That sinking feeling from Down Under: Australia, United Kingdom and United States (Aukus) pact

AUKUS: a blunder follows a mega mess - New Age:  

US president Joe Biden speaks on national security with British prime minister Boris Johnson and Australian prime minister Scott Morrison in East Room of the White House in Washington, DC on September 15. — Agence France-Presse/Brendan Smialowski -

 

US President Joe Biden, in announcing on video the Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States (Aukus) pact

What does the Aukus deal for Asia?

The Aukus military alliance essentially signals to the world that money spent on real war is preferred to money spent on social justice at home and concerns for people and planet.

LAST week, US President Joe Biden, in announcing on video the Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States (Aukus) pact, called Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison “that fellow from Down Under” in what appears to be a senior moment.

Considering that the military alliance has upset a lot of people from China, France and even their own commentators should not have been surprising.

Has Australia, one of the four advanced Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or OECD countries from the Asian region (Japan, South Korea and New Zealand) seriously thought through Aukus implications on her Asian neighbours?

First, do eight nuclear submarines by 2040 make serious military sense for Australian security?

We can understand that a maritime power in the South Pacific with lots of coastal waters to patrol needs a strong navy.

But as former Prime Minister Paul Keating rightly pointed out, China is a land-based power and being over 3,200km away from Australia, does not present a military threat to Australia.

Assuming that the nuclear submarines will be similar to those planned by the United States, which will acquire 12 of the Columbia class nuclear submarines for US$128bil (RM535bil) by 2030 (the US Government Accountability Office), Australia may be paying at least US$85bil (RM355bil) for equipment that may be obsolete by the time they come onstream.

By 2040, even the US director of National Intelligence has admitted that China’s gross domestic product or GDP (22.8% of world GDP) would outclass the United States (20.8%). Twenty years is a long time to improve defences against submarine attacks.

Submarines have at best deterrent effects under conventional warfare, but their real threat comes from carrying nuclear missiles. But even the potential of carrying such missiles would invite enemy nuclear retaliation.

This is exactly why Asean countries like Malaysia and Indonesia showed serious concern that the Aukus deal may become a catalyst to the nuclear arms race.

If that is the case, Australia would lose her status as a haven for nuclear-free living, something that New Zealand cares seriously about, which is why she distanced herself from the deal.

Second, which businessman would spend nearly the same amount of money that he earns to point a gun at his best customer?

China imported US$100bil (RM418bil) in 2020 from Australia, with the latter earning a trade and service surplus of USS$55.5bil (RM235bil).

Then to spend US$85bil (RM355bil with likely huge over-runs based on past experience) on defence against your top trading customer defies business logic.

Third, the Anglosphere military alliance created a split with Europe, already sore after Brexit and Kabul. France is not only the first foreign ally (helping in the US Independence War against Britain) of the United States, but also has serious Indo-Pacific interests with 93% of her maritime economic exclusivity zone (10.2 million sq.km) – the second largest in the world – located there.

Fourth, you have to ask whether Australian military intelligence is an oxymoron when it recently ordered 70-tonne US Abram tanks that are too heavy to carry by train across Northern Territory bridges nor by road to defend the northern Australia coast.

Climate change

Her Asian neighbours would be much happier if Australia took the lead in the Asia-Pacific region on climate change, rather than spending on arms.

Amongst the rich countries, Australia has the highest per capita emission rate, similar to the United States.

But out of 200 countries, Australia ranks fifth or sixth as the biggest global emitter, so her voice on fulfilling the requirements of the Paris Accord matters.

Unfortunately, given the huge influence of the mining lobby, Australia may not even achieve her Paris agreement to cut emissions by 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2030, let alone improve on that commitment by the 26th session of the Conference of the Parties or COP26.

Australia may be rich enough to mitigate against her own risks of climate warming, but the effect of climate change on her neighbours, particularly the Pacific Islands is going to be devastating.

In 2019, Pacific island nations such as Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Timor Leste and Tonga declared that by 2030, their land could become uninhabitable by rising seas, water salination, reef destruction and more natural disasters.

Biodiversity decline

The latest World Bank model suggests that the global decline in biodiversity and collapse in ecosystem services such as wild pollination, food from marine fisheries and timber from native forests could result in US$2.7 trillion (RM11 trillion) decline in global GDP by 2030.

