‘Xi is manipulative and wants a psychological advantage. Australia must wake up to this bluff’

Sleight of hand: Chinese President Xi Jinping prepares to push the button on his magic weapon. Picture: Getty Images

Welcome to the column where you provide the content. John Lee lifted the lid on President Xi Jinping’s most lethal weapon of mass distraction; a kind of magic that conditions us to accept China’s policies by hammering home five basic messages: Chinese dominance is the historical norm and is inevitable; the objectives of the CCP are permanent and unchanging; a CCP-led China is fundamentally undeterrable; the party is prepared to pay any price to achieve its core objectives; and the US is an increasingly weak and unreliable ally. Roger that, said Ronald:

“This article is spot on! Well done John Lee. It is the selling of this narrative that Xi and his mates are focused on. A kind of psychological manipulation for the acceptance of the supposed ‘inevitability’ of China’s dominance. I understand this as I have worked in HK for a protracted period in the past. The Chinese people are generally are not keen to engage in warfare but Xi is manipulative and wants a psychological advantage over others in this region. Australia must wake up to this bluff. We must be prepared to face Xi’s threats … what ever they may be.”

Winnie the Pooh warned:

“Do not allow China to bluff, bluster and bully their way to hegemony. Stand up to them NOW, and let them know there will be a truly horrendous cost if they continue on the current path. Strength is the only thing they truly respect, cowardice of others is their nirvana.”

Magic, said Martins:

“A very, very constructive and intelligent article/analysis. Great stuff! Of course it requires us — and others — to think-it-through and then actually DO constructive things to address problems/opportunities. Pretty sure this government is more about generating daily headlines than actually implementing and following through on change? But maybe the ministerial reshuffle will produce results: so far so good.”

Azza’s assessment:

“What will weaken China from within is a civil war through an uprising of the educated middle-class against the CCP. One can only hope.”

Peter was positive:

“I am a currency trader with access to a variety of advice. China is in real strife. It is nearly broke, defaulting on bond repayments. Despite promising higher interest rates they are not attracting enough investment. There are food shortages and job shortages. Their current coal policies mean they cannot make enough steel to provide the jobs they need, they are scouring the country looking for scrap steel to reprocess.

“Over the next twenty years those countries adversely affected by COVID will replace China as their main supplier. India, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia will benefit. But their worst problem is that over the next twenty years hundreds of millions of boomer aged workers will retire, cease producing wealth and need cash pensions. Cash the CCP will not have. We are probably watching China’s last hurrah.”

Rein it in, urged Roger:

“Tone down the rhetoric. Dialogue and mutual co-operation with allies and China is necessary. China needs to sell to the world and visa versa. Constructive dialogue from mature and skilled diplomats not aggressive headlines for self promotion of ministers or department heads is required. Stop beating our chest as if we are aggressive. Work with others to achieve a logical and peaceful solution.”

From James Lazybones:

“ ‘The magic weapon … narrative may have been the case under Obama, still applies in parts of Europe, NZ and craven elements in our universities, but has changed dramatically under the Donald and continues under Joe. I don’t see the US as being a weak reliable ally. I would love to see the USN let off their tight leashes. China forgets, the US knows a thing or two about fighting in the Pacific.

“Xi has not learnt the lessons of the former Soviet Union, replacing talent with reliable party hacks will eventually pull them down. Their claim on the SCS is not recognised by anybody but China, and as far as Chinese historical dominance, what? Most of the world is fed up with CCP bullying and Taiwan has now become the line in the sand. If they were to launch an attack on Taiwan, the USN and USAF would exact a terrible price from the PLA.

I hope it doesn’t come to that, but the world must be ready.”

Shipshape: Critics said China’s naval strategy was two-dimensional. Picture: CGNT

Chill, said Bill:

“As a smaller nation we cannot accept John Lees’ narrative. We have to be nimble. Taking on a bigger stronger foe head on leads to defeat. We need to be nuanced and focus, filling our headlines with anti Chinese rhetoric does nothing but disable us. Also let’s remember our leaders have encouraged us into a relationship with China that gives them the economic power.”

The Old Codgers cogitated:

“Two thoughts arise: what are we doing about NZ and it being part of the Five Eyes? And do the little countries of the Pacific region know that Australia has torn up the BRI? Are we planning to tell them so maybe they can follow suit?”

Ken’s question:

“I remember reading a novel some years ago, with a plot essentially as follows: Aboriginal groups in Western Australia declared their independence from Australia and set up a provisional government. A minor insurrection followed which the Australian government tried to put down. The provisional government appealed for international support. China responded by recognising the provisional government and intervened militarily. A very short war followed, and in short order WA, with all of it’s mineral wealth, was an ‘independent’ country but, of course, a vassal state of China. Prescient? Hopefully not, but does anyone recall the title or author of that novel?”

Mark remarked:

“The CCP’s single biggest weakness is their dependency on the rest of the world for raw materials and their dependency on the rest of the world for export revenue that underpins their economy. Their strategy has been to make the west dependent on China for manufactured goods … this has to change if the west is to negotiate effectively with China.”

Josef said:

“China’s dominance is not inevitable and the Chinese Communist Party isn’t prepared to pay any price to achieve its core objectives. Xi never stated that China wants to dominate. They want to be counted, and to be a party to making the rules by which the world is governed. They want a multipolar world.

“Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin all understood that great powers need their spheres of influence for various reasons. After the fall of the USSR, the Washington ruling elites decided to go for the whole world in the absence of an opposing power. Now, to their disappointment, they have one. They have to moderate their greed and let China rule its part of the playground.”

