The contradictions of the Abbott Government

In a new federal government which has mostly been a huge disappointment, Joe Hockey stands out as being closest in it to a rational politician. Too often, the government has tended to prioritize a “tea partiest” social reform agenda (driven mostly by Abbott himself), while often eschewing the urgently needed economic reform agenda, which has always been the hardest, and most important area to tackle in Federal politics.

Abbott seems ready to implement a baffling array of side issues, long being championed by the looney right in Australia, like the Institute of Public Affairs, who are well outside the main stream, but who nevertheless are listened to by the ideological, ultra conservative, mostly conservative Catholic, cabinet of Abbott. To list them all would take up more space than desired, but just consider these:

  1. apparently it is now “ok to be a bigot” (according to the chief Law Officer in the land George Brandis), no matter how this might offend others or diminish their space under the Australian sky;
  2. nobbling the ABC, with apparently the eventual intention of selling off, at least parts of it, to News Limited;
  3. bringing back the British honors system (what a joke!);
  4. insisting on implementing the most expensive paid parental leave scheme in the world (and most eschewed to the rich);
  5. refusing to consider a free vote on gay marriage; and
  6. dismantling a website developed by the Federal Department of Health to inform consumers of the the most fattening and least fattening foods and have that reflected in food labeling – a very effective way of tackling the obesity epidemic  and one fought tooth and nail by the fast and packaged food industries. The fact that this was traced back to the assistant Minister for Health’s senior staffer, who happened to be a former lobbyist for these said industries, did not concern Abbott one iota. It is difficult not to contrast the behavior of Barry O’Farrell and Abbott and his ministers. The Abbott Fedral Government seems to be more captive of vested interests than any in living memory – and it has not even been in office 12 months yet.

Joe Hockey, on the other hand,  has exhibited mature leadership in not pandering to the nay sayers in the face of closure of smoke-stack and un-economic industries like cars, alumina and uncompetitive manufacturing. He has tabled a visionary process to funnel Superannuation monies into new infrastructure builds by effectively bribing the states to sell off their mature infrastructure assets and then put the proceeds into new start-up programs in return for the Federal government providing 15% of their cost. Now 50% of Super Funds go offshore, because they do not want to invest in start up infrastructure projects, but are more than prepared to invest in mature assets with proven revenues.

This will revolutionize the way infrastructure is financed and built in this country, at a time when construction in the mining industry is winding down. A sensible, common sense, and economically rational way of tackling this problem.

 

What might President Hilary Clinton’s foreign policy have looked like 2017-2020?

……extract from my book “Australia and the World 2040”.

In 2018, an alliance of Arab Academics, leading business people, politicians, and lay people formed a group called “Towards a true Arab Secular Consensus” TTASC. The basis of this organisation was a five year Study by a group of sociologists from Cairo University which looked at Arab societies pre and post the so-called Arab Spring. What they sought to find out was why the so called secularists, and their political parties, had failed so badly in these revolutions. Their conclusions had a profound effect on these people.

Their findings stated that it was not true that secularism had no support in Arab societies – quite the opposite was true. By far the most popular government form was a secular government where constitutions formally separated Church and State. This was of course what all the dictators or Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt claimed to be the case with their dictatorships. But it was not the case at all. In those societies, the governments designated a particular church which favoured their world view, supported them with cash and resources, and squeezed the other ones out. There was never a secular state as such. This arrangement so annoyed the other churches, that when the Arab Spring came they saw it as their chance for revenge, and managed to highjack the democratic agenda through superior organisation and funding from sympathetic petro states before the true secular forces could get focussed and organised. The new TTASC organisation sought to educate, create debate, and form political parties to argue for what they regarded as true secularism. Secretly, Western intelligence services began to fund the TTASC.

Hilary Clinton could see this too, as she sought to find a way through the mess which was Syria. In her inauguration speech of 2017, Clinton went said:

“Unfortunately, we live in a dangerous world. The civil war in Syria has continued on its bloody path now for almost 6 years. The factions are no closer to resolution than they were four years ago, in spite of our military trying to blast then apart with our extraordinarily accurate and skilled strategic bombing from our drones. This is the most dangerous situation in the world right now, and I pledge to work with our Middle Eastern Allies and friends in finding some sort of peace in this troubled country. We must find a way of showing all Syrians that a society can be formed which treats all religions equally, and that Governments are seen to be even-handed in the eyes of all of its citizens”.

