Two thousand, seven hundred and sixty-nine days. That’s how long Penny Wong has served in cabinet, a record that on Wednesday saw her overtake Amanda Vanstone as the longest-serving female cabinet minister in Australian history.

Wong’s staying power at the highest levels of Australian politics could not have been predicted when she entered the Senate in 2002, a time when John Howard-style conservatism was in ascendance. Being a Malaysian-born, openly gay woman hardly seemed like the ticket to political longevity or popularity – yet she has achieved both.

Australians last year ranked Wong the nation’s most impressive leader, giving her a net likeability of plus 14 per cent (Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had a rating of minus three, according to the Resolve Political Monitor, and his predecessor Scott Morrison minus 35).

Diplomats around the world inevitably praise Wong as a shrewd and impressive operator while she commands an almost cult-like following within the Labor Party. As well as foreign minister, she is Labor’s Senate leader and a close confidante and friend of Albanese. In the Rudd-Gillard years she served in cabinet as climate change and finance minister.

Vanstone – who spent seven-and-a-half years in cabinet in the Howard era, including as immigration minister – says of Wong’s record: “It’s a testament to endurance, determination, being able to persevere and keep a calm head.”

While not a fan of identity politics, Vanstone says it is undoubtedly harder for women to gain, and maintain, senior political roles. Male cabinet colleagues, she recalls, would often blithely neglect to invite her to group dinners – casual encounters where crucial political insights could be gleaned amid discussion of that weekend’s footy results.

“I think it’s an embarrassment I held the record for so long,” Vanstone says. “It shows not enough women are coming up through the ranks.”

Although both studied arts/law at the University of Adelaide and share a love of laksa, Vanstone says she doesn’t know Wong especially well.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/how-penny-wong-made-history-as-our-longest-serving-female-cabinet-minister-20240306-p5fa82.html

GUSTHOUGHTS: PENNY WONG'S LONGEVITY IS NOT DUE TO POLICIES, BUT TO HER STYLE WHICH QUIET, CONFIDENT AND MEASURED... BUT TO SAY THE LEAST, WONG IS OFTEN WRONG, QUIETLY....

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Prime Ministers are too often monopolised by people telling them what they want to hear. Most political advisers can’t see beyond the latest opinion poll and the Australian bureaucracy has become equally reluctant to offer frank and fearless advice. It appears that the Attorney General, Defence and Foreign Affairs and Trade Departments have each failed to alert the Prime Minister and his government to the risks inherent in ignoring international law when responding to the Gaza crisis.

However, many members of Australian civil society have indeed urged the Federal Government to act strongly to uphold humanitarian standards and avoid crimes against humanity They have demanded the Federal Government restore funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and ban arms sales to Israel. More than 100 non-government organisations have communicated their alarm that Australia could in any way be contributing to the ongoing atrocities being inflicted on the Palestinians. Since January 27th, many Australians have anticipated a public official response to the International Court of Justice interim ruling that a case of genocide against Israel is plausible Yet this weight of urgent correspondence and advocacy has failed to alert the Prime Minister’s staff to Australia’s responsibilities as a signatory of the Genocide Convention.

Today more than 100 Australian lawyers endorsed the referral of Anthony Albanese, together with other members of his government and the Opposition leader, Peter Dutton to the International Criminal Court as Accessory to Genocide in Gaza alleging political and material support to the Israel government and military over the past five months.

The 92-page document sets down specific ways in which this allegation can be upheld.

– Freezing of funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency amid a humanitarian crisis

– Providing military aid and approving defence exports to Israel

– Ambiguously deploying an Australian military contingent to the region where its location and exact role have not been disclosed

– Permitting Australians to travel to Israel to join the Israeli Defence Force and take part in its attacks on Gaza.

In response, the Prime Minister has dismissed the referral to the International Criminal Court as “lacking credibility” and it is unsurprising he would go into a defensive denial mode. However, it would be a brave leader who did not now demand detailed briefings on these allegations from those departments that have failed to respond to the International Court of Justice genocide warning. Furthermore, the Prime Minister would be wise to seek independent advice from one of several influential Australians who have significant expertise in the field of international humanitarian law.

