Hillary Clinton says China's power grab 'a new global battle

[Costa Fierro]

I wasn't aware the phrase "to some extent" meant "100% permissive" in Kiwi.

We take pride in having an "independent" foreign affairs policy.

[Bakery Hill]

I wasn't aware the phrase "to some extent" meant "100% permissive" in Kiwi.

We take pride in having an "independent" foreign affairs policy.

Your foreign policy is "be quiet and hope no one notices us".

[Oil exporting People]

We take pride in having an "independent" foreign affairs policy.

Your foreign policy is "be quiet and hope no one notices us".

I thought it was take over Australia via obscure citizenship laws? Also, apparently, commit fuckery on foreign navies.

[Bakery Hill]

Your foreign policy is "be quiet and hope no one notices us".

I thought it was take over Australia via obscure citizenship laws? Also, apparently, commit fuckery on foreign navies.

Depends which side of politics you ask.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No, it's doctrinaire Communism. Most businesses are controlled by the CCP and the workers belong to the CCP's union.

Even if it wasn't Communist it's still a Collectivist state

But, it's slowly been converting to Capitalist and the people there have seen a huge boom in GDP per Capita, Life Expectancy, and percent of people not starving to death under collectivist farming policies

It's not converting to capitalism. The PRC allows capitalism to run free in a few parts of the country because China had little to no capitalist economy before the PRC was established so they figured they needed to allow that to happen before they could transition to a post-capitalist model like communism.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I don't care what Clinton has to say about anything, especially foreign policy.

Finally, someone who denies China has a spy ring and a thirty-fifth column in the CIA and Canada reality.

ftfy

[Neu Leonstein]

There's nothing qualitatively new about this. Governments try to influence the politics of other countries pretty frequently, and the US is hardly innocent in that regard. As far as the 21st century is concerned, for both Australia and New Zealand, the foreign policy challenge is to balance a political and social preference for the liberal democratic world order with a fairly unbalanced economic picture, in which China is by far the most important trading partner and much more important than the US.

Australia wants China to be integrated into the liberal global order, which includes managing its transition from a purely economic to a geopolitical power that, at least in the region, will be effectively equal to the US, without the US and China having a major falling out in the process. Having strong diplomatic ties is vital to achieving that, and naturally you're going to have both sides trying to jostle for influence. That's fine - it's an accepted and natural consequence of the bigger strategic direction.

So while I'm not sure 'global battle' is the language to use here, overall Clinton is probably right about the diagnosis, if not the alarmist interpretation. Question is whether Trump's undermining of the global system that China is meant to be integrated into is particularly helpful (hint: the answer is 'no'), but he'd have stopped reading this post by word number three (too long, you see), so good luck trying to explain that to him.

The one thing regarding Chinese government influence in Australia that I am actually a bit worried about is the influence of CCP-affiliated student associations. Lots of Chinese students come to Australia to study (it's a big export for the country), but obviously getting integrated into broader Australian society in that time can be hard. What happens is that these student associations provide for all the social or academic support they might want - but in return may end up keeping tabs on what students do here and report back to Beijing what was said and done (or at least threaten to do so). The Chinese government has no particular interest in having people who are used to free expression and democratic government come back to China and ask uncomfortable questions. I'm worried that there will end up being a sort of state police organ developing on Australian university campuses to make sure that Chinese students (and, in the case of the more ethno-nationalist varieties, even other ethnic Chinese students) conform to type. It's a murky area, and I might be worrying about nothing, but I think it's something that ought to be monitored a bit.

[Ascysia]

Admiration is an extreme exaggeration. Xi did relax the One Child Policy, ended labour camps and is tackling corruption. And free trade isn't a question of Chinese interests, it's a question of global interests. Neo-isolationism (specifically protectionism) is the biggest thread to global stability, sadly China and the EU are the only ones to recognise this.

China is ripping us off, stealing our technology and research and using it to build a massive navy, we're supposed to just accept that? What you're saying is akin to China invading Hawaii and saying we can't fight back because war threatens global stability.