It was true that the Syrian Civil War had raged on since 2011, when the so-called Arab Spring showed so much promise of an Arab democratic awakening. Unlike Libya and Tunisia, which settled down fairly quickly to stable but not exactly democratic secular regimes, Syria in 2017 remained a quagmire and Clinton was entitled to some caution. What followed though was some of the most effective US diplomacy in living memory.

Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry, made it his mantle when he came to office in the second Barrack Obama term, that he would do everything in his power to obtain an Arab-Israeli settlement. It took him nearly four years, but eventually he had an agreement in June 2016. In exchange of land for peace i.e. in other words, substitute the land taken by the ultra orthodox settler movement on Arab land for land in Israel which presented a corridor between the West-Bank and the Gaza Strip (something the Palestinian had always longed for, and which in many ways made the new Palestinian state viable), and in declaring Jerusalem an international city under collective control of Israel, Palestine and the UN. Both the Palestinian side and the Israeli side now had something they could live with. They had a mutual interest in making it work, but no-one could have predicted the Syrian mess.

By 2016, the Syrian war had been going on for 5 years, locked in a stalemate which would have made World War 1 Generals proud. With so much hope after the historic Arab-Israeli settlement, the region seemed destined to slide back into chaos. They did not bargain on either Clinton’s determination, or Kerry’s skill. Clearly the only way to save this situation was to get the Arabs to resolve the situation themselves.

The incoming Clinton administration knew that there were grave concerns in the Middle East about Obama’s Climate Treaty with Xi JinPing. After all, in the last three years since action on climate change had gathered force, they had seen the oil price drop from $110 per barrel in 2010 to $62 in 2016. This could only be as a result of a migration away from oil to alternative energy sources as the price of carbon started to climb. For this, the Gulf States were in a bind. Much of their wealth when the oil money was rolling-in in the last 50 years had been wasted in extravagant lifestyles of the ruling elites, and flagrant wastage  of energy by the regimes which paid zero notice of modern energy conservation technologies. Further, they had done little to use modern financial devices such as sovereign wealth funds to accumulate cash and invest it for the long term in the interest of their populations as the Norwegian Government had done.

Clinton wanted to do a deal. She suggested the Middle Eastern Arab States needed as one to force a regional settlement on Syria, whereby the various ethnic and religious factions were given a district which they could regard as their sovereign territory. This might end up a bit like the former Yugoslavia, but it might be the price that needed to be paid. Further, Clinton advised that she expected the Gulf States to commit to forming a regional military force of 100,000 men to go into Syria after this regional agreement was signed to ensure its transition.

In parallel, the CIA and MI6 funded the emergence of credible educated secularists, and used modern communication techniques to position them as the alternatives to the literally warring factions of Syria. In doing this, the US gave these statesmen a gift in that if they could come to a settlement, all imports of oil in the future into the US would be ordered from the Gulf States (this was hardly a big concession because she knew that oil use in the US was dramatically dropping in favour of alternative energies and the local production of fracking inspired natural gas). It nevertheless gave the Sheiks of the Gulf States something to sell to the populations, and greatly increased the power and prestige of the secularists.

In 2018, after nearly 10 years of war, Clinton had an agreement, and the Arab Military force moved into Syria to keep the peace. It would be another 6 years until their withdrawal, after much more bloody fighting and killing, at the end of which half a dozen mini states were formed in Syria, with secularists heading four of their governments. Many equated it to the portioning of India and Pakistan in the late 1940’s – an apt description.

Clinton had several other urgent foreign affairs issues to address if she was going to keep her promise of progress in the world, not least the Korean Peninsula. North Korea by 2017, had become even more unstable than before. In December, 2016, there appeared to have been a military coup in North Korea. The People’s Radio broadcast on 16th March 2017 that due to Kim Jong-Un’s inability to stand up to the West and the criminal regime in South Korea, VMar Ri Yong Ho, previously head of the Korean People’s Army had taken over as President and Prime Minister. In the broadcast he said the people could no longer tolerate the appeasement of the West and China and the Korean state would do all in its power to stand up to imperialist and appeasers in the interests of the heroic Korean People. China’s reaction was fierce and decisive, in that if they did not get undertakings of peace from the North Koreans in the next three days, they would take decisive action to shore up their position.