The injustice is that the poorest countries, including those in Asia-Pacific will bear most of such eco-system and GDP losses.

In particular, many indigenous people who depend on nature will bear the costs of loss of habitat and livelihood.

Why are we not surprised that on Sept 13, 2007, when the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by 144 member countries, the four votes against were the Anglosphere countries of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States? In all four rich countries, the record of treatment of the indigenous people have been shameful, such as the unmarked graves of indigenous school children in forced assimilation schools in Canada.

Human rights

According to Human Rights Watch, aboriginal and Torres Islander people comprise 29% of the Australian adult prison population, but just 3% of the population.

In the United States, states with large native populations have incarceration rates for American Indians of up to seven times that of whites.

The Aukus military alliance essentially signals to the world that money spent on real war is preferred to money spent on social justice at home and concerns for people and planet.

Who really profits from the nuclear submarine contract?

Look no further than the exclusive submarine suppliers such as General Dynamics (from the United States) and British Aerospace.

The Aukus deal confirms essentially that Australia opts to sink or swim with their rich Anglosphere few, rather than the global many.

Who said the world was fair?

Andrew Sheng writes on global issues from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are the writer’s own

.

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng (born 1946) is Hong Kong-based Malaysian Chinese banker, academic and commentator. He started his career as an accountant and is now a distinguished fellow of Fung Global Institute, a global think tank based in Hong Kong.^[1] He served as chairman of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) before his replacement by Martin Wheatley in

Source link

 

Related:

 

1st Quad summit with China being silently targeted; US incapable of coordinating members' difference as plans to contain China doomed to fail: observers

The leaders of the US, Japan, India and Australia — known as the Quad — finished their face-to-face meeting in Washington on Friday in an attempt to cement ties while containing China, but experts said that an interlude during the meeting involving US President Joe Biden complaining about his translation device malfunction is an omen of the emerging anti-China clique's future — that it cannot function at all due to US' declining capability and changes of the global situation. 

 

1st Quad summit with China being silently targeted; US incapable of coordinating ...

 The leaders of the US, Japan, India and Australia — known as the Quad — finished their face-to-face meeting in ...

 Exclusive: China has taken reciprocal countermeasures against UK Parliament's ban on ambassador, ... China has taken reciprocal countermeasures regarding the UK Parliament's banning of Chinese ambassador from attending events in the Parliament last ..

65 countries express opposition to interference in China's internal affairs at UN ...

Pakistan, on behalf of 65 countries, delivered a joint statement against interference in China's internal affairs under the pretext of ...

 

 Furious Paris calls scrapped deal a ‘stab in the back’Biden, Macron discuss sub row
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1234943.shtml

 

China, others reveal negative impact of Western unilateral coercive measures on human rights

At a side meeting of the 48th session of the UN Human Rights Council on Wednesday, permanent missions of 10 countries including China discussed the serious violation of human rights caused by unilateral coercive measures by the US and other Western countries, urging them to abolish such actions immediately.

 

 Related posts:

 

AUKUS plans to provide nuclear submarines to Australia seriously endangers nuclear non-proliferation

https://youtu.be/6XVxdoHoMBM     The world needs to prepare for the arrival of the coming nuclear submarine craze     The Ohio-class ballis..

 

Xi emphasizes inclusiveness, rejects zero-sum game match his thoughts, while Biden’s speech plays with words and ideas at UN

https://youtu.be/imTUcSgtZls  President Xi's words match his thoughts, while Biden’s speech plays with words and ideas https://youtu.be/...

 

Renovating democracy and the China challenge

To break out of its paralysis, the West needs to take a hard look and address three key challenges The rise of the populist variant i.

 

 

Moral vacuum at the heart of modernity, now embodied in US laws!

  ` ` MAN and nature are running out of time. That’s the core message of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change ...

Moral vacuum at the heart of modernity, now embodied in US laws!

` In short, historically it was the Church that gave the moral blessing for colonisation, slavery and genocide during the Age of Globalisation. The tragedy is that the Doctrine of Discovery is now embodied in US laws. 

