Australia’s new land of opportunity

Last week Australia was treated to yet another finger-wagging exercise from China — they are coming thick and fast these days.

This time it was the former Chief Economist of the World Bank, who not so subtly told Canberra to get into line or risk missing out on the fruits of China’s inevitable rise.

Justin Yifu Lin, now an academic at a Beijing university and firmly parroting his Government’s line, said Australia’s resources sector could “pay the price” for its recent unfriendly actions.

He was referring to attempts to counter China’s diplomatic courting of South Pacific nations and rising concerns over the amount of land and real estate that Chinese investors now own in Australia.

References to the alliance with the United States not being in Australia’s  best interests in the projected New World Order, and even a suggestion that it should sign up for China’s much vaunted Belt and Road project were all put, more or less subtly, during the media interview at the Australian National University’s China Update forum.

These and other criticisms are clear indications of the pressure Beijing feels it can apply now that Australia’s economic prosperity is so dependent on the China trade.

China is by far Australia’s largest trading partner, with around 30 per cent of all exports heading there, more than double that of the next largest destination, Japan.

As I have written before, this has been a dangerous development and marks an inborn laziness in many of the country’s largest exporters, especially in the resources sector.

As long as China is taking so much of what Australia produces there has been no need to put effort into market diversification, even though so much dependence on a nation that is not an ally, whose political and social systems are alien, and who is beginning to flex its military muscle, carries clear warnings.

Canberra is belatedly seeing the threat of an over-reliance on China with the publication of an excellent report by the Former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Peter Varghese, outlining a strategy for boosting trade links with India over the next two decades.

Varghese rightly found that over this period no single market would offer Australia more trading opportunities than India.

“India’s scale alone encourages ambition, but it is the complementarities between our two economies that will determine our success,” Varghese writes.

“The foundations for an enhanced economic partnership with India are strong, underpinned by people-to-people ties and shared values.”

The room for growth there is massive — India accounts for a miserable 4.3 per cent of Australia’s exports, and while the United Kingdom will try to leverage its historic links with the sub-continent after it leaves the European Union, Prime Minister Theresa May’s hectoring comments on Indian over-stayers in the UK still rankles in New Delhi. 

The opportunities for Australia are there for the taking, and there is no reason why it should not become a true and significant partner with the world’s largest democracy. 

Hatred driving Trump’s presidency

Any doubt that the United States is hell-bent on provoking a confrontation with Iran has vanished with confirmation that Washington will bludgeon Western allies into following its lead on re-imposing sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

An appeal from Britain, France and Germany  to grant broad exemptions to European companies continuing to do business with Iran was rejected out of hand by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin who stated their determination to exert unprecedented economic pressure on the Government in Teheran.  

Defiance of Washington would almost certainly result in sanctions against individual companies, shutting them out of the much bigger US market. In effect this means the Iran nuclear deal, in which that country agreed to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons in exchange for a roll back of sanctions, is dead in the water.

The development will further widen the split between Europe and the United States, something which US President Donald Trump seems to want to foster, with his continual criticism of the European Union and support for hard line Brexit elements in the United Kingdom.

Trump has called the Iran deal the worst the US has ever signed, but his criticism has nothing to do with its effectiveness — all the other partners thought it was working well — rather, it was because it was instituted by his despised predecessor, Barack Obama.

For those seeking some consistency in the president’s actions, there is one constant — a determination to erase Obama’s legacy from history.

The Iran nuclear deal, continuing efforts to undermine the Affordable Healthcare Act, withdrawal from the Paris Climate Change Agreement — all have the same anti-Obama theme.

Obama supported the European Union and urged the United Kingdom not to exit; Trump seeks to undermine the EU and numbers leading Brixiteers Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson among his “close friends”.

Even Trump’s latest disastrous attempt to cosy up to Russian President Vladimir Putin stems from the fact it was under Obama’s watch that sanctions were imposed against Russia after its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

His fury has been increased because, to quote from Oprah Winfrey’s cameo role in The Handmaid’s Tale, Obama is “still there”, gaining plaudits on the international stage, addressing adoring crowds while giving the Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture in Johannesburg.  

Obama will never run for office again, and for many months of the Trump presidency obeyed the accepted dictum that a former president should not interfere, or criticise his successor, but it is clear, in the company of many leaders internationally and domestically, that he has lost patience with the antics of the White House incumbent.  

Trump’s tactics may play well in some corporate boardrooms, or on reality television shows, but they simply cannot endure in the wider world of diplomacy and international relations.

Trump has severely weakened his nation on the world stage. His bluster and constant references to the US’s military might have all the hallmarks of an intellectually challenged playground bully who, unable to win a civilised argument, resorts to his fists.

His one-time allies, who until now had been hoping that experience in office, or the ability of competent advisers to rein him in, have had enough.