Within 24 hours, the North Koreans started shelling the Chinese Province of Shenyang “in retaliation for the Chinese aggression”. China responded by cutting off all food and water supplies to Korea. Within 12 hours, North Korea landed a “dirty” nuclear bomb on Shenyang killing 3500 people in the process. Within two days, an invasion force had amassed on the border and went over on the night of 24th December.

The West was torn. On the one hand it regarded Pyongyang as dangerously unstable, but it was greatly worried that the invasion of another country by China unchallenged by the West might set a dangerous precedent. Clinton’s response was to immediately fly to Beijing for emergency talks with her new friend Xi Jinping. The results were momentous.

In the interests of stability, and the economic and political progress of the Asia region, Xi proposed a settlement. China would force the collapse of the North Korean regime in return for the withdrawal of all US troops on the Peninsula and the US nuclear guarantee for South Korea. Within 12 months, there would be free and fair elections for the whole of the Korean Peninsula overseen by the European Union who has no vested interest in this fight. After that, it would be up to the new Korean Government to define the way forward. In the meantime, a UN military force from all over the world, but specifically excluding US, Chinese, Japanese and Korean troops will be assembled to keep order on both sides of the border, and a UN appointed Administrator will run North Korea in the meantime.

The new united Korea leant much from the German unification process. For starters, they avoided the huge reconstruction costs that the western part of Germany poured into the East by basically allowing the market, in large part, to finance it. This was brought about by having a federation with two currencies, and watch south Korean, Japanese, European, US and Chinese investment money pour into the North until in 50 years time when the north and south economies would become  similarly prosperous, the currency values would converge at which time they would have a united currency. In the meantime the plan was that North Korea would become a huge low cost factory for the south and the rest of Asia, supported by South Korean expertise, money and their huge conglomerates. The subsequent new taxes would largely support the significant infrastructure which would need to be build to get the population out of poverty and into productive work.

And so it proved to be. Today, in 2040, North Koreans have about twice the average income as the Chinese in 2015, most of the population are now out of poverty, there is no starvation and the Koreans are on track to converge their currencies in 2050. With a population of about 70 million and growing at about 1% per annum, they are on track to have an economy about the same size as Japan by 2075. Japan’s population contracted from 125m to 85 million from 2010 to 2040, and is expected to be less than the unified Korea by 2075.

In 2017, Clinton and Kerry jumped at this new Korean opportunity. This was an historic chance to rid the world of yet another rogue nuclear state. Just as in 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down, the British and French were less than enthusiastic about a united Germany, the second and third most powerful states in Asia, Japan and India, had similar reservations about Korea. The new right wing government in Japan was particularly upset about being excluded in an arena they regarded as their “back yard”, but for the sake of peace, they acquiesced. So eventually did the Indians in return for US support in their continuing conflicts with Pakistan.

Clinton had achieved one more of her dominos for the sake of world peace. Very soon another would emerge which may have a greater long term impact than any of the others.

In 2014, ex-cricketer Imran Khan became the new President of Pakistan. Cambridge educated Khan, playboy extraordinaire from his life in London, had returned to Pakistan to enter politics. His ticket was pro-Islam, but not terrorism, but he very much disagreed with Barrack Obama’s policy of drone strikes in border areas of north western Pakistan near the border of Afghanistan. Khan argued that there are the “good” Taliban and the “bad” Taliban. He promised in his election manifesto that if he could get the Americans to cease their drone attacks that he could get the “good” to control the “bad”. In other words, cease the terrorist attacks on troops in Afghanistan stemming from Pakistan, and set up an Islamist government without the extremes i.e. no education for girls, be-heading or cutting off of hands, or female circumcision. They would still have Sharia law and strict adherence to Islamic beliefs.

He also undertook to send in a dozen divisions of Pakistani troops into those provinces to rid them of extremist under the guidance of the “good”. He knew this may be just a ruse to settle old scores but thought it worth the risk. In return for this clean up, the US would finance a security wall (not unlike that seen in East Germany) along the Afghanistan border to keep the factions apart. This Clinton agreed to.

Beyond that, Khan wanted to transition a fundamental change in the way the sub-continent functioned. He was very much aware of the historic enmity between Pakistan and India, which had poisoned progress since partition in 1947. For instance in 2012, the total trade between the two countries was $2.4 billion. This compared to trade between Pakistan (population 182m) and China (population 1300m) for the same period of $12billion when Pakistan and India (population 1200m) live next door to one another. Or to look at it another way, neighbours Australia (population 23m) and New Zealand (population 5m) had overall two-way trade in 2012 of $21b. Pakistan was nowhere near maximizing their economic and trade ties with India or vice versa.