Regardless of the long-term future of this and comparable allegations against other western leaders, the Australian Government has been given the chance to review its commitment to international law. It can continue to ignore calls for transparency and Australian independence in foreign policy, or it can start to seriously examine why the allegations of complicity have been made.

There is no doubt that many nations are much more actively concerned about the charge of genocide brought against Israel by the South African government. In February more than fifty countries including Indonesia, Malaysia, Fiji, Japan, Great Britain and Ireland sent official legal delegations to the Hague to present their nations opinions to the International Court of Justice., but Australia was not represented.

In contrast, the Australian Government has avoided any detailed public response to its responsibilities as a signatory to the Genocide Convention. Indeed, it has recently twice closed down parliamentary debate that could lead to a comprehensive House of Representatives discussion. There has been no debate about how Australia may assist in future medical rehabilitation of Palestinians nor how it will contribute to the rebuilding of Gaza. While the Foreign Minister may refer to a “two state solution “ there has been no official announcement that Australia finally recognises the State of Palestine.

Furthermore, the failure of the Australian public service to maintain or prioritise current independent information about the continuing assault in Gaza amounts to negligence. In a recent meeting, United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza, Director Tom White was advised “the Australian Government wanted to be sure UNRWA Gaza aid funding will go to those who need it “! This bland indeed inhuman statement clearly reflects that there is something seriously wrong with how the government is currently managing its international responsibilities.

Of course, it is embarrassing for the current Australian Government to be named as an “accessory to genocide”, but all members of parliament should not be too quick to dismiss the allegation until they have reviewed why and how such a charge could be made. The parliament hears too many simplistic speeches giving loyalty to allies who blatantly ignore international law and it’s time our representatives faced this reality.

Australia has a proud record as a founding member of the United Nations, which is responsible for developing international law. So many well-known Australian names have contributed to a great variety of United Nations achievements, yet few parliamentarians speak up for the importance of the international body. International law is being undermined by governments choosing militarism ahead of the rule of law, so it is imperative that the Australian government and parliament commit to prioritising its international responsibilities. Many Australians will be watching closely, demanding that humanitarian leadership is restored.

https://johnmenadue.com/shocked-australian-pm-learns-he-is-not-above-international-law/

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

This morning I had a one hour five minute meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister Mr Wang Yi.

This was a very pleasant and engaging event which, in the main, was a big picture discussion about the geostrategic balances and influences in the world.

A portion of that devolved to Australia’s long term relationship with China from Bert Evatt’s support for recognising Mao’s government in 1950, Gough Whitlam establishing diplomatic relations in 1973, Bob Hawke’s relationship with Hu Yaobang in the eighties, my relationship with Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji in putting together APEC, the Leaders’ meeting and Kevin Rudd’s role in the expansion of the East Asia Summit.

The Foreign Minister was very positive about putting bilateral difficulties behind us as he was encouraged by the government’s efforts in restoring appropriate equilibrium between our two countries.

He was pleased he was also able to speak with the Prime Minister on the visit, as he was with the Opposition Leader, following what he described as a productive meeting with the Foreign Minister.

Minister Wang Yi emphasised China’s ability to keep on growing and strongly, pointing out that China is still only 55% urbanised – another 20% to go.

He said the world will still benefit from China’s ability to supply high quality relatively low priced goods which will help underwrite higher living standards in the West and other regions of the world.

He both encouraged and welcomed Australia’s continuing integration with East Asia where he believed Australia’s future lies.

The Foreign Minister displayed a keen understanding of Australia’s strengths. Its complementarity with China’s own economy and the prospect of ever rising living standards for both countries.

PJ Keating

21 March 2024

https://johnmenadue.com/restoring-appropriate-equilibrium-between-our-two-countries/

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Penny Wong has a new mantra for Australia China relations.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong previously said, “Co-operate with China where we can, disagree where we must.” This week, she has told the press that in her meeting with her Chinese counterpart Wang Yi she described her outlook as “Australia will be Australia; China will be China.” In other words, “Whatever will be, will be.”

