues. It will then not remain a matter of saying no to US "occasionally", but will become a more permanent affair.

Which is why, the reasoning has to be crystal-clear.

........What Evan refer to is mostly domestic decision, because I cannot quote the whole article (Unless I type it all in here) What Evan want is more accountability toward Australian interest instead of American interest.

In the case of diplomatic stance, Australia is and will always be allied to the US as part of a common interest, a move that even Evan concede in his article.

That guy is pro-Australia, it does not make sense if I cannot quote his whole thing