 

THE GLOCALISATION OF HUMANITY

The seismic shift in global finance

The dollar accounted for 88% in paired foreign exchange currency trading in 2019 and 59% of official foreign exchange holdings  

 

Why the global financial landscape is undergoing a seismic shift

• Regulators are struggling to keep up with fintech’s rapid growth and the impact of big data, even as intense geopolitical rivalries mean accidents could easily escalate into crises

 

AUGUST 15, 2021 marks the 50th anniversary of United States President Richard Nixon delinking the US dollar from gold. Instead of a crisis, the ensuing half century marked the pre-eminence of the US financial system to global dominance.

In 2017, US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin commissioned four major studies on the US financial system that reviewed its efficiency, resilience, innovation and regulation. These surveys highlighted the US dominance in all four areas of banking, capital markets, asset management and financial technology.

To quote the reports proclaimed : “The US banking system is the strongest in the world”... “The US capital markets are the largest, deepest, and most vibrant in the world..(that) include the US$29 trillion (RM119 trillion) equity market, the US$14 trillion (RM57.5 trillion) market for US Treasury securities, the US$8.5 trillion (RM35 trillion) corporate bond market, and US$200 trillion (notional amount or RM820 trillion) derivatives market.”

According to the reports,“Nine of the top 10 largest global asset managers are headquartered in the United States.” In the area of financial technology, “US firms accounted for nearly half of the US$117bil (RM480bil) in cumulative global investments from 2010 to 2017.”

Under-pinning the US financial system’s success is of course the US dollar’s dominant currency pricing role. The dollar accounted for 88% in paired foreign exchange currency trading in 2019 and 59% of official foreign exchange holdings in 2020. It is widely used in trade invoicing in manufacturing but less so in services trade. As a major International Monetary Fund study has shown, this pricing role impacts on emerging market economy (EME) exchange rate policies, as their devaluation would have only limited positive impact on their exports, but amplifies their import contraction.

Furthermore, because EME debt is largely denominated in dollars, any dollar appreciation would have an overall contractionary impact on EME liquidity and growth. This is why US interest rate increases are feared not just by the US Treasury, but also almost all EME economies.

Several factors combined to create the recent seismic shift in the global financial landscape. 

First, financial technology has eroded the dominant share of the banking system. The Financial Stability Board (FSB) 2020 report on non-bank financial institutions (NBFI) revealed that as of end-2019, they accounted for 49.5% of global financial assets of $404 trillion, compared with 38.5% for the banks. Indeed, total NBFI lending now exceed bank lending, partly because of tighter bank regulations and higher bank capital and liquidity costs.

` Second, financial technology has enabled new arrivals in the financial sector comprising not new fintech startups, but also Big Tech platforms that are using Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, apps and their dominance of cloud computing to provide more convenient, speedy and customer-oriented finance for individuals and businesses. This month, a major BIS study on the implications of fintech and digitisation on financial market structure showed how Big Tech has muscled into traditional banking services, especially in payment services, lending and even asset management.

Taking the growth of NBFIs and Big Tech together, the traditional bank regulators and supervisors find that they regulate less and less of the financial system, but central banks are responsible for overall financial stability. Regulating the complex financial eco-system is like trying to tie down a huge elephant by a bunch of specialists each trapped in their own silos. And politically, no one wants to give a super-regulator power to rule them all.

Third, the financial landscape entered new minefields because of intense geopolitical rivalry. If global supply chains are going to be decoupled by different standards, and we arrive at a Splinternet of different technology standards, how should finance respond? As the US applies pressure on Chinese companies and individuals through new sanctions and legislation, financial institutions and companies struggle to deal with shifting goal posts and game changes. 

 

A woman and a child walk past the People’s Bank of China building in Beijing on March 4. China’s central bank, like others around the world, is grappling with how to regulate the fintech industry. Photo: Bloomberg

The Ant Finance and Didi events are more a reflection of regulatory concerns whether large domestic Big Data platforms should be subject to foreign legislation with national security implications. Will India, for example, continue to allow foreign Big Tech to own all their client data?

Fourth, the regulatory trend towards “open financial data” in which banks would open up their client databases to allow new players to access customer accounts and data will provide new products and services. But this means also severe concerns on client privacy and data security. No country has yet figured out how to manage competition fairly in the fintech world when five firms (Amazon, Microsoft, Google, IBM, Oracle) dominate 70% of cloud-related infrastructure services.

