SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
dreaming of death and glorious defeats....A recalcitrant US government could turn-off Australia’s ability to defend itself within days. In 1932, the wonderful Mexican artist Frida Kahlo painted a “Self-portrait along the Borderline between Mexico and the United States”. With due alteration for detail, Kahlo’s passionate political statement of self-respect and independence can be seen as foreshadowing the abject nature of Australia’s defence mindset, currently epitomised by AUKUS. AUKUS confirms that we are mendicant clients of the US By Alan Stephens
Anyone who believes that, as agreed (sort-of) under the AUKUS arrangement, Australia will, sometime in the far-distant future, buy, build and operate eight nuclear-powered submarines, is one of the following: a charlatan (Scott Morrison); a weak-kneed appeaser (Anthony Albanese); or a representative of an organisation that will profit from the deal (military-industrial complexes in the US, the UK and Australia). Or they’re just gullible. The technical, operational, strategic and (immense) financial aspects of Australia’s AUKUS submarine project are simply not credible. And even if our Navy were to receive any boats, by the time they arrive decades hence, the pace and revolutionary nature of contemporary technological and social change will have made them irrelevant. Moreover – as indeed is the case with the Australian Defence Force generally – in order to operate effectively, those submarines would be entirely reliant on the US: for software, communications, information, logistics support, weapons, and so on. That is, a recalcitrant US government could turn-off Australia’s ability to defend itself within days. In short, AUKUS confirms that we and our Defence Force are mendicant clients of the US. In the age of Donald Trump, Elon Musk and an increasingly dystopian US, this plainly is dangerous. It’s also demeaning. What does it say about us as a self-respecting, independent society? Well actually, things have ever been thus. Which was the point of Kahlo’s 1932 painting. Motivated by the white supremacist doctrine of “Manifest Destiny” and its associated ethos of insatiable greed, from the 19th century onwards so-called “settlers” marched inexorably westward across north America. When they arrived at land they wanted, they took it. Native Americans were the main victims, but Mexico also suffered severely. The Mexican-American War, known in the US as the “Mexican War” and in Mexico as the “United States intervention in Mexico”, was fought between 1846 and 1848 when the US Army invaded Mexico. Ultimately, the US “annexed” or Mexico “ceded” the territories now known as California, Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and parts of Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming. Ever since then, for 175 years, Mexico has been relentlessly abused, bullied, racially-stereotyped and exploited by the United States. Not that the Mexicans have been alone. In his important book, “America in Retreat: The Decline of US Leadership from WW2 to Covid-19” (2021), former Supreme Court judge Michael Pembroke gave us a clear-eyed analysis of the essential nature of US foreign policy. In the words of one reviewer, it’s a “grisly history of a bully-boy nation”. Currently it’s the turn of Canada, Greenland and Panama to cop the arrogance of this self-styled “exceptionalism”, with Donald Trump asserting the US’s right to undermine their sovereignty, in the case of the latter two nations by force if necessary. While this most likely is just another instance of Trump’s boorishness, his attitude nevertheless reveals an abiding national mindset. Returning to Frida Kahlo, by 1932 she at least had had enough. In addition to being a dazzling and original artist, Kahlo was a humanitarian who loved her country for its innate values and culture. The purpose of “Self-portrait along the Border Line …” was to: assert her identity as a Mexican; reject any mindset of cultural inferiority; and redefine the notion of “worth” as it might apply to Mexico and its imperial neighbour. Thus, on the left of the painting, Mexico is symbolised by the sun, the moon, a pre-Columbian temple, and artefacts from a dramatic cultural history; whereas on the right, the US is symbolised by factories, the Stars and Stripes stained by smoke from chimney-stacks, automatons, big business, and soulless skyscrapers. Frida’s take arguably is extreme – she was a communist, as were many progressive thinkers in that era – but she’s got a point. Michael Pembroke’s cautionary exposé of US global leadership was recently expanded in an incisive article by Cameron Leckie (P&I, Jan 11, 2025), who argued that it’s time for Australia to check out of the figurative Hotel California in which we think we’ve sheltered since the end of World War II. The accommodation has been budget-standard but the cost has been deluxe, not least the premiums we paid for the disastrous and immoral invasions of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. AUKUS is a strategic, organisational and financial stupidity of the highest order. As a wealthy, educated, advanced, mostly decent society, Australia has the means to do things differently. Our challenge is not so much one of a fanciful defence acquisition program, but rather of mindset: of asserting our independence, our self-respect, and our values, somewhere along the borderline between Sydney and Los Angeles. https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-confirms-that-we-are-mendicant-clients-of-the-us/
SEE ALSO:
|
User login |
friends again?....
Much has been said about the impending trade war amid Donald Trump’s threats to implement new tariffs against China, Mexico and Canada. But while many fear this could exacerbate tensions between China and the United States, we could find China is not as impacted as first thought.