Brad (the quiet Australian) countered:

“No-one needs to grant China what they believe their share of the playground. They want too much and most of what they want has already being kiboshed by the International Court of Justice. Any attempt by China at a takeover of Taiwan will be so costly that the CCP will afterwards just crawl back under its rock for the next 50 years. Unlike the uber-woke governments of New Zealand and Victoria, the rest of us aren’t prepared to hand out the freebies to the Chinese Government.”

–

Faint praise: No, it’s not Question Time. Picture: Gary Ramage

Jack the Insider was bemused by the paucity of thought on the Left that informed the push to bring Scott Morrison down through sneering attacks on his Pentecostal faith. Bizarre, thought Bob:

“The same people who mock Morrison for his Christian beliefs will be the first to attack anyone or anything they perceive to be Islamophobic.”

Roger reckoned:

“I’ve been in the media at Parliament House for almost 3 years and I’ve been to countless press conferences with the prime minister in parliament and around Canberra and Queanbeyan. In that whole time I’ve never heard him utter a sound about religion, God or his church. That has been a credit to him.”

Michael mused:

“I’m not an evangelical — but this odd obsession the left and Twitter have with the PM’s faith will cost them a few per cent here and there — between 3pc and 5pc I would think. And they will lose another election. The average person on the street (not Twitter) sees born again people as nice enough, church going and probably a little intense — but also giving. Compare that to the mob on Twitter, you know who most will feel sorry for.”

Tango Victor Foxtrot said:

“While people see ‘born again’ as a rather niche form of faith, they’ll often screw up their noses, sniff and become bemused. But I’m sure the PM or any devout Christian would find plenty to trouble him if he was so inclined about the rest of our secular society; I know I do! Violence, lack of respect, divorce, entitlement, materialism. THIS is the answer to evangelical religion? They’re all OK — as well as decadent behaviour in the parliament — but evangelical Christianity is not?”

Andrew’s analysis:

“The more the Left sneer the more the quiet Australians firm their grip of support for the PM.

The Left has nothing positive to offer the electorate and so desperate are they to gain power that they resort to base personal and bigoted attacks. Shameful.”

AnnWA was aghast:

“Hear, hear, Jack. As another atheist, brought up with the Christian ethos, I found the Left’s vindictiveness about the PM’s religion unwarranted and thoroughly distasteful. If these are Labour/Green voters and with their attitudes, long may their political masters stay in Opposition.”

–

Key bored: A troll dons the cloak of anonymity.

Henry Ergas bemoaned the terrible toll of the anonymous troll, and how swarms of nameless individuals form electronic lynch mobs that surge, search and destroy. Louise was like-minded:

“The Renaissance humanists sought improvement of mind, body and spirit through education. Universities aimed to revive classical writings and philosophies and were the battleground of ideas, where the weapons were reason and the art of rhetoric. Sadly, a few centuries of further civilisation has turned that lofty battle into a dirty street brawl, where the weapons of choice are deplatforming and the ad hominem attacks that Aristotle recognised as fallacies of logic.

“To put forward politically incorrect ideas now is, not only to risk your good name, but also that of your family and your livelihood. Those advocates of inclusiveness, who see everything through the prism of critical theory, have abandoned reason and disregard reality. Individuals are absorbed into groups and intersectionalities and names are less important than pronouns. Swift said where everyone thinks the same, no-one thinks much at all. In a world dominated by groupthink, there is no need for names, because there are no ideas to attach them to.”

What’s in a name, asked Nivek:

“No name means no shame, for a shamer or a shamee. An alias can certainly be the key to the coward’s castle, but when does prudence dictate a nom de plume or a nom de guerre?”

Matt’s medicine:

“One major improvement is to require a full name, verified by an ID check, in order to post anything online. The ability for keyboard cowards to hind behind anonymous ‘names’ is a major scourge on civilised debate.”

Rosemary’s reaction:

“That is all very well, but my husband had a number of pro-LNP and anti-Labor policy letters published in the Daily Telegraph a few years ago. The DT requires full name and address before publishing letters (as does the Oz) and whilst the full address is not published it was easy to identify his details from the name and just the suburb. We received an avalanche of vicious and worrying hate mail — all anonymous of course. We are aware of other conservative letter writers to the media who have been similarly attacked. Forced disclosure of opinion writers’ details can curtail such expression due to fear of safety.”

Consider this, said Chris:

“A solution to this problem is to use technology to tag social media contributors with their identity. Those slandering other citizens could then be pursued through the courts. Internet service providers who failed to ensure their contributors could be identified would in turn be held liable for slanders committed on their outlets. The providers themselves would police this system for fear of being destroyed by aggrieved victims and the trolls would evaporate like morning mist.”

Phillip was fulfilled:

“Picture this: Coffee, lazy boy chair, The Australian and Henry Ergas. How good is that!”

Brad wasn’t bothered:

“I personally am not that concerned with incivility, perhaps being old enough to have a thick hide. What irritates me is stupidity — this quote from urban dictionary sums it up perfectly:

Opinionista … a person committed to the belief that opinions matter as much as facts and that her own ignorance is of equal value to others’ expertise.”

Last word to Matthew:

“With freedom comes responsibility. We are not responsible for our actions or words if we hide behind anonymity. The opinion of an anonymous person is worth nothing for we cannot assess the value of that opinion and whether an individual actually holds it and is prepared to stand by it.”

–

Each Friday the cream of your views on the news rises and we honour the voices that made the debate great. To boost your chances of being featured, please be pertinent, pithy and preferably make a point. Solid arguments, original ideas, sparkling prose, rapier wit and rhetorical flourishes may count in your favour. Civility is essential. Comments may be edited for length