Lowy Institute

First-time director Natalie Portman also stars in this adaptation of Israeli novelist Amos Oz's memoir. According to IMDB, the film is 'A story about the childhood of Oz in Jerusalem and his youth in the Kibbutz during the British Mandate and the first days of the state of Israel. The plot describes the relationship between young Oz to his mother and his first steps as a writer.'

A Tale of Love and Darkness is about to be released in the US (I just discovered it via the US site SlashFilm), though it seems to have debuted in Australia late last year.


It was billed as a major foreign policy address. But while US Vice-President Joe Biden's just-completed remarks at the Paddington Town Hall in Sydney didn't quite live up to that billing, it did have its points of interest. Biden's mood was subdued, stoical and above all reassuring: America was in Asia for the long haul. There was lots of standard-issue uplift ('instead of asking "Why?", Australians and Americans ask "Why not?') and even a rhetorical flourish about refusing to 'worship at the shrine of orthodoxy'. And as you would expect, there was plenty of generous praise for the US-Australia alliance.


My first impression is that Biden didn't say anything particularly novel about the regional security situation or America's commitment to the region. But perhaps the most notable aspect of the speech, as regards Asia Pacific security, was just how emphatic Biden was about America's continuing regional commitment. Again, none of this was new, but it was a point of emphasis that was no doubt aimed at Beijing and other regional capitals. Biden began by talking up America's military capabilities: it's unmatched ability to project naval and air power all over the world, and its intention to maintain a qualitative edge for years to come. And America was planning to move more of its most advanced capabilities to the Pacific, he said.

Biden then talked about America's commitment to maintaining the 'rules-based order' in the region, a phrase that is also popular in Australia. It's worth checking out these two pieces about how the Chinese read this phrase.

As for America's commitment to the region, Biden said several times that the US is a Pacific nation; 'we will maintain that posture as long as we exist', he said. Repeating President Obama's phrase from Canberra in 2011, Biden said 'We are all in' and that the US is 'not going anywhere'... because 'our presence essential to maintaining peace and stability...America is the lynchpin.'

Read More

Biden also used a phrase from his grandfather: 'with the Grace of God and goodwill of the neighbours', America's presence in the region would endure. I'm not sure that he intended it, but that oblique reference to the goodwill of the neighbours was as near as Biden got to acknowledging that some countries in the region (OK, just one) might actually object to America's 'lynchpin' status and its promise to stay forever. It would have been fascinating to hear Biden address in detail the tensions with Beijing over the South China Sea and other regional security issues.

A few other stray points of interest: Biden boasted that he had spent more time than any world leader with Chinese President Xi Jinping. And in describing the US-Australia alliance, he mentioned intelligence sharing and referred to the 'Five eyes' community. That's not a term which used to appear in the public utterances of any leader from those five countries. Thank you Edward Snowden.

Also on the alliance, Biden said it was a measure of the closeness of our two militaries that Australian military commanders had been put directly in charge of US troops. 'We don't let that happen very often', he said to chuckles. He emphasised that there was 'no daylight between our fighting forces', which is exactly what worries some people here in Australia who prefer that Australia is not so closely tied to US military decision-making.

Near the end of the speech, Biden turned to domestic matters: 'Don't worry about our election; the better angels will prevail'.

It was a tone of reassurance and comfort which matched the rest of the speech. But to bring comfort is also an acknowledgment that comfort is required. Evidently the Vice-President and his advisers judged that allies and friends in the region needed to be reminded that America's economic and military strength is enduring, and need to be assured that, in its presidential politics, the US is not lurching towards demagoguery. That in itself is a worrying sign.


A new documentary about Stuxnet and cyberwarfare:

Here's the NY Times review, and here's the Metacritic page, where it is scoring very well.

(Thanks Brendan.)


Former prime minister John Howard was in excellent form at yesterday's press conference in response to the release of the Chilcot Report. He'd received so many media requests, he said, that he thought it was a better idea to address them all at once. So he was certainly not running away from what at first glance looks like an awkward issue (he was on Lateline last night too). Howard is tied by friendship and history to a president who made what is widely considered to be the most disastrous US foreign policy decision since Vietnam. Yet at yesterday's press conference he parried and thrusted effortlessly.

But really, why wouldn't he? Howard is on sure and certain ground when confronted with the question of whether his government lied about Iraq's WMD stockpiles. No, he replies indignantly, he did not lie. He relied on the best information available about Iraqi WMD, supplied by the cream of the Western intelligence services, and it turned out to be wrong. Governments make decisions with the information they have to hand, he argues, and without the luxury of hindsight.