As Trump’s second presidential term begins, there is already a key difference in US-China relations from when he first took office. In the eight years since Trump first came to power, China has diversified its trade relationships to focus more on the global south and, in turn, made it less reliant on the US than it was between 2016 and 2020.
Another indication that the United States and China’s relations may stabilise or even improve under Trump is that the 47th president may have greater capacity to put democracy-based ideology aside, much like Richard Nixon did in the 1970s.
Unlike outgoing President Joe Biden, Trump does not emphasise a strict democracy-versus-autocracy framework. Instead, he has shown in the past that he can take a more pragmatic stance on global affairs. At the same time, notably, Trump has publicly entertained ideas such as annexing Greenland, reclaiming control of the Panama Canal, renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America,” and integrating Canada as the 51st state, all under the banner of defending a “free world” against China.
But while Trump has vowed to take decisive action on controversial election priorities in his first days in office, Trump may find an ally in Xi Jinping. Let us not forget that Trump has said that he aspires to be a “dictator”.
As the head of the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party, Xi is often characterised as the dictatorial leader of China’s so-called people’s democracy. As such, he is unlikely to criticise what Western commentators often describe as the “authoritarian” actions of Trump. And if anything, the two may find their leadership styles have common ground. They even share the common interest of maintaining a peaceful order and controlling the Taiwan issue to prevent a war over it.
All efforts are to support Trump’s aspiration to be “a president of peace” and Xi’s vision of developmental peace. A key priority for the Trump administration will be managing power rivalry with China. One constructive approach to this is to find possible pathways of ideological peaceful coexistence between the US and China.
This approach provides practical guidance on how to manage ideological competition between the two nations to reduce friction, encourage cooperation and create a stable foundation for navigating ideological tensions in a multipolar world. When a fire is already raging, it is wiser for both sides to avoid adding the fuel of ideological confrontation, which would only intensify geopolitical conflict.
According to this approach, strategic empathy is key. This entails cognitive empathy, affective empathy and the ability to cultivate a sense of harmony and reduced distrust. Cognitive empathy requires understanding the unique perspectives, motivations, history and strategic culture of other nations, while affective empathy means the two global superpowers resonate over similar feelings, fostering sympathy and deepening connections to nurture positive meaningful relationships. Much like a warring couple seeking marital counselling, strategic empathy encourages all parties to consider contentious issues from their opponents’ viewpoints, experiences and emotions.
This framework integrates both rational analysis and emotional engagement, offering a constructive path toward reducing tensions, easing geopolitical tensions and fostering collaboration.
It is worth noting that significant obstacles always hinder the progression from empathy to sympathy, and the transition from sympathy to fostering genuine friendliness is particularly challenging.
Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger exemplified this progression of understanding and engagement when he began negotiations with China in 1971. He began with a foundational level of empathy rooted in a realist perspective, then approached issues with sympathy, wisdom and detachment, considering the circumstances and motivations of both sides.
Ultimately, Kissinger reached a profound, third level of understanding and connection with China, where he came to be honoured as an old friend of the Chinese people.
Trump’s so-called “great common sense” appears capable of fostering a form of strategic empathy with China. But one of the key challenges he and his team will face upon entering the Oval Office is managing and balancing the competing interests of those within his inner circle such as billionaire industrialist Elon Musk, who advocates for deepening economic engagement with China, driven by both his business interests and broader political aspirations.
Yet, Musk’s political manoeuvring, such as his recent interventions in UK and German politics, adds complexity to Trump’s efforts to navigate international affairs. Meanwhile, the priority for Washington hawks like Matt Pottinger, a former deputy national security advisor during Trump’s first term, and former representative Mike Gallagher, is achieving a US “victory” through policies aimed at countering China. Some even advocate for granting Taiwan full diplomatic recognition. Balancing these divergent agendas will test the administration’s strategic and diplomatic acumen.
Both Trump and Xi are expected to attend international forums such as the G20 Summit in Johannesburg in November, which creates an opportunity for a meeting.
Whether their dialogue can foster a candid exchange that addresses longstanding ideological differences in a fresh, innovative, and peaceful manner remains uncertain. Certainly, such an engagement would test their political resolve, strategic wisdom, and ability to transcend deeply rooted ideological divides.
While Trump and Xi may have achieved a degree of strategic empathy – perhaps reaching only the early stages – significant challenges remain in translating their decisions into actionable outcomes, especially when ideological reconciliation encounters strong domestic opposition.
Republished from Deakin University and The Sydney Morning Herald, Jan 20, 2024.
https://johnmenadue.com/under-trump-the-us-and-china-may-be-greater-friends-than-ever/
READ FROM TOP.
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.
Gus Leonisky
POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.
HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS.
HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…