I find this disappointing, to some extent cheerful, but uninspiring and fatalistic. It certainly lacks vision.

On 20 March, China’s Foreign Minister and Director of the CCP Central Committee Foreign Affairs Commission Wang Yi participated in a Foreign and Strategic Dialogue meeting in Canberra. Bilateral relations had warmed up enough to justify resumption of official connections and a return to some kind of “stability”, to use another of Penny Wong’s formulations.

“A stable relationship between Australia and China doesn’t just happen, it needs ongoing work,” she told the press. In coming months, this would include bilateral talks on consular cases, defence and trade, and discussion of regional and global issues such as the Pacific, climate and energy cooperation and “enhancing understanding and transparency” – a neat formulation that might mean anything or nothing.

It seems that the relationship is back on track, but what track that is, and where the track leads, is not at all clear. The world in 2024 is a big and scary place. The World Meteorological Organisation now describes global climate indicators as “off the chart”. The world population is ageing. Another pandemic cannot be ruled out. The UN has warned that the threat of nuclear warfare is at its highest point for decades. Refugee numbers are escalating with wars and famines across several continents. Human rights are being abused in Gaza as well as in China. Disasters proliferate.

It is against the backdrop of this rapidly changing world that Penny Wong and her officials should consider the relative importance of bilateral tariffs on wind turbines or Barossa shiraz wines and the fate of the panda in the Adelaide Zoo. Hopefully, they will also question how Australian acquisition of nuclear submarines at some distant future point can possibly contribute to resolution of the ever-increasing array of global problems.

For his part, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the Australia China Business Council that China-Australia relations were comprehensive and multi-ranging, and the common interests of both sides far outweighed their differences, so the two countries should be partners rather than rivals. He particularly mentioned that both countries should address climate change and other global challenges. He said that he trusted that Australia would pursue an independent foreign policy, and stressed that China advocated multilateralism and a “more just and equitable” international order.

Some commentators have interpreted this as a subtle indication that Australia should go easy on China regarding human rights issues and the South China Sea, but it can also be seen as providing a broader perspective on the international scene. Chen Hong of the Australian Studies Centre at East China Normal University, put it succinctly in an interview he gave to the Financial Times, “You can never step into the same river twice. The world is changing and the geostrategic scenarios are quite different.”

It is likely that Chinese Premier Li Qiang will visit Australia later this year. To regularise relations before then, extensive consultations and negotiations between Canberra and Beijing will be required. Of course, all dialogue between Australia and China is welcome. It is my hope that it will be more purposeful than “Australia will be Australia; China will be China.”

In 1956, Prime Minister Anthony Eden adopted such an insouciant attitude in his dealings with Egyptian President Nasser, that ultimately resulted in British humiliation in the Suez Crisis. 1956 was also the year when Doris Day sang:

“Que sera sera. Whatever will be, will be.

The future’s not ours to see. Que sera sera.”

https://johnmenadue.com/que-sera-sera-australia-will-be-australia-china-will-be-china/

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

AS A FORMER AUSTRALIAN AMBASSADOR TO CHINA, GEOFF RABY MIGHT KNOW A LOT MORE ABOUT CHINA THAN GUS-THE-CARTOONIST (since1951)…

GUS IS AN OLD KOOK, WHO LIKE MANY OLD KOOKS, HAS BEES IN HIS BONNET IN REGARD TO ATTRIBUTING IDEAS AND INTENTIONS TO OTHERS WHEN WE HOLD THE SAID AGGRESSIVE DELUSIONS.

SO, GEOFF’S PIECE IN PEARLS AND IRRITATIONS, WAS NOT A PEARL….

DISTRACTING THE WORLD WITH TAIWAN ISN’T CHINA’S GAME. IT IS THE AMERICAN EMPIRE’S GAME… THE EMPIRE HAS CHANGED ITS “ONE CHINA POLICY” WHICH WAS REALLY AN AMBIGUOUS POSITION, TO “A ONE CHINA AND A BIT POLICY” WHICH HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO ANNOY THE CHINESE AND PRECIPITATE A REACTIVE AGGRESSION WHICH ISN’T THERE, BUT THE WEST IS PREDICTING IT NOW FOR A FEW YEARS — SO AUSSIELAND HAS TO GET STUPID SUMARINES.