In short, when Howard's motives are questioned, he has a strong rebuttal. But instead of asking whether Howard was honest in the way he presented the case against Iraq, we should be asking whether his decision to enter the war was right and reasonable based on what was known at the time. In other words, it's not a question of integrity but of judgment.

The Iraq war was illegal and immoral, in my view, and not because of its outcomes but in its inception. This was knowable at the time and was argued by those at the fringes of the mainstream debate. That the war was a strategic error is a more difficult judgment if we rely only on information available then. That Australia's involvement was a strategic error is a more difficult judgment still. After all, Australia risked very little in Iraq, suffered no combat deaths, and yet elevated its stature in the US alliance. Against that we must weigh Paul Keating's argument that Australia's involvement in Iraq has increased the terrorist threat to Australia.

But the true failure of judgment here is that the shock of the 9/11 overwhelmed Howard, Bush and Blair, causing them to vastly overstate the threat posed by terrorism — John Howard's speech to the Lowy Institute marking the tenth anniversary of the war illustrates the point, as does this video of Condaleezza Rice arguing with a student.

Read More

Al Qaeda was never an existential threat to any of those three countries, even had it been armed with chemical or biological weapons. Nuclear weapons? Well, that's different, but the chance that a terrorist group could build or acquire a nuclear weapon has always been remote. Nuclear weapons are in a class of their own in terms of destructiveness, and the fact that chemical, biological and nuclear weapons were conflated into a catch-all  'WMD' category in the lead-up to the war skewed the debate badly.

The bigger point here is that invading and occupying Iraq was a massive over-reaction to the serious but manageable terrorist threat. Bush, Blair and Howard should have known that.

Photo: Getty Images/Pool


Politicians often talk loosely about terrorism as an 'existential threat', which is a vast overstatement — terrorists don't have the capability to undermine the character and essential functions of advanced nation-states. Unless those terrorists have nuclear weapons. Here's a short video narrated by former US defence secretary William Perry about a nuclear terrorist threat to the US:

Perry is these days head of the William J Perry Project, dedicated to a world in which nuclear weapons are never used again. He's the author of a new book which argues that the threat posed by nuclear weapons has been dangerously understated in recent years. Here's a review by California Governor Jerry Brown.

Election Interpreter 2016

And here it is, courtesy of the ABC:

Australia's pundits may still treat the idea of hung parliaments and minority government as an aberration (I can't help noting Insiders host Barrie Cassidy's air of contempt on yesterday's program, when he said a circus tent would need to be erected on the lawns of parliament to accommodate the rabble Australians have just elected), but it looks more like the new normal.

As the chart shows, Australians have been moving away from the two major parties for decades now. And what happens when the lines of the major parties starts to intersect with that of the minors and independents? Well, as former Labor leader Kim Beazley said on the Nine Network election broadcast on Saturday night, we may be only two elections away from a Trump-like disruption in Australian politics (I'm paraphrasing from memory; I can't see that Beazley's words have been picked up anywhere).

We need to get used to the fact that the minor parties and independents are going to have a much bigger say over Australian policy in future, and that includes in foreign and national security policy. Would a minority government have joined the Iraq war in 2003? Would it have signed the various bilateral trade deals we have agreed to over the last few years, or the TPP? Would it have allowed a relatively rapid return to good relations with Jakarta after populist disruptions over causes such as the Chan-Sukumaran executions? Would it support higher defence spending?

These are just some of the specific policy questions we will need to grapple with in years to come, though it seems that overlaying them is a nagging uncertainty Australians feel about their place in the world. One of the Australian political shibboleths laid to rest by this campaign is that, in times of economic uncertainty and disruption, votes turn to Coalition governments for reassurance. But as I noted last week, far from reassuring Australians after the Brexit earthquake, Prime Minister Turnbull took the opportunity to remind them of the fragility of the global economic system and Australia's place within it. Incredibly, as Katharine Murphy pointed out in the early hours of Sunday, in his very first speech after the election, Prime Minister Turnbull chose to double down on this theme:

Early on Sunday morning, Malcolm Turnbull looked out to the Australian electorate and expressed his own profound alienation from the lived experiences of the losers of globalisation – the people who had flocked to Nick Xenophon and Pauline Hanson and to Labor on the basis that the ALP had climbed down partially from the neoliberal pedestal constructed by Bob Hawke and Paul Keating.

Voters needed to understand the reality that the winners of globalisation always insist they accept, Turnbull said, fists clenched, in a hotel ballroom on the other side of midnight. They needed to take their lumps. “The circumstances of Australia cannot be changed by a lying campaign from the Labor party,” Turnbull said.