China is a bigger adherent to western values and globalisation right now than the United States, therefore I am put in a position where I have to support China over the United States.

[Costa Fierro]

Your foreign policy is "be quiet and hope no one notices us".

That's no longer an option.

I thought it was take over Australia via obscure citizenship laws? Also, apparently, commit fuckery on foreign navies.

Long term game plan. No one suspects a thing if it's a harmless little country in the South Pacific.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Admiration is an extreme exaggeration. Xi did relax the One Child Policy, ended labour camps and is tackling corruption. And free trade isn't a question of Chinese interests, it's a question of global interests. Neo-isolationism (specifically protectionism) is the biggest thread to global stability, sadly China and the EU are the only ones to recognise this.

China is ripping us off, stealing our technology and research and using it to build a massive navy, we're supposed to just accept that? What you're saying is akin to China invading Hawaii and saying we can't fight back because war threatens global stability.

There is literally no reason for China to invade Hawaii. China would gain nothing. China's military thus is largely focused on the South China Sea and Taiwan, which have been claimed by the PRC since the 1940s.

Also, both China and the United States have nuclear weapons, and no one wins nuclear wars.

[The Parkus Empire]

China is ripping us off, stealing our technology and research and using it to build a massive navy, we're supposed to just accept that? What you're saying is akin to China invading Hawaii and saying we can't fight back because war threatens global stability.

There is literally no reason for China to invade Hawaii. China would gain nothing. China's military thus is largely focused on the South China Sea and Taiwan, which have been claimed by the PRC since the 1940s.

Also, both China and the United States have nuclear weapons, and no one wins nuclear wars.

It's an analogy.

[Washington Resistance Army]

China is ripping us off, stealing our technology and research and using it to build a massive navy, we're supposed to just accept that? What you're saying is akin to China invading Hawaii and saying we can't fight back because war threatens global stability.

There is literally no reason for China to invade Hawaii. China would gain nothing. China's military thus is largely focused on the South China Sea and Taiwan, which have been claimed by the PRC since the 1940s.

Also, both China and the United States have nuclear weapons, and no one wins nuclear wars.

China has a terribly small nuclear arsenal. We just need to dump a few trillion more into missile defense and we could easily win a nuclear war with them.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

There is literally no reason for China to invade Hawaii. China would gain nothing. China's military thus is largely focused on the South China Sea and Taiwan, which have been claimed by the PRC since the 1940s.

Also, both China and the United States have nuclear weapons, and no one wins nuclear wars.

It's an analogy.

China has officially stated that it does not intend to aggressively expand beyond its own territory (although China's definition of "its own territory" includes Taiwan and the South China Sea), FYI

[The South Falls]

There is literally no reason for China to invade Hawaii. China would gain nothing. China's military thus is largely focused on the South China Sea and Taiwan, which have been claimed by the PRC since the 1940s.

Also, both China and the United States have nuclear weapons, and no one wins nuclear wars.

China has a terribly small nuclear arsenal. We just need to dump a few trillion more into missile defense and we could easily win a nuclear war with them.

Yea, but where do we get that few trillion? Strip medicare? Cut off welfare for everyone?

[Washington Resistance Army]

China has a terribly small nuclear arsenal. We just need to dump a few trillion more into missile defense and we could easily win a nuclear war with them.

Yea, but where do we get that few trillion? Strip medicare? Cut off welfare for everyone?

Implement a maximum income act and seize wealth from the 1%.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

There is literally no reason for China to invade Hawaii. China would gain nothing. China's military thus is largely focused on the South China Sea and Taiwan, which have been claimed by the PRC since the 1940s.

Also, both China and the United States have nuclear weapons, and no one wins nuclear wars.

China has a terribly small nuclear arsenal. We just need to dump a few trillion more into missile defense and we could easily win a nuclear war with them.

