Protests in Hong Kong

[Risto the Great]

Legally, I would say HK should revert to Taiwan (RoChina).
But then again, legally, Aegean Macedonia should revert to Macedonia.
And pigs fly south for winter.

[Soldier of Macedon]

RTG, you're the resident China expert, do you think this was a smart move by our PM?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-...-kong/12446586

On Thursday Scott Morrison walked out into the Prime Minister’s courtyard and waded into fraught territory. He was unveiling Australia’s response to the Chinese Government’s crackdown on Hong Kong; particularly Beijing’s single-minded assault on the legal architecture that protects the liberties of those who live there. Mr Morrison announced his Government would offer safe haven to many Hong Kong students and graduates already living in Australia. Not only that, the Prime Minister declared Australia was suspending its extradition agreement with Hong Kong. Immediately. In the eyes of Australia, these announcements were simply the inevitable consequence of China’s decision to break the promise it made to the United Kingdom decades ago, when it told the departing colonial power it would preserve the city’s liberties for half a century. In the eyes of China, they were grave provocations.

But if the Prime Minister was trying to be provocative, it didn’t much look like it. His answers were studiously cautious and measured. Journalists asked him if China's crackdown endangered "One Country, Two Systems" — the principle that was meant to enshrine Hong Kong's freedoms. Mr Morrison's eyes repeatedly darted down to the paper in front of him. He read the words in front of him very, very carefully. Australia's decision to suspend the extradition treaty "represents an acknowledgement of the fundamental change of circumstances in relation to Hong Kong," Mr Morrison said, his gaze fixed to the page. The new security law imposed on the city by Beijing "undermines the One Country, Two Systems framework, and Hong Kong's own basic law and the high degree of autonomy guaranteed in the Sino-British Joint Declaration". In other words — yes. But when you’re dealing with the Chinese Communist Party, language matters. Precision matters. And when you're dealing with Hong Kong — a locus of the post-colonial resentments that still pulse through Chinese political life, and a frontline in the contest between ascendant authoritarianism and waning liberalism — it pays to be particularly precise.

Mr Morrison's announcements were hardly radical. The risks within were precisely calibrated. Each decision was framed as an exercise of Australian sovereignty. The push to take skilled migrants from Hong Kong was presented chiefly as a talent recruitment drive, not a mercy mission. Unlike the United Kingdom, Australia did not offer refuge to Hong Kong residents actually living in the city right now. Those who fear persecution and who might hope for a new life in Australia were effectively told they would have to join the queue. Not that this helped to spare Australia public excoriation from the Chinese Government, which responded with predictable fury. Australia was denounced from the podium of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing, while the Chinese Embassy in Canberra intoned that the Federal Government was "dropping a rock on its own feet".

Chinese state media even declared the Morrison Government was pushing the relationship to "breaking point" with an editorial in the party mouthpiece the China Daily warning Australia was "not irreplaceable". It's difficult to say how much of this sound and fury is concocted, and how much of it stems from a genuine sense of grievance. And there's no real consensus in Canberra about what will happen next, just a great deal of uncertainty. Some fear China is willing to make good on its threats. They predict Beijing will respond by steadily ramping up cyber incursions, while rapidly expanding its campaign of economic punishment against Australian exporters. Anxieties about "hostage diplomacy" linger. But others in the bureaucracy and in Parliament House are becoming almost blasé about the stream of threats emanating from the Chinese Government. Bets are taken on which rococo insult will be included in the next angry missive from the embassy.

China, they argue, is already embroiled in a dizzying array of feuds with countries across the globe and is consumed by full-spectrum competition with the United States. It is feeling the pressure. Turning away Aussie beef or wine is one thing, but would Beijing really pick this moment to turn its back on the vast rivers of high-quality Australian iron ore and coal that are still crucial to parts of its economy? This may be a smart wager. Or it might be a terrible miscalculation. Either way, Mr Morrison and his key lieutenants seem to have decided that there can be no backing down with China — particularly not now. Perhaps they reason that weakness would only invite contempt, and likely more coercion. So they press on.
It is a high-wire act, and the stakes are immense. No wonder the Prime Minister is treading carefully.

[Risto the Great]

https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/world...NDV?li=BBr8Mkh

With the swift passage of the national security law, China's Communist Party leaders demolished the idea of Hong Kong's autonomy and, with it, Beijing's obligations under the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration and commitment to preserve the freedoms enjoyed by the Hong Kong people.

This action is only the most recent example of a pattern of behaviour where the Communist Party bends, disregards, or rewrites rules in its favour in the pursuit of domestic and geopolitical ends.

President Xi Jinping, more than any of his predecessors, has used this tactic to push an aggressive China-centric foreign policy. Xi's introduction of the "Chinese dream" in 2013 foreshadowed a more concerted effort by party leaders to regain global prominence.

Get the latest insights and analysis from our Global Impact newsletter on the big stories originating in China.

Since then, Xi has taken deliberate steps to increase China's economic, diplomatic and military clout with the clear intent of returning China to the centre of the global order.

The Communist Party's efforts, with Xi at the helm, to achieve geopolitical centrality, however, are as unstable as the sand on which many of their efforts are built. Rather than making headway, China is facing headwinds as party policies place the country firmly at odds with an international rules-based order that has yielded nearly 75 years of relative peace and increasing prosperity across the region.

The Communist Party's decision to ignore the rules and norms that have enabled nations to forge lasting economic, security and cultural bonds is a significant and costly oversight for the Chinese people, as it erodes the very foundation that all nations have benefited from.