Khan was very much aware of the lack of economic activity on the sub-continent, and saw fixing that as a means of lifting a lot of his population out of the grinding poverty that so many of them lived in. As part of the resolution of the border disputes and bringing the Taliban under control, he advised Clinton that he would propose an economic union between the major countries of the sub-continent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka), if she would sponsor that trading block into the Asia-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

This finally came about in mid 2018, and in 2038 India and Pakistan did a total of $158billion in total trade.

What Could China look like in the year 2040? A perspective for the next 30 years

from my book “Australia and the World in 2040“. Complete copies available in February 2018

In the early part of the 21st century, China was the fastest growing economy in the world and overtook the US in GDP terms in 2015. It also had the greatest foreign surplus in the world, and was the largest lender to the US, the biggest foreign debtor nation in the world.

When Xi Jinping came to power in 2011, the per annum growth of China’s economy was beginning to slow from the heady 10-15% rates for most of the 25 years to 2012 to a more modest 6-8%. Although still very high by world standards, slow growth in China meant a lessening of the Communist Party’s legitimacy (at least that was the fear in the minds of its leaders). Much of the high growth in that 25 year period had come from the rapid industrialisation brought about by Deng Zou Ping’s reforms at the 1979 plenum which turned the country into a market economy, at least for manufacturing products.

This resulted in about 400m people migrating from the country sides into cities where they manned the new factories, often in very primitive conditions. It nevertheless saw most of those 400m people go from rural poverty to earning a living wage – an unheard of event anywhere in the world up until that time. By 2010, though, much of China’s advantages in basic manufacturing were eroding with higher wages, higher costs and a higher exchange rate. Many factories were moving to lower cost countries such as Vietnam, the Middle East and Africa.

China now faced new reform challenges, which would see itself move up the “food chain” from low skill manufacturing, to high tech, innovative design and manufacturing. It also needed to rapidly develop its services sector such as education, finance, medical, bio-technology.

They also needed to rapidly reform agriculture where there was no private ownership of land (it was largely controlled by regional party chiefs), so there had been nothing like to development of rural land under private ownership equivalent to what had happened with city dwellings. As a consequence, Chinese agriculture was low tech, low productivity, and the peasants had little incentive to develop their land.

They also singularly lacked what most western countries took for granted, and which China’s rapidly growing and well educated middle class were demanding: rule of law, modern government services such as a social security safety net, modern hospitals, pensions, consumer laws, environmental laws. Most of all though, what Chinese people most wanted was a society free of corruption, especially by part bosses.

At the historic plenum in 2013, Xi Jinping discussed and flagged a number of reforms which in many ways exceeded Deng Zou Ping initiative in the early 1980s. For the first time, the Plenum’s official document committed  for markets to play a “decisive” role in the allocation of resources in the economy. In the coming years this lead to the role of state own enterprises being considerably diminished, with many of them being privatised or closed (if they were too inefficient).

The SOEs, which in 2013 represented over 50% of economic output, were also expected to stand on their own merits in terms of funding, and banks were liberalised and skilled in terms of their commercial lending activities in order for this to be brought about. These reforms resulted in a number of enterprises going to the wall (bankruptcies in SOE’s were allowed for the first time in 2016), but it also resulted in a number of them becoming internationally competitive, and a number of them grew into major global corporations. In 2014, there were 2 Chinese companies in the top 1000 companies (outside the US) by capitalisation. By 2030, there were 55, all growing out of reformed SOEs of 2014, and all public companies floated on the Hong Kong and Shanghai Stock exchanges

To support the 2013 reforms, financial institutions were up-skilled in money market operations as the Party announced that as of the end of 2014 there would be a partial float of the Yuan and a full float by 2016 when it would become the single Chinese currency, both domestic and international, and would be fully convertible. When this came about in January 2016, the currency rose by 25% against the US dollar. Interest rates became market determined by the beginning of 2015, the Chinese Central Bank was made independent of day to day government directive, but was required to work within parameters determined by the government to achieve certain economic outcomes such as exchange rate bands, inflation and unemployment had to be kept within certain bands. Between 2015 and 2020, the government also spent $250m in computerizing their services, particularly to online services, and in boosting the activities and sophistication of the Chinese Bureau of Statistics.