Fifth, blockchain technology, cyber-currencies and central bank digital currencies are now increasingly coming on-stream, making possible payments and transactions that rely less on official currencies and also outside the purview of regulation. In short, the official regulators are responsible for system stability, but may not have access to what is really going on in blockchain space. That is an accident waiting to happen.

 
https://youtu.be/oukokqq1s_o

In addition to more than 600,000 COVID-19 deaths, growth in the US is based on a strong stimulus package of excessive money-printing. China's growth is more solid: Editor-in-Chief Hu Xijin

All these suggest that the global financial system has grown faster, more complex and entangled than any single nation to manage on its own. If the largest financial systems are caught in increasingly acrimonious geopolitical rivalry, what are the risks of financial accidents that can easily escalate to financial crises? In the 2008 global financial crisis, the G20 stood together to execute a whole range of responses. This time round, there is no unity as the US continues to apply financial sanctions against her enemies and rivals, amounting to 4,283 cases as of January 2021, of which 246 and eight respectively were against Chinese and Hong Kong entities.

The bubble in fintech valuation that has fueled rising stock markets and investments in technology is fundamentally driven by central bank loose monetary policy. Central bank assets have grown faster on an average of 8.4% per annum between 2013-2018, than banks (3.8%) or NBFIs (5.9%) to reach 7.5% of global financial assets. Does this mean that financial markets can assume that central banks will continue to underwrite their prosperity?

As inflation rears its head, central banks will have to reverse their loose monetary stance, thus putting the global financial system under stress. The global financial system has structural and regulatory cracks, but they can only be fixed by having some political understanding amongst the big players. Without this, expect a messy outcome.

Andrew Sheng comments on global affairs from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are his own.

 Recommended Video

 

Source link

 

Related:

Top stories

Five factors behind seismic shift in global financial landscape

South China Morning Post·

US$8 trillion and counting | The Star

Condivergence: Termites of the economy | KLSE Screener

 

Related posts:

 

Webinar: The rise of ‘Govcoins’ and what’s next for crypto

 

Break free of US dollar hegemony: What’s next?

 

 

Global de-dollarisation fast underway; US Printed More Money in One Month Than in Two Centuries, US$ is fast becoming Banana Currency

THE GLOCALISATION OF HUMANITY

  https://youtu.be/oS5QqS9C_xw

 

Few Westerners see the irony of a supposedly closed China celebrating the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), when communism was born but essentially rejected in the West. What was it about Marx that resonated with Chinese civilisation that prided itself with its own ancient and enduring philosophy? (PIC: Chinese President Xi Jinping waves as he attends a gala in connection with the anniversary - AP)

 "Globalisation is interpreted as universalisation of American or European values and standards. But the fact remains that these standards and rules were imposed historically by conquest, colonisation and force".

China Does Not Recognize The Rule-Based International Order imposed historically by Conquest, Colonisation and Force !

 https://youtu.be/_ThU1vvW0A4

China has never interfered in the internal affairs of other countries and never obstructed their development. It will never accept any country interfering in China's internal affairs and obstructing its development. Today's China has long been different from the China of 100 years ago. No one and no force should underestimate the Chinese people's firm will and strong ability to defend national sovereignty, security, and development interests.

WHY is Marxism thriving in China and not in Marx’s place of birth? Why is Buddhism more practiced in East Asia than in India? Why has Islam more followers outside Saudi Arabia?

Ideas and religion spread through globalisation, but it was really their localisation that created more believers and followers.

What succeeded was not globalisation, but glocalisation, the internalisation of universal ideas and beliefs by the many, and not just the few.

Few Westerners see the irony of a supposedly closed China celebrating the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), when communism was born but essentially rejected in the West.

What was it about Marx that resonated with Chinese civilisation that prided itself with its own ancient and enduring philosophy?

London School of Economics Emeritus Professor Megnai Desai, writing on “Marx’s Revenge”, made the shrewd observation that the Chinese Revolution in the 20th century was very different from the French and American Revolutions in the 18th century.

The French Revolution was a domestic rebellion against the monarchy and the landed gentry, whilst the American Revolution was rebellion against British foreign domination

Both created republics and preached equality, liberty and freedom, but both went on to create empires, one by conquering lands from the native Indians and Mexico, and the other through Napoleon’s rampage in Europe.