“The challenges, the fact that we live in times of rapid economic change, of enormous opportunity, enormous challenges, a time when we need to be innovative, when we need to be competitive, when we need to be able to seize those opportunities – those times are there.”

If this is what Turnbull thinks globalisation means for Australia, then it seems voters don't want it. Since the 1980s, both major parties have committed themselves to the path of global economic openness and competitiveness. If they want to sustain that legacy and build on it, they had better find a new way to explain it to Australians, and fast.

Election Interpreter 2016

The Brexit vote exposes two interlinked issues which determine Australia's place in the world, and which are both vulnerable to fluctuations in support: immigration and globalisation. Australians are ambiguous about both, yet Malcolm Turnbull knows each is central to Australia's prosperity in the 21st century. But does Turnbull have the rhetorical tools and the political vision to manage this tension? His reaction to the Brexit vote leaves some doubts. His interview with 7:30's Leigh Sales is a case in point:

It’s a reminder Leigh of a point I often make that we are living in a period of rapid economic change; we’re living in a period of volatility. We have to embrace that.

Since Turnbull had made the enthusiastic acceptance of globalisation part of his personal brand and election pitch, he had no choice but to double down when the Brexit vote threatened to undermine his rosy 'never been a more exciting time to be an Australian' view of the future. Yet 'embracing volatility' doesn't sound like a lot of fun. In fact, it sounds rather pitiless, a vision of the future in which, if we relax for even a moment, the nation slips and is crushed underfoot as others clamber up. The opposite of 'relaxed and comfortable', you might say.

But according to Turnbull, even constant vigilance might not be enough. Post-Brexit, the PM asked voters to back his party in order to ensure economic stability in a 'global economy over which we have no control.' The use of 'control' here is rather telling, as 'taking back control' was the central theme of the Leave campaign, appealing to a segment of the British population that considered itself disempowered. Turnbull was essentially arguing that there is no alternative to our loss of control, and that turning our back on globalisation in order to reassert control would ultimately be self-defeating.

He's right, but whether voters are prepared to accept this is an open question.

Interviewer Leigh Sales pressed Turnbull on exactly this point by asking whether all this volatility was a bit unsettling to voters. Her subtext seemed to be that Brexit showed an inclination to withdraw from globalisation rather than embrace it. Turnbull responded:

...if you look at the cases made by people like Boris Johnson, it is very much about Britain being able to better engage in the 21st century, freed from the shackles of bureaucratic Europe and better able to embrace the world.

Well, that's one way of spinning it. Another is that Brexit was a vote to hit the brakes on globalisation and what its critics call the 'neoliberal agenda'. But if there is such a movement, the early reaction to the Brexit referendum demonstrates that it is rather inchoate — it has nowhere to go because, as in Australia, neither of the two major parties in Britain offer a substantive alternative to the neoliberal consensus.

The other proximate cause of the Brexit vote, of course, was mass migration. Here we hit on a second point of comparison with Australia, with some commentators fearing the anti-immigrant sentiment that animated the Leave campaign could also find voice here.

Read More

In a sense, our problem is less acute. Australia is a nation founded on immigration and its modern cousin, multiculturalism. And compared to Britain, our pre-existing identity, one formed before the days of mass immigration and to which older voters might long to return, is weaker. There is no nostalgic past for Australia to go back to, which gives us a lot of ballast when anti-immigrant sentiment occasionally crops up.

But it also means there is no real alternative to an outward-looking Australia — our immigrant identity can't be disentangled from our economic and diplomatic engagement with the world. So if Australia is going to stay on the high-immigration, open-Australia path, our national leader needs to navigate it. And calls for Australia to 'embrace uncertainty' and accept our lack of control will hardly do when those are the very sentiments which lit the fire under the Brexit campaign. The government seems to accept this logic well enough when it comes to 'controlling our borders', yet the economy is exempted.

Turnbull could fashion himself as a middle-ground response to anxieties about globalisation and immigration. That doesn't mean turning his back on globalisation but on presenting an agenda that deals with current economic realities rather than arguing, as his party so often does, that Australia still needs to win the deregulation fights of the 1990s (George Megolagenis makes this argument in his latest Quarterly Essay).

But Turnbull is no free agent. He may protest that he hasn't changed since becoming leader of his party again, but clearly that's not what voters think. His foreign-policy stance illustrates the point: in the years preceding his ascent to the prime ministership, there was a clear streak of independence in Turnbull's views on the rise of China and the place of the US in the Asia Pacific, which as Prime Minister has been pretty thoroughly weeded out.