All these changes were primarily designed to make the economy more transparent, less corrupt,  and oriented to moving away from growth coming from investment in export industries to growth coming from productivity improvements and rapidly expanding consumer demand at home. The reforms included:

  1. key economic reforms such as liberalising the setting of interest rates (ie to the market), incentivising innovation, loosening the grip of competition-stifling state-owned enterprises (SOEs) on vital areas of the economy;
  2. allowing private ownership of rural land, and removing the ban on rural residents buying land in cities, which would allow peasants to cash in on the value of the land they work, and thus bring them up to the status of their urban equivalents. It was also hoped that this would unleash a flood of new investment in rural areas, modernising agriculture, and unleashing a further round of rapid growth, It is also seen as a key way to unleash pent up spending from rural areas which would become a major area of growth in consumer spending. This is exactly what happened from about 2018 onwards; and
  3. setting up an independent judiciary at local, regional, and national levels

While at the same time as bringing these economic reforms into being, Xi signalled there would be no political liberalisation following the Plenum in 2013. In fact he considerably strengthened the state security apparatus, doubling its budget between 2013 and 2020. Real political reform would not come until Xi successor came to power in 2023. Over Xi’s time in office, political reforms did take place mostly in the countryside, starting with the election of party officials on local councils. To stand you had to be a member of the communist party, but there were real secret ballot elections as early as 2015 in a number of rural areas. This soon spread to provincial governments by 2020, and the party then formalised its already existing factions of conservative, moderates, modernisers and liberals. If a citizen wanted to vote or stand, you had to be a member of the party. This meant that by the time the President and polit-bureau was elected by all party members in 2028, the party itself had grown from 40m members in 2013 to 750m members. 85% of these members voted in the 2028 elections.

China had always thouight of itself as a great power, it is just that western countries had not allowed it to take what regarded as its rightful place in world affairs. Since 2015, when it became the biggest economy in the world, it began to re-assert itself in the manner of a great power: by 2018, it had 4 million men under arms, 30 nuclear powered submarines and 5 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, and over 5000 supersonic strike fighters which many in the west regard as superior to the US F35 Joint Strike Fighter. It also had a global network of weapon carrying drones controlled out of Hong Kong, and a formidable international spy network.  As a great-power, it had considerable reach, but saw its primacy as being in the AsiaPacific region. The Americans also thought of themselves as an AsiaPacific power, particularly since Barrack Obama refocused them away from Europe and onto Asia in about 2010. Since then, the Pacific became the primary battleground. Interestingly though, it was not the Pacific but the Indian Ocean where tensions initially first came to boiling point between the world’s two superpowers.

Being the largest trading nation in the world, China in 2015 had built its navy into a significant blue water force, although it was still some way behind the US and even India, whose navy was by far its most significant military force. China was determined to make sure all its sea-lanes were kept open, and that trade could flow in and out of China without interference.  In 2015, the most significant of these was not in the Pacific, but in the Indian Ocean. Or, more specifically, the Arabian Sea. This had been for a century or more, one of the busiest sea highways in the world, and was critical for China in particular as the Persian Gulf was its major source of oil and gas. Since the early 1990’s, there has been a great deal of lawlessness around such states as Somalia, Yemen, and the Sudan, in many ways failed states. Somalia also played host to a network of pirates who specialised in boarding western (and sometimes Chinese) freighters, taking their crews and passengers hostage, and then demanding and getting tens of millions of dollars in ransoms.

By 2015, China had just about enough of this. In spite of a large of navies – British, French, German, Italian, American, Australian, Indian, Scandinavian and Japanese – patrolling the Arabian Sea, these hijackings persisted, and were even becoming more daring. China decided to act. First, in the face of mounting international criticism, they sent several divisions of para-troops into Somalia and effectively destroyed the pirate’s operating bases, and killed many of them. Secondly, they put pressure on world banks to freeze their assets. And thirdly, they captured and banished their leader, Jacda Bashire, to the international court in the Hague to be tried (ironic, since they were not a party to the treaty which set the Court up, and did not recognise it as a legitimate legal entity which could preside over its citizens – the same as the US). This effectively ended the pirate operations, at least for some time.

There still remained a core group of criminals who had a organisational structure, and significant wealth through ransoms. On June 5, 2017, one of China’s increasing number of cruise ships was streaming through the South China Sea 2000 kilometres south of Hong Kong and 1000 km east of Vietnam. I was 5.13am. There was an explosion. All 4232 people on board perished, 96% of them being mainland Chinese.