THE WEST, SINCE THE PORTUGUESE AND OTHER EUROPEAN HISTORICAL COLONISTS — NOW ACTING UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE — HAS BEEN DUPLICITOUS…

THE WEST’S (AMERICAN EMPIRE’S) MAIN PHILOSOPHY OF EXISTENCE IS CONQUEST. THE TOOLS OF SUCH ARE ROBBERY, “CAJOLING” (DECEITFULLY CONFORTING POPULATIONS INTO MORE DESPAIR), PUNISHMENT, SANCTIONS, MILITARY OPERATIONS (BOMBING RAIDS), MORE ROBBERY, PROPAGANDA, LIES, SLAVERY, DEBT — AND TERRORISM, BY DIRECT INFLUENCES (CIA, ETC) OR INDIRECTLY BY PROXY — SUCH AS SUPPORTING REBELS — OR INVENTING REBELS — TO SUIT AN OUTCOME: SAY LIBYA, IRAQ, SYRIA, ETC.

DAESH, ISIS, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD HAVE ALL BEEN “DESIGNED” BY THE WEST TO DO ITS DIRTY WORK.

BUT I DIGRESS… THE POINT WAS THE POINTED BARBS AT CHINA FOR DOING "DIPLOMACY", WHEN WE (THE WEST) DO AGGRESSION, ROBBERY AND PUNISHMENT…. HERE IS GOEFF RABY’S PIECE:

For China these days it doesn’t get much easier to pursue it geostrategic objectives. With the US distracted on two fronts in Europe and the Middle East, and Russia mired in its intractable invasion of Ukraine, among the great powers, China is largely free to advance its interests on an increasingly global scale. Sabre rattling over Taiwan only further serves to distract the US from China’s much larger game.

On 31 January in Beijing, the representative of the government of the Emirates of Afghanistan – the first ambassador to China appointed by the Taliban – presented his credentials to President Xi Jinping. In doing so, China alone among major states has broken with the international understanding not to recognise formally the Taliban government.

Withholding formal recognition of the Taliban is intended to put pressure on the Kabul regime to improve its human rights performance, especially with respect to rights of women and children.

Following the formal ceremony, during which more than thirty ambassadors presented their credentials, China’s foreign ministry sought to dissemble on whether China had in fact recognised the Taliban. Despite this, for the rest of the world, and for the Taliban government, China has formally recognised the Emirates of Afghanistan and the Taliban as its legitimate government: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck! The last Ambassador to China of Afghan’s Republican Government’s is firmly of that view, judging from his public comments made in the US.

Even before the fall of Kabul in August 2021, China had taken a more forward position to dealing with the Taliban. From 2016, it engaged actively in the Quadrilateral Coordination Group (Afghanistan, Pakistan, US, China) and sought to use its close ties with Pakistan to encourage improved relations with the Republican government. And then, eighteen days before Taliban’s victory, China’s Foreign Minister met with the Taliban leadership in Tianjin. Wang Yi has also visited Kabul to meet with the Taliban.

China has three main objectives in Afghanistan, no matter whomever is in power.

First, and the single most important influence on all of China’s foreign policy, is frontier security – here challenged by militant Islam;

second, commercial considerations;  and third, its geostrategic objectives to become the dominant power in core Eurasia.

Since the Qing Dynasty’s (1644-1911) westward expansion from the late 16th century and progressive absorption of the lands that now comprise China’s Xinjiang province, controlling these Turkic speaking peoples and maintaining border security have been enduring foreign policy and security challenges for Beijing.

With the return of the Islamic, fundamentalist, Taliban, Beijing fears radicalisation of its Moslem Uyghur and Kazak populations by militant groups operating from Afghanistan. Within Xinjiang, Beijing claims elements of the former East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), now called the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP), operate and that this is aligned with transnational al-Qaeda-led jihadi groups, especially IS-K (Islamic State – Khorasan), in Afghanistan that see Beijing as an enemy of Islam.