The Chinese Revolution was different because it was simultaneously a struggle against foreign invasion (Japanese and earlier Eight Nations Alliance) as well as the Nationalist government that favoured the capitalist and landed classes.

The CCP won because it represented the rural peasantry, rather than adopting the Comintern strategy of starting the revolution from the cities. In short, the CCP localised universal Communism with Chinese characteristics. It was practical rather than ideological.

By the time of the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, Chinese thinkers struggled with what would replace the old order.

The country fell into warlordism. The Nationalist Party under Sun Yat-sen struggled to balance the conservative wing that represented the landlords and capitalists, and the left wing influenced by Communism and socialism.

Chinese revolutionaries followed closely the Russian Revolution in 1917, because it was then the most recent model of social transformation. The Chinese elite understood that the rebuilding of China from the collapse of the old order was a monumental task. The country was backward and the uneducated masses were unprepared for modernity, vulnerable to foreign conquest.

Even though they felt the burden of history, they also understood that there was no parallel in history on the scale of Chinese transformation.

The Chinese Left took to Marxian thinking because Marx gave both a historical and political economy perspective on how capitalism would evolve, as well as a philosophical tool in terms of Hegelian dialectics.

Marx used the profound insights of the Prussian philosopher Hegel that transformations come from contradictions of opposites, in which change will not happen in a smooth line, but through revolution or discontinuity.

Marx’s discovery of dialectic materialism – in everything, the contradiction and interaction between opposites lead to the destruction of the old and emergence of the new – was music to the ears of those who sought a path out for the New China.

Furthermore, the fundamental ideas of dialectics were very similar to the Chinese yin-yang philosophy of the I Ching and Dao Dejing. As Lenin put it, “dialectics is the study of the contradiction within the very essence of things. Development is the struggle of opposites.”

Having theory is one thing, but putting these ideas into practice is another. We can only appreciate China’s miraculous transformation from a backward economy to the second largest economy in the world by understanding that this was done through essentially three dictums: “seek truth from facts”, crossing the river by feeling the stones” and “it doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.”

In other words, make fact-based decisions, always try or test under uncertainty, and above all, be practical and have an open mind. Change is a process between conflicting contradictions. There is no absolute black and white.

Historian Ray Huang, one of the finest sinologists of his generation and a former Nationalist soldier, wrote in the Preface to his classic “China: A Macro-History”: “Chinese history differs from the history of other peoples and other parts of the world because of an important factor: its vast multitudes.

In the imperial period as well as in the very recent past, practical problems had to be translated into abstract notions in order to be disseminated.

In turn, at the local level the message had once again to be rendered into everyday language.”

It is the reduction of very complicated policies into simple language that the Chinese people had to understand and own that enabled them to buy into the transformation, despite the huge sacrifices at the individual and community levels. The people’s eyes are clearer than those of the elites.

The US-China rivalry has done the world a favour by contrasting very fundamental worldviews. When the West preaches a value and rules-based order, what is meant is that freedom, democracy and individual rights are absolute – essentially a zero-sum “my way or no way.” Globalisation is interpreted as universalisation of American or European values and standards. But the fact remains that these standards and rules were imposed historically by conquest, colonisation and force.

When China, Russia, India or any other country deviates or disagrees with that, then they must be contained, confronted or sanctioned. Localisation or being different is almost seen as deviant rather than a celebration of diversity.

Civilisations reach their highest levels through tolerance and openness. When they become inward-looking, fundamentalist and mono-thinking, fragility and decay sets in.

The world is simultaneously becoming more global in inter-connectivity, even as regionalisation, fragmentation and localisation speeds up.

Glocalisation, the simultaneous contradiction between global and local, is to be welcomed, rather than feared.

The future will always be open, uncertain and contradictory. Such diversity is the nature of humanity.

Andrew Sheng comments on global affairs from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are his own

Source link

 

Footage of a brutal gang attack on Asian students |Daily Mail ...

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9751931/Footage-brutal-gang-attack-Asian-students.html

 

• 
  

+4

The much larger group attacks the three Asian students outside an Inala shopping centre (pictured) as one girl is pulled to the ground by her hair

 

RELATED POSTS:

 

Decoding an awakening giant, the China's secret recipe of success for an economic miracle

World main countries 2021 Q1 GDP Growth Infographic: Wu Tiantong/GT Xi Jinping: Chinese people will never allow foreign bullying, oppres..