…..to be continued

Further to the North Korea discussion…..

An interesting additional dimension to my entry earlier in the week on North Korea  appeared in “The Age” this morning (Saturday 9/3/2013) It states:

Missile Shield Spurs China’s Korea Stance

BY JOHN GARNAUT CHINA CORRESPONDENT BEIJING

CHINA’S support for tougher sanctions against North Korea has been prompted in part by concerns of an evolving USanchored missile defence system on its borders, say Chinese and Western analysts. The missile defence systems involve new land and sea-based radar systems, missile interceptors and intelligence sharing between the US and its regional allies aimed at shooting downa North Korean missile during the relatively lowvelocity launch phase. Analysts note that these systems could also be used to shoot down missiles launched from China’s eastern regions.

 Australia is building three air warfare destroyers with Aegis radar and missile control systems that can be potentially integrated into the US system. ‘‘ North Korea’s test of a nuclear warhead and missile may not bring much of a [direct] threat to China,’’ said Cai Jian, a North Korea expert at Shanghai’s Fudan University. ‘‘ But the response from Japan or South Korea, or America’s strategic advances into the region, are more disadvantageous to China. These are the reasons China opposes North Korea’s tests.’’

 The sanctions against last month’s nuclear test by North Korea were jointly drafted by China and the US and endorsed by the UN Security Council on Thursday night. They will make it more difficult for Pyongyang to shift money and technology in aid of its nuclear program.‘‘ These sanctions will bite and bite hard,’’ said Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN. The UN resolution follows Pyongyang’s successful ballistic missile test in December, as well as a stream of bellicose invective. Prior to the agreement, Pyongyang threatened to turn South Korea into ‘‘ a sea of flames’’ .

 Responding to the resolution, Kim Jong-un’s regime said on Friday it was nullifying all agreements of non-aggression and denuclearisation with South Korea and was cutting off the North-South hotline. Officials in Seoul said they were on the alert for any possible attack as Pyongyang seeks to vent its anger. ‘ The higher decibel of invective isa bit worrisome,’’ said Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico, who has travelled to North Korea eight times, most recently in January. ‘‘ It’s the highest negative level I’ve ever seen, and it probably means that the hardline elements, particularly the military and not the Foreign Ministry, are in control.’’ On the other hand, Mr Richardson said, ‘‘ China is part of asignificant sanctions effort, and this may cool the North Koreans down, may temper their response.’’

 Several analysts said the effectiveness of the sanctions would depend on China adopting a far greater level of enforcement than it had previously. Regional missile defence systems are evolving in response to North Korea’s weapons program and also to increasing concerns about China’s military intentions. ‘ It allows Japan to say, ‘We’re buildinga missile defence system against North Korea but we can also use it to defend ourselves against China,’’’ said Scott Harold, a security expert with the Rand Corporation in Hong Kong. Dr Harold said the US had been strongly encouraging South Korea and Japan to engage in defence cooperation . ‘‘ Beijing is worried that this is a prelude toa trilateral alliance or a Pacific version of NATO.’’

 Those defence systems may, in turn, prompt China to build more missiles  ‘ The overall direction in which missile defence is going means the US, Japan, probably South Korea and Australia, get used to and work on the basis of integrating their systems ,’’ said Stephan Fruehling, an expert on missile defence systems at the Australian National University’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre.

 ‘ This has political implications and symbolism, and that is what is causing China grief,’’ he said.

 Sam Roggeveen, editor of the Lowy Institute’s The Interpreter website, said there was a risk of a regional ballistic missile defence race: ‘‘ The easiest way to defeat ballistic missile defences is to overwhelm them with numbers.’’ Chinese analysts say Beijing’s backing of the new round of UN sanctions reflects frustration with North Korea but not a shift in its underlying strategic calculus. ‘‘ People are fed up with North Korea, but I’m not sure this signifies a new age,’’ said Jia Qingguo, professor of international relations at Peking University. ‘ China’s policies are in atransitional period, China is in a transitional period, andI think this period might be quite long.’’

With NEW YORK TIMES

Copyright © 2013 Fairfax Media

In other words, there is nothing like self interest to spur action. It seems China thinks that the possession of ballistic missiles by North Korea is spurring on the western allies in the Pacific: South Korea, Japan, US. Australia, to do something about protecting their population by building additional alliances and technologies which will negate the affects of the North Korean missile capabilities. This in turn would also negate the effectiveness of China own arsenal.