Beijing will be deeply alarmed if IS-K is found to be behind the Moscow attack over the weekend of 23 March. IS-K declared China to be an enemy in the 2010s. After the fall of Kabul, IS-K was reported to have been operating along the Wakhan Corridor, where the 92-kilometre border runs. Recently, it is thought to have been moved further away by the government in Kabul.

China has long been interested in Afghanistan’s wealth of mineral resources. It has extensive copper and lithium reserves among many others. In 2008, Jiangxi Copper first acquired the rights to develop the enormous reserves, reportedly the second largest in the world, at Mes Aynak, some 40 kilometres from Kabul. It was prevented by the Taliban during the civil war from developing the project, but all that might change now.

Afghanistan also has massive lithium reserves. It has been described as a ‘second’ Chili, which has the world’s largest reserves. Notwithstanding current weaker prices, China will take a longer-term stance on developing these deposits in view of lithium’s crucial role in the green energy transition.

Last year, Gochin, a Chinese battery company, was reportedly in discussions on a $10bil lithium project in Afghanistan. Its current status is at present unknown. Significant Chinese investment in Afghanistan’s resource sector will depend on whether Kabul can reassure Beijing over political stability and physical security.

Beijing’s establishment of diplomatic relations with Kabul will, however, give a lift to China’s Belt and Road initiatives (BRI) in Afghanistan. Already an extension of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to the west from the Khyber Pass to Kabul has been planned, although increasing tensions in relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan may set that back.

Already last year, a rail-road-rail route from Lanzhou in China to western Afghanistan via Kashgar in Xinjiang, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan, was opened. While acknowledging that its purpose was primarily strategic at this time, China has ambitious plans to one day run its standard gauge rail lines across Afghanistan to Iran and beyond to Turkey and Europe, providing an alternative to the current northern routes which all run through Russia on a different gauge, requiring bogies to be changed at each border crossing. Tensions in the Red Sea have increased the attractiveness of China’s overland rail routes to Europe.

Resource development and BRI infrastructure may well fall far short of current expectations but, in addition to restraining its Islamic fundamentalists, recognising the Taliban government in Kabul ahead of other major powers, advances China’s broader geostrategic interests in expanding its influence over core Eurasia and beyond into west Asia and crucially the Middle East.

In March last year, China surprised the world by announcing that it had brokered an agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia to re-establish diplomatic recognition. This was as unexpected for its results as it was for China’s having in this way announced that it would in future become a substantial and influential player in the Middle East.

As the world’s biggest importer of crude oil, it is not surprising that Beijing would seek a bigger role for itself in Middle East affairs, especially if it views US influence there as waning. Beijing has long cultivated Iran. And through Iran, Beijing can also increase its influence over west Asia. This will be strengthened further by Beijing’s becoming the major (now the only) foreign partner of the Taliban.

In all of this, with the US out of core Eurasia, Russia is the biggest loser from China’s relentless expansion of its influence to the west. Russia has long regarded west Asia, Afghanistan, and Central Asia as its sphere of influence. Beijing’s unilateral recognition of Afghanistan breaks with Russia. It would be seen as highly opportunistic in Moscow and damage strategic trust between the two. It would not have been taken lightly in Beijing.

Chinese propaganda has for some time now been silent on Xi and Putin’s ‘friendship without limits’. While this ‘friendship’ may be without limits, it would seem to have a use-by date.

https://johnmenadue.com/china-steals-a-march-on-a-distracted-world/

USE-BY-DATE? EVERYTHING HAS A USE-BY-DATE, INCLUDING THE AMERICAN EMPIRE, THE SUN AND PLANET A..... GEOFF RABY WAS A BIT GLIB HERE.... EVEN FRIENDS AND FAMILY HAVE TIFFS, BUT SO WHAT? THE AMERICAN EMPIRE DOES NOT HAVE FRIENDS, NOR FAMILY... IT HAS VASSALS AND SYCOPHANTIC BITCHES....

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....