Despite the strong words coming from the Coalition’s corner about Australia taking a stand against China, it must be asked what effect such a stand would have — if it ever happened. Crikey readers were not holding their breath for a result (and some pointed out that the game is rigged either way. Elsewhere, readers continued to mull over the implications of the Pell decision.
On China and free trade
Alexander Turnbull writes: I honestly don’t understand how arrogant you can be to announce those figures and not realise how fucked you are. Imagine being in Mughal official in around 1740 and thinking “we have figures that show that our calico and spice account for a huge part of the Britons’ imports, so all we need to do is tell the East India Company to play by the rules. After all they need us a lot more than we need them.” Now imagine instead you’re talking about the country that for almost all human history has been the paramount regional power. Seriously ask any peripheral state how being the supplier of a economically crucial commodity to a much larger power worked out for them…
R. Ambrose Raven writes: Ah yes, “free” trade. Free trade snake-oil merchants promote an ideology supposedly promoting individualism, free enterprise, lowered taxes, deregulated economies and labour markets, small government, and a servile state and privileges the profit-seeking sector at the expense of public interests and welfare. Why should we, the 99%, care about free trade when 90% of the profits are pocketed by the corporate sector?
On the Pell decision
Mark Dunstone writes: I think you raise a valid point about there being innocent people imprisoned in Australia, and a need for this to be addressed. However, the bigger point about Pell’s trial is that he was able to use, to the fullest extent possible, every opportunity to have his case thrown out: at the royal commission; at the police investigation stage; at the indictment stage; at the jury trial; and at the appeal. And these were done with Pell exercising the raw, unbridled power and privilege he had. Power and privilege not available to many accused.
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication.
A laughable suggestion, presumably yesterday’s funny story. Contrast the strategic and aggressive industry approach of the Chinese leadership with the contempt of our foreign-owned ruling class for building a strong and cohesive nation.
Our ruling clique has no interest or competence in external affairs, only a fawning on our great and powerful friend as it helps itself to the wealth of our society. Hence its’ reflex reliance on more toys.
Our political (and hate-) obsession with stopping the asylum-seeker boats and fantasising about “radical Islam” and the ISIS “threat” created by our invasion of Iraq has often been intended in part to avoid facing up to complex but pressing challenges. Australia, for instance, has a fortnight’s food and diesel fuel reserves. Bipartisan favouring of transnational interests is likewise weakening the real economy as the Labor class traitors and Noalition capitalists sell China the rope, help LNG transnational loot, and destroy local industry. Name a mainstream politician who cares.
In fact the deification of “border security” makes us weaker through consequent internal divisions and our extremely visible contempt for life and rights. Who would want to fight in a war to defend the wealth and privileges of such low life? “Our” politicians and senior Border Force functionaries certainly aren’t going to send their own children to fight in the conflicts they are so eager to promote. Recall Menzies’ (or trump’s) career as a war-dodger.