This is the last thing China wants. Up until now there has been a willingness on both sides – particularly the US and China  to try and work through their differences in order to come to a peaceful accomodation in the Pacific. The growth of a new military  alliance, facilitated by North Korean intransigence, just might make the Chinese come to the same accord I described in my article earlier in the week i.e. a historical agreement to dismantle the North Korean regime in return for with drawal of US troops from South Korea, declare the Korean peninsula politically neutral enforced by UN troops (not including the US), and hold free and fair elections.

The alternative to this will not only be the development of a military alliance of democracies in the Asia Pacific, but the other action mooted in my earlier articel i.e. the withdrawal of the nuclear guarantee to Japan and South Korea meaning they will acquire nuclear weapons aimed straight at China.

These moves might be just what the new Chinese Premier will need to build a case with the PLA, and the remaining hardliners in his cabinet, to move on North Korea.

It would be both historical and highly statesman-like, and may be the dawn of a new Chinese democracy and peace in what is now becoming an unstable part of the world.

It also happens to be the world engine room for growth in the forseeable future. The stakes are high to get it right…

The NBN is all about productivity improvement – ask CSIRO

For those of you who are not aware, the CSIRO has an incredibly interesting podcast called CSIROPOD. It shows off the range and depth of Australia’s leading scientific research institution. For those of you excited by the possibilities of science, like me, to solve the world’s problems, it is just a treasure-trove. Most people do not realise, though, CSIRO is not only “hard science”. It has soft science areas like economics and social research.

One area which it has tackled recently is the area of Australia’s productivity. Apparently, if you take mining and agriculture out of the mix, Australia ranks about 33 out of 36 in the OECD productivity table. This is in stark contrast to almost every other social and economic indicator where Australia usually rates in the top 3 or 4. This is a disgrace.

This interview outlines the challenge, but also the solution:

http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/Multimedia/CSIROpod/Uploading-the-economy.aspx

What it clearly explains is that there is a solution to this predicament, but it involves Australia as a nation committing to completing the roll out of the NBN fibre to the home, which the coalition are still holding the line about dismantling. This is crazy. Malcolm Turnbull has more than enough ammunition to fire at the ALP on this area of economic policy. He should not also prevent the solution from being arrived at. It is politics in its worst form.

I still think Turnbull is the best leader for Australia at the moment, but he is dead wrong on this one.

The New Korea?

There have recently appeared two interesting, but very different takes on the behavior of the bizarre North Koreans

A view on the geo-political implications of North Korean behavior http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-us-disengage-north-korea-crisis?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=7a8995a9f8-Cato_Today&utm_medium=email&mc_cid=7a8995a9f8&mc_eid=271f8f78af

and a view on China’s motives:  http://www.businessinsider.com/why-china-supports-north-korea-2013-2

My view is I think it is time the world community came to an historic agreement and closed down this rogue state before they blow us all up. Isn’t it time that China and the US came to a statesman-like agreement about those crazies. Surely they could do a deal whereby in return for US troops withdrawing from the Korean peninsula and being replaced by UN force including Chinese, they could hold fee elections and unite the peninsula. China doesn’t want a nuclear Nth Korea any more than the US does.

In many ways, the first article by Doug Bandow is sort of agreeing with this view, although he took it further by suggesting the US abandons the nuclear guarantees with Japan and South Korea, which may force China in to coming to a wider settlement including a militarily neutral united Korea. It is an interesting thought. It might also bring Russia into play and force it to play a more constructive role than it has hitherto, both in Asia and the Middle East. A US withdrawal from Korea and the removal of the guarantee certainly is high stakes, but may ironically be less risky than the current stale-mate, where the North Koreans seem to think they can thumb their noses at the great powers with impunity. This is a very serious and dangerous position for both great powers to take. Any little tin pot regime who acquires nuclear weapons in the future will think they suddenly will have equal status, and who knows what might happen. It also gives every tinpot dictator every reason to go after the nuclear option because they then will be propped up (unintentionally) by the great powers.

I think in terms of geo-politics the Korean situation is a bigger issue for both great powers than a middle east settlement but there appears to be zero momentum for it.  Withdrawal of the nuclear guarantee may be seen as the ultimate in “real politic” but if it ultimately brings to a head the issues that are bubbling along now and leads to a settlement, it could be Obama’s and the new Chinese regime’s greatest foreign policy achievement. It certainly should be worth considering, and undoubtedly ups the stakes considerably.