Firstly, unconfirmed reports suggest that China has thousands of nukes secretly stored underground (which isn't in my mind a risk worth taking). Secondly, the US federal budget is simply too small to easily dump "a few trillion more dollars" into missile defence without spreading it out over several decades. Thirdly, have you considered the effects of the subsequent nuclear winter?

[The South Falls]

Yea, but where do we get that few trillion? Strip medicare? Cut off welfare for everyone?

Implement a maximum income act and seize wealth from the 1%.

Man, that's too liberal. Even for me. Like... wow. This is so liberal I think Antifa would distance themselves from it. WRA has found the end of leftism. Maybe cutting taxes on the 1% may not be the best step to that, though.

[The Parkus Empire]

It's an analogy.

China has officially stated that it does not intend to aggressively expand beyond its own territory (although China's definition of "its own territory" includes Taiwan and the South China Sea), FYI

Oh well China's word is as good as gold

[The Parkus Empire]

Implement a maximum income act and seize wealth from the 1%.

Man, that's too liberal. Even for me. Like... wow. This is so liberal I think Antifa would distance themselves from it. WRA has found the end of leftism. Maybe cutting taxes on the 1% may not be the best step to that, though.

The U.S. has done something like that before, more or less

[Bienenhalde]

The PRC is a communist dictatorship which severely represses human rights.

China, in fact, is communist in name only. In practice, since Deng Xiaoping was in power China has been a capitalist totalitarian state.

So you think it is okay for them to take over the world and oppress everybody because you do not consider them "real" communists?

[Washington Resistance Army]

China has a terribly small nuclear arsenal. We just need to dump a few trillion more into missile defense and we could easily win a nuclear war with them.

Firstly, unconfirmed reports suggest that China has thousands of nukes secretly stored underground (which isn't in my mind a risk worth taking). Secondly, the US federal budget is simply too small to easily dump "a few trillion more dollars" into missile defence without spreading it out over several decades. Thirdly, have you considered the effects of the subsequent nuclear winter?

Actual estimates of their arsenal sit at about 250 weapons, with high end numbers nearing 400. Assuming we first strike with a large number of SLBM's from right off the coast it'll be gg.

Implement a maximum income act and seize wealth from the 1%.

Man, that's too liberal. Even for me. Like... wow. This is so liberal I think Antifa would distance themselves from it. WRA has found the end of leftism. Maybe cutting taxes on the 1% may not be the best step to that, though.

I'm no leftist good sir, I simply want what's best for my dearest America.

[Bakery Hill]

China, in fact, is communist in name only. In practice, since Deng Xiaoping was in power China has been a capitalist totalitarian state.

So you think it is okay for them to take over the world and oppress everybody because you do not consider them "real" communists?

Yes.

[Tokora]

Unfortunate the Republican party is far too eager to bend over for Chinese trade regardless of what Trump says about tariffs and also many Democrats are trying too hard to keep the peace forgetting that FDR was completely willing to stand up against fascistic expansionism.

[The Parkus Empire]

Unfortunate the Republican party is far too eager to bend over for Chinese trade regardless of what Trump says about tariffs and also many Democrats are trying too hard to keep the peace forgetting that FDR was completely willing to stand up against fascistic expansionism.

Trump IS the Republican Party

[Senkaku]

Firstly, unconfirmed reports suggest that China has thousands of nukes secretly stored underground (which isn't in my mind a risk worth taking). Secondly, the US federal budget is simply too small to easily dump "a few trillion more dollars" into missile defence without spreading it out over several decades. Thirdly, have you considered the effects of the subsequent nuclear winter?

Actual estimates of their arsenal sit at about 250 weapons, with high end numbers nearing 400. Assuming we first strike with a large number of SLBM's from right off the coast it'll be gg.

The Chinese have a credible deterrent. A nuclear war with them wouldn't be as devastating as one with Russia, but it'd still be pretty fucking devastating. Stop proposing idiotic memery and start to think seriously about the myriad ways that the US can actually practically check Chinese power.