 

The US, West bound to lose ‘war on human rights’ against China

https://youtu.be/j7Ubz8CYXhE Ambassador Chen Xu, permanent representative of China to the United Nations office in Geneva and other inter...

 

 

From Mars to the moon, Chinese Kylin computer operating system

C hina reveals the computer system powering its space missions. Chinese researchers developed the Kylin operating system to replace the We...

 

China-US high level strategic dialogue: Chinese diplomats deal vigorous counterblows to condescending US representatives; common ground hard to reach on contrasting logics

THE GLOCALISATION OF HUMANITY

 

https://youtu.be/oS5QqS9C_xw

Few Westerners see the irony of a supposedly closed China celebrating the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), when communism was born but essentially rejected in the West. What was it about Marx that resonated with Chinese civilisation that prided itself with its own ancient and enduring philosophy? (PIC: Chinese President Xi Jinping waves as he attends a gala in connection with the anniversary - AP)

 "Globalisation is interpreted as universalisation of American or European values and standards. But the fact remains that these standards and rules were imposed historically by conquest, colonisation and force".

WHY is Marxism thriving in China and not in Marx’s place of birth? Why is Buddhism more practiced in East Asia than in India? Why has Islam more followers outside Saudi Arabia?

Ideas and religion spread through globalisation, but it was really their localisation that created more believers and followers.

What succeeded was not globalisation, but glocalisation, the internalisation of universal ideas and beliefs by the many, and not just the few.

Few Westerners see the irony of a supposedly closed China celebrating the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), when communism was born but essentially rejected in the West.

What was it about Marx that resonated with Chinese civilisation that prided itself with its own ancient and enduring philosophy?

London School of Economics Emeritus Professor Megnai Desai, writing on “Marx’s Revenge”, made the shrewd observation that the Chinese Revolution in the 20th century was very different from the French and American Revolutions in the 18th century.

The French Revolution was a domestic rebellion against the monarchy and the landed gentry, whilst the American Revolution was rebellion against British foreign domination

Both created republics and preached equality, liberty and freedom, but both went on to create empires, one by conquering lands from the native Indians and Mexico, and the other through Napoleon’s rampage in Europe.

The Chinese Revolution was different because it was simultaneously a struggle against foreign invasion (Japanese and earlier Eight Nations Alliance) as well as the Nationalist government that favoured the capitalist and landed classes.

The CCP won because it represented the rural peasantry, rather than adopting the Comintern strategy of starting the revolution from the cities. In short, the CCP localised universal Communism with Chinese characteristics. It was practical rather than ideological.

By the time of the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, Chinese thinkers struggled with what would replace the old order.

The country fell into warlordism. The Nationalist Party under Sun Yat-sen struggled to balance the conservative wing that represented the landlords and capitalists, and the left wing influenced by Communism and socialism.

Chinese revolutionaries followed closely the Russian Revolution in 1917, because it was then the most recent model of social transformation. The Chinese elite understood that the rebuilding of China from the collapse of the old order was a monumental task. The country was backward and the uneducated masses were unprepared for modernity, vulnerable to foreign conquest.

Even though they felt the burden of history, they also understood that there was no parallel in history on the scale of Chinese transformation.

The Chinese Left took to Marxian thinking because Marx gave both a historical and political economy perspective on how capitalism would evolve, as well as a philosophical tool in terms of Hegelian dialectics.

Marx used the profound insights of the Prussian philosopher Hegel that transformations come from contradictions of opposites, in which change will not happen in a smooth line, but through revolution or discontinuity.

Marx’s discovery of dialectic materialism – in everything, the contradiction and interaction between opposites lead to the destruction of the old and emergence of the new – was music to the ears of those who sought a path out for the New China.

Furthermore, the fundamental ideas of dialectics were very similar to the Chinese yin-yang philosophy of the I Ching and Dao Dejing. As Lenin put it, “dialectics is the study of the contradiction within the very essence of things. Development is the struggle of opposites.”

Having theory is one thing, but putting these ideas into practice is another. We can only appreciate China’s miraculous transformation from a backward economy to the second largest economy in the world by understanding that this was done through essentially three dictums: “seek truth from facts”, crossing the river by feeling the stones” and “it doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.”