Not sure about the view on China’s intentions. I hear what he says about mineral rare earth, but the benefits sort of pale into insignificance when compared to the risk of regional wars with the withdrawal of the US. Personally, I would have thought a democratic, neutral, economically progressive united Korea would be far more beneficial to China than an unstable nuclear armed failed state.

The other point I’d make, is that any unification should be thought about in the light of the German experience. They would be crazy to converge onto a common currency as Germany did to its great cost. Better to have a federation with two currencies, and watch south Korean, Japanese, US and Chinese investment money pour into the North until in 50 years time when the north and south economies are similarly prosperous then they could unite the currencies.

The North is brilliantly positioned to become the new north Asian economic super tiger.Now that would really be to China’s advantage.

Europe – what a mess

In retrospect, it was a big mistake to think that the Euro could work across diverse economies, without fiscal and monetary union. But that in itself was impossible because of the very diverse ideas in Europe about economic responsible economic management and fiscal discipline. Indeed, the formation of the Eurozone encouraged all the member economies that they could have German style living standards, but without the disciplined, focussed and skilled German workforce and economy, and without the economic management which has charactarized the German government, at least for the last 10 years.

Many countries, led by the French, have believed they could run economies with very generous social benefits without the hard economic management and decision making which so charactarizes successful economies. For instance, when the last president of France hesitatingly tried to instigate mild economic reforms such as raising the retirement age from 60 to 62 there were howls of protest which forced him to back down. This does not even go near economic distorting policies like the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), exorbitant pension and social welfare provisions, industry subsidies, and unaffordable internal and external deficits. In spite of the fact that the IMF, ECB, World Bank, and Germany have been handing out enormous bail outs to many broke countries in southern Europe, nearly all of them have been unable to fully implement them because their electorates will simply not wear them.

The only way is for the market to force it on them ie leaving the euro zone and issue their sovereign currencies. How might this work? Take Greece. Greece in the current circumstances will never pay back its debts. It will be saddled with such stringent provisions that it could remain in recession for 20 years. Time for a change in direction.

If Greece, without warning, announced that henceforth the Greek currency would be in drachma, and all international debts would be written off,  then there would be short term pain, but eventually the market would kick in (probably 18 months to 2 years), and the Greek economy would begin to recover. There would undoubtedly be a 50% plus devaluation against the euro, which would make Greek exports cheaper, and imports more expensive. It would also allow the Greek central bank to recapitalise the Greek Banks by printing more Drachmas. This, though, would all end in disaster if it were not accompanied by drastic economic reforms to the social welfare system, collection of taxes and other charges, removal of distorting government subsidies of various kinds, reform of the legal system and a crackdown on the corruption which so distorts the efficient running of the Greek state.

Within five years, the Greek economy will recover, the debts will be written off, and the competitive advantages of Greece will start to kick in in a much more  growth friendly environment than before. The low growth, deficit cutting and low investment environment which ios the consequences of the European bailouts, will be delivered via a market mechanisms and will not therefore be the subject of the political vastitudes currently underway in Greece.

No-one though sees this as pain free. It is not. It will be very painful indeed, but in the medium term it will be less so than 20 years of recession, and it will give hope to a population sadly lacking in it, especially the young. It is somethingthe population and government can galvanise around, and on which it could build a prosperous future.

It is also something the other southern European governments such as Spain, Italy and Portugal would also likely copy once the benefits become apparent. The French, well they will remain French, and keep their heads buried in the sand, even though the economy distorting welfare state, government subsidies, the CAP, and unreformed labour, capital and distribution markets are worse than almost anywhere in the EU, and France’s economic performance reflects that. They should also take the economic medicine, and return to the Franc. But they won’t of course!

Flowering Friendliness

Comment in response to Economist article “Flowering Friendliness”

China is playing a game when it comes to growth rates. All the independent think tanks I have seen recently have them above 10% growth pa over the next five years. Indeed only at the weekend, Australian numbers compiled by the private sector, particularly the resources sector, has demands for raw materials returned to pre GFC number by mid year and thereafter exceeding them by 10% or more per annum.

IS China playing these numbers down to justify their misleading projection on military spend, and/or to frighten their population into lessening the demands for social and economic reforms?