Remember when Turnbull used to appear on Q&A as a charismatic alternative to Tony Abbott? He would get a question about why, given his obvious disaffection with his own side, he didn't just form his own party. There would be hearty applause and Turnbull would beam at the attention before putting on his serious face and stating his commitment to the Liberal Party and its leadership.

But TV is a visual medium, and it's possible that what viewers took away from such vignettes was not just Turnbull's words but also the smile that preceded them. And just maybe the message they took was that, although the idea of founding an entirely new party was impractical (because the voting system in the lower house favours the duopoly), Turnbull could, if given the opportunity, create a new party from inside the old one. For a public showing record-high levels of disaffection with the two major parties (Newspoll recently recorded the highest support for independents and minor parties in its 31-year history) it was an attractive message, one which propelled Turnbull to astronomical approval figures in his early months as PM. The subsequent descent of those numbers suggests the public sees Turnbull as having been co-opted by his party rather than the other way around.

Turnbull might have hoped that a big election victory would loosen those shackles, but that doesn't seem likely now. Still, he has two possible opportunities. The first is a hung parliament in which he is forced to ally with independents or minor parties in order to govern. This will give him a good excuse to embrace a new agenda. The second opportunity is the same-sex marriage plebiscite — an overwhelming victory could allow him to silence his internal opponents.

All of this presupposes that there is 'another Turnbull', an ambitious moderniser with a clear vision for the nation and his party. It is quite possible of course that, as Gertrude Stein had it, there's no there there. The 'other Turnbull' may be a mirage. We will know soon enough.

Photo by Stefan Postles/Getty Image

Election Interpreter 2016

Yesterday the Lowy Institute hosted Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, whose speech focused largely on the Turnbull Government's economic diplomacy agenda. You can watch the full video below.

The economic focus allowed Bishop to pivot into domestic debates from time to time, which is not surprising in an election campaign. But for my money, most of the interest here comes in the Q&A section (from 27 minutes), where Bishop reveals her proudest achievements, responds to news stories about the next DFAT secretary, and where she puts a strong case for Britain to remain in the EU. Incidentally, isn't it interesting that many politicians, Bishop included, are so coy on the US election (Bishop criticised Opposition Leader Bill Shorten for commenting on Trump) but find it uncontroversial to put their position quite stridently on the UK's upcoming poll. Why is that?

The Brexit referendum

Daniel Woker writes on these pages that the Brexit campaign 'lack(s) any intellectually sound argument'. Judging by how difficult it has been for my colleagues and I at The Interpreter to find writers who favour the Leave campaign, it is tempting to agree. And The Interpreter is not alone: we have consulted editors around the world, and they are having the same problem finding writers to make a cogent case for the Leave campaign.

Why is this?I'm sceptical of the claim that there is 'no sound argument'. Perhaps there is a sound argument, but we are just not hearing it.

This might be a class issue, with professional writers and policy analysts being mainly in the Stay camp, while the Leave camp is composed of people who ordinarily don't write for a living. We carried a pro-Brexit piece earlier in the week by political analyst Richard Johnson who argued that the Labour Party is woefully out of step with a large portion of its supporters on this issue: 'One-third of Labour supporters will be voting "Leave" on 23rd June. Most of these come from the party's working-class base and are at serious risk of defection to other parties, especially UKIP'. The Guardian also has a stark statistic about the class divide in the Brexit debate:

Voters in professional “AB” grade occupations are strongly in favour of staying in Europe (57%-38%), whereas skilled manual workers (C2s) are plumping for leave by an emphatic 67% to 29% margin.

So if publications such as this one are finding it hard to identify professional pundits to make the case for Brexit, that means the case against Brexit is being over-represented. That's concerning for the health of the public debate. But what's also interesting is that this apparent over-representation is evidently not having a decisive impact on the public debate, given that British public opinion is on a knife-edge but trending towards Leave.

Read More

For the record, there are thought-provoking and rigorous arguments being made in favour of Brexit. The best I have seen comes from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in The Telegraph:

My Europhile Greek friend Yanis Varoufakis and I both agree on one central point, that today's EU is a deformed halfway house that nobody ever wanted. His solution is a great leap forward towards a United States of Europe with a genuine parliament holding an elected president to account. Though even he doubts his dream. "There is a virtue in heroic failure" he said.

I do not think this is remotely possible, or would be desirable if it were, but it is not on offer anyway. Six years into the eurozone crisis and there is no a flicker of fiscal union: no eurobonds, no Hamiltonian redemption fund, no pooling of debt, and no budget transfers. The banking union belies its name. Germany and the creditor states have dug in their heels.

Where we concur is that the EU as constructed is not only corrosive but ultimately dangerous