So far, the Indo-Pacific region has borne the brunt of the Communist Party's disregard for international law and its one-sided policies, with illegal construction, militarisation and unsubstantiated territorial claims in the South China Sea, and increasing pressure on Taiwan and incursions of its airspace being prime examples.

But China's systemic theft of intellectual property, predatory economic behaviour " often serving as a back door for the Chinese military " across the Indo-Pacific and beyond, to places such as Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and Europe, and opaque tactics to extend its malign influence, prove that its ambitions are global.

Beijing's bold moves in the South China Sea: opportunism or the new normal?
Combating the Covid-19 pandemic commands global attention and unprecedented international cooperation, but we cannot allow China to use the crisis as a cover to pursue its parochial interests and advance its quest for global centrality.

That is why together, the United States, its allies and partners across the region and the world must focus efforts to safeguard our shared interests by being one, prepared; two, networked, and; three, resilient.

First and foremost, we need to remain focused on deterring aggression. As our national defence strategy stated: "The surest way to prevent war is to be prepared to win one." For the US, that has meant maintaining a ready and capable force, developing innovative operational concepts, and investing in capabilities that solidify our technological advantage, including in space and cyberspace.

For our allies and partners, we continue to encourage investment in the capabilities necessary for national defence, as well as in the means to contribute to the defence of our shared interests. Deepening our interoperability, joint training, combined exercises and bilateral planning are all things that improve our ability to act coherently and effectively together when it matters most.

Strong networks of allies and like-minded partners are also vital in providing a collective response to China's challenge to the international rules-based order. They represent a durable, asymmetric, strategic advantage that China simply does not have.

We need to build these networks by strengthening relationships and looking for opportunities to include new partners in new and existing bilateral, trilateral and multilateral arrangements.

How China's growing footprint puts it on a collision course with the US
Working together to address security concerns, such as the pandemic, countering violent extremism, joint maritime domain awareness efforts or responding to natural disasters, is another way to build these networks and, more importantly, the operational foundation for further cooperation.

Lastly, the Communist Party's challenge to the international-rules based order will be a marathon, not a sprint. Together, we must be resilient as we face this long-term challenge by continuing to uphold and represent core principles such as respect of sovereignty, transparency, peaceful resolution of disputes, and freedom of navigation and overflight.

Conducting freedom-of-navigation operations, joint operations, and calling out destabilising misinformation are just a few ways we can reinforce these principles. We must also protect our communications infrastructure and networks, economies, and political and social institutions from the Communist Party's malign influence, to preserve our shared interests and security.

The way in which China engages with the international community rests on the shoulders of the Communist Party. China's rise does not mean conflict is inevitable, nor does competition inevitably lead to conflict. But, competition must occur on a level playing field and all players need to abide by the same rules.

For the rules-based system to work, the international community cannot sit idly by as China's authoritarian leaders continue to bend, disregard or rewrite the rules to impose their preferences.

That is why now, more than ever, like-minded partners must take action by being prepared, networked and resilient so that together we can secure peace and prosperity for decades to come.

David F. Helvey is currently the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defence for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs. He is responsible for developing and overseeing the execution of the United States' defence and security policy in the Indo-Pacific region

The world does seem to be getting a little bit (more) annoyed with China as of late.

[Risto the Great]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

RTG, you're the resident China expert, do you think this was a smart move by our PM?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-...-kong/12446586

I will say it is an interesting move. Morrison appears to be the only person in the free world with some balls.

Effectively extradition to HK is now well and truly extradition to China. This link discusses the extradition to China in some detail:

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...20March%202016.

Without any doubt, the treaty falls over in a few fundamental aspects. Particularly in relation to the right to a fair trial (and related matters).

Australia had drafted an extradition agreement with China but never ratified it. Morrison was effectively stating the obvious in relation to the agreement with HK (Mk II) since the new "National Security Law".

I would say it was simply an obvious move which had to be done (preferably with as little fanfare as possible).

[Risto the Great]

I gotta say I enjoy the hell this Cypriot is giving the University of Queensland. Back in my days, university was one of the few places you truly were freely able to speak. Even the police were reluctant to enter university grounds. Now, it is pathetically quite the opposite and only the students are to blame for this. They should be rioting!

This fella is fighting back.
https://twitter.com/DrewPavlou?ref_s...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Risto the Great

I will say it is an interesting move. Morrison appears to be the only person in the free world with some balls.

It's impossible to find a political leader in Australia (or anywhere else, for that matter) with whom one can agree on everything. But I must say, thus far, ScoMo seems to be miles ahead of the clowns we've had to endure since Kevin 07. Time will tell how he proceeds.

[Carlin]

China just announced "military exercises" in the South China Sea across a 6-nautical-mile-radius from Sunday to Tuesday

[Carlin]

Taiwan landing op exercises by PLA (22 May, 2022)

https://youtu.be/0l4yGTzIDoM

[Carlin]

"Beijing has made it absolutely clear to Washington that they would have zero hesitancy to go to war over Taiwan.

China would be ruthless compared to Russia's operations in Ukraine."

https://mobile.twitter.com/thesirius...7Ctwgr%5Etweet

[Carlin]

US, China on Collision Course Over Taiwan

https://www.energyintel.com/00000181...f-3dbb32d80000

In response to increasingly aggressive statements coming from the US government regarding Taiwan, China’s senior diplomat, Yang Jiechi, on May 18 contacted Biden’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan to issue a direct warning. “The US,” Yang said, “has been adopting wrongful narratives and actions that interfere with China’s domestic politics and are harmful to China’s interests.” Yang further noted that, “The recent actions taken by the US on Taiwan-related matters have been a huge contrast from their pronouncements. If the US continues to play the Taiwan card and head further on the wrong path, this will certainly lead to dangerous situations.”