The world can be a lonely place – even for the leader of an international superpower   

A party divided against itself…

The resignations of David Davis and Boris Johnson from the United Kingdom Government front bench leave the ruling Conservative Party split into three warring factions over its projected exit from the European Union.

Dominant for the moment are the pragmatists, led by Prime Minister Theresa May, who will push ahead with the exit talks, but seek to negotiate a future relationship with the EU that will involve a free trade area and a “facilitated customs arrangement” removing the need for checks at the Irish border – the so called Soft Brexit solution.

Left licking their wounds are the Hard Brexit supporters who want a total break from the EU, nominally led by Johnson but increasingly dominated by the shadowy back bencher Jacob Rees-Mogg, who may number as many as 80 within the Parliamentary Party.

Finally, leaderless for the moment, are around 30 backbenchers who think Brexit is a crazy idea, the result of a flawed referendum, and would support a ‘people’s vote’ on the final terms of the deal if they thought there was a chance of it being agreed by Parliament.

During a crisis meeting to hammer out a final negotiating position with the EU, a majority of the Cabinet got in behind May, no doubt influenced by a litany of dire warnings from industrial leaders over their feared consequences of a Hard Brexit.

In the days before the fateful split carmaker Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) joined a list of United Kingdom based companies warning that its position may not be viable if the country does not get a good Brexit deal.

Indian-owned JLR has joined Airbus, BMW and Siemens in warning they will have to reassess their UK futures unless the Brexit outcome allows trade to flow freely with Europe, much as it does now.

Jaguar’s Chief Executive, Ralf Speth, was essentially speaking for the others when he warned of an unpredictable future if the Brexit negotiations do not “maintain free and frictionless trade with the EU and unrestricted access to the single market”.

JLR alone has 40,000 British employees; at stake could be many thousands more jobs and billions of dollars in investment.

Yet apart from a “f****** business”, comment, Johnson seemed totally unperturbed, vowing to fight what he called a “bog roll Brexit…soft, yielding and seemingly infinitely long”.

Continuing his scatological references he apparently called Soft Brexit “polishing a turd” at the Cabinet meeting before announcing his resignation from the Government.  

His apparent willingness to lead the country into the abyss unnerved many of his colleagues and has introduced more uncertainty now that he and Davis are free to drum up support for their cause on the back benches.  

So far May’s stress on her two main Brexit positives — an end to the free movement of people to and from Europe and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice — have received a lukewarm response from the hardliners.

Should they decide their ideology is more important than party loyalty, May will need the support of the Labour Opposition, where there is strong pro-EU sentiment, to force through whatever deal she achieves.

In the 19^th and early 20^th centuries the Liberal Party tore itself apart over the issue of home rule for Ireland and within a few decades had passed into irrelevance. Students of history see the Conservatives on the same track in its seemingly impossible task to find a consensus position on relations with Europe.

Cowboy culture and the rule of the gun

Authorities have been quick to dismiss terrorism as the reason for an attack on a local newspaper in the American State of Maryland in which five journalists were shot dead.

The alleged shooter was a man with a grudge against the newspaper after losing a defamation case against it several years before.

“It is a local incident and not one involving terrorism,” a law enforcement official was quoted as saying.

But this is missing the point.

Over the years millions of people have been offended by something that is written about them in the media, sometimes with good reason.

Mistakes are made, reports are misinterpreted, apologies and retractions are offered. Some cases go all the way to tribunals or courts. This is the way such disputes are resolved in civilised democracies.

Until now.

What decided the accused that he could settle things with the Capital Gazette by taking a shotgun, blasting into the newsroom and blowing away as many of its staff as he could before the police arrived?

The answer can be seen in the reversion to a cowboy culture that has been on the rise in the United States and elsewhere over the past decade, where those with opposite views are scorned, humiliated and threatened, often with overt violence.

It was a culture that got a massive boost with the election of Donald Trump to the White House, and which the president promotes in almost every vitriol-laden tweet.  

Trump has adopted a position where anger and ridicule replaces reason and debate. Unlike past presidents, who have at least made passing attempts to unite the nation under them after elections, he has unashamedly upheld his partisans and mocked those who opposed him, reminding them again and again that they are “losers”.

Often that loser tag was attached to journalists whose job it is to examine, criticise and question. In the US today, the media is either an unquestioning disciple of Trumpism, or its target.  

Only a few days before the shooting right wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was reported as saying he could not wait for vigilante squads to start gunning down journalists. He later protested angrily that he was joking.

Just as you no longer make jokes about carrying bombs when you board an aeroplane, in the current febrile atmosphere of the US, and with the country’s laughable gun laws, it is criminal for anyone with influence to make jokes about shooting people, certainly not those who have been made a target by the Commander in Chief.

It is Jarrod Ramos who will eventually stand in the dock charged with those terrible murders, but the guilt does not rest with him alone.