In other words, make fact-based decisions, always try or test under uncertainty, and above all, be practical and have an open mind. Change is a process between conflicting contradictions. There is no absolute black and white.

Historian Ray Huang, one of the finest sinologists of his generation and a former Nationalist soldier, wrote in the Preface to his classic “China: A Macro-History”: “Chinese history differs from the history of other peoples and other parts of the world because of an important factor: its vast multitudes.

In the imperial period as well as in the very recent past, practical problems had to be translated into abstract notions in order to be disseminated.

In turn, at the local level the message had once again to be rendered into everyday language.”

It is the reduction of very complicated policies into simple language that the Chinese people had to understand and own that enabled them to buy into the transformation, despite the huge sacrifices at the individual and community levels. The people’s eyes are clearer than those of the elites.

The US-China rivalry has done the world a favour by contrasting very fundamental worldviews. When the West preaches a value and rules-based order, what is meant is that freedom, democracy and individual rights are absolute – essentially a zero-sum “my way or no way.” Globalisation is interpreted as universalisation of American or European values and standards. But the fact remains that these standards and rules were imposed historically by conquest, colonisation and force.

When China, Russia, India or any other country deviates or disagrees with that, then they must be contained, confronted or sanctioned. Localisation or being different is almost seen as deviant rather than a celebration of diversity.

Civilisations reach their highest levels through tolerance and openness. When they become inward-looking, fundamentalist and mono-thinking, fragility and decay sets in.

The world is simultaneously becoming more global in inter-connectivity, even as regionalisation, fragmentation and localisation speeds up.

Glocalisation, the simultaneous contradiction between global and local, is to be welcomed, rather than feared.

The future will always be open, uncertain and contradictory. Such diversity is the nature of humanity.

Andrew Sheng comments on global affairs from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are his own

Source link

 

RELATED POSTS:

 

Decoding an awakening giant, the China's secret recipe of success for an economic miracle

World main countries 2021 Q1 GDP Growth Infographic: Wu Tiantong/GT Xi Jinping: Chinese people will never allow foreign bullying, oppres..

 

The US, West bound to lose ‘war on human rights’ against China

https://youtu.be/j7Ubz8CYXhE Ambassador Chen Xu, permanent representative of China to the United Nations office in Geneva and other inter...

 

 

From Mars to the moon, Chinese Kylin computer operating system

C hina reveals the computer system powering its space missions. Chinese researchers developed the Kylin operating system to replace the We...

The colour blind virus ; Tighter MCO 3.0: 80% of govt staff, 40% of private sector to work from home

 

A healthcare worker holds a vial of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine arranged at the University Hospital in Sungai Buloh, Selangor, Malaysia, on Tuesday, March 2,2021. The first phase of the vaccine roll-out that will run through April involves about 500,000 frontliners comprising health-care, defense and security personnel, as well as teachers with co-morbidities, according to the government. Photographer: Samsul Said/Bloomberg

Nation 34m ago

Tighter MCO 3.0: 80% of govt staff, 40% of private sector to work from home ...

IS the coronavirus racist?

Of course not. The Covid-19 and its variants do not discriminate between race, creed or borders. They simply infect everyone indiscriminately, so the only defence is vaccines and social distancing.

But the handling of the pandemic has become intensely political along racial, class and national lines. To debate whether it should be called a China virus or an Indian variant is racist by implication. What matters urgently is how each individual, community or nation handles the pandemic. To distribute to the rich and powerful first before the poor and weak is discriminatory, but that is exactly what has happened in many countries.

The virus transmits through people. The epidemiologists suggest that minimising people travel and contacts would slow the transmission.

Those who care more about money object to shutting down the economy. Asians reacted more quickly by adopting masks and staying at home.

The West cared more about individualism and objected to masks, allowing the pandemic to get out of control.

But money and vaccines have begun to bring matters under control, except that if the coronavirus and its variants continue to spread in countries which cannot afford vaccines or can’t get enough supplies, no one is safe.

Thus, a microscopic virus has opened up the Pandora’s Box of almost all social divisions that were ignored and unaddressed. It is clear that science and technology, as well as competent organisation, plus mass cooperation would be the way to solve the pandemic.

But these three factors require trust that everyone should be protected justly.

The record so far shows that those governments which preach democracy, equality and rules-based order may be practising something rather different.

Why is it that in the United States, Pacific Islander, Latino and Black Americans have double the Covid-19 death rate than White and Asian Americans?

Israel is leading in the world vaccination rollout, and yet Palestinians have been slow to get vaccines. The UN Human Rights body has called the Israeli differential treatment of Palestinians “morally and legally unacceptable”.

Israel has illegally occupied Palestinian territory since the 1967 war, and even in the Holy Month, physically raided the Al Aqsa Mosque, sparking off the current conflict that has raged on in the middle of the pandemic.

This is not an equal fight. More than 200 Palestinians have been killed, including 64 children, versus 12 dead in Israel. More than 58,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been rendered homeless and Israelis have knocked out the only lab in the territory that processes covid tests.

An Arab-Israeli member of the Israeli Parliament has openly called the Israel action in Jerusalem as “ethnic cleansing”. The Israeli government can ignore world opinion because of the US’ strong backing.

The humanitarian crisis in Palestine is beyond a tragedy. But the Israel-Palestinian crisis shows how science and technology play a role in turning a David to a Goliath, switching the roles from victims of the Holocaust to become perpetrators of Occupation by might alone.

As geopolitical futurist George Friedman writes about “Gaza: Morality and Reality”, the moral question is extremely complex because both sides see themselves as victims.

In his geopolitical realist view, as long as Israel holds the greater military superiority, with the backing of the strongest military power of all – the United States – the conflict will not be resolved by anyone else.

This point is fully understood by the Israelis, who were scattered and not particularly powerful as a wandering people until 1947. But it was their brains and deep application of science and technology that overcame the Palestinian and Arab numerical superiority.

There are 1-2-3 options for the Israel-Palestine situation. If Israel-occupied territory were to be governed as one country, the demographics would favour the Palestinians with higher birth rates, so this solution was ruled out.

Logic suggests that perhaps a two-country solution of a separate Palestine and Israel state would be possible. The rest of the world supports this option, but the Palestinians are divided into the Fatah faction controlling the West Bank and the Hamas controlling Gaza. This creates a three-state possibility. Indeed, the greater the division between its enemies and their supporters, the more secure Israel’s position. This is classic “divide and rule” domination exercised by imperial colonials.

The Egyptian economist Samir Amin summed up this perennial Arab dilemma, commenting on the 2011 Arab Spring.

If it succeeds, then the Arab world will break out of the imperialist centre’s control. If it fails, then the Arab world will remain in “its current status as a submissive periphery, prohibiting its elevation to the rank of an active participant in shaping the world”.

Samir’s critique of Capitalism in the Age of Globalisation saw a capitalist centre comprising America, Europe and Japan, controlling a periphery of the rest.

This is achieved through five monopolies over technology, financial control, monopoly access to natural resources, media and communications, and weapons of mass destruction. The Israelis understood these perfectly and exploited them to achieve success and survival.

Thus, Israeli devotion to science and technology, military equipment, media and communications and their lobbying power playing guilt on the Eurocentric countries, ensure their dominance over the Palestinian and Arab opponents.

This is why faith or ideology alone will not control the pandemic, because it is through science and organisational power that domination continues over the weak and oppressed.

The Arab world may have physical control over much of the fossil-fuel natural resources, but as long as they remain technologically backward and divided, they will always be victims.

So, the coronavirus is not racist.

Guns do not kill people, people kill or dominate other people.

Friedman is right. Might decides geopolitical reality. For him and his ilk, morality is for the victim to complain and the victor to preach.

Those who do not learn from history will remain its victims.

Andrew Sheng comments on global affairs from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are his own.

Source link

 

RELATED NEWS

 

China welcomes Gaza ceasefire, calls for return to peace talks

Standing with the Palestinians

It’s time to help the Palestinians, says Hisham

The hunt for mutations | The Star

 MCO 3.0: Tighten SOP announcement expected at 5pm on...

• 
  
• 

 Tighter MCO 3.0: 80% of govt staff, 40% of private sector to work from home...

 

 

RELATED POSTS:

 

Lame Indian media and politicians resort to ‘lab leak’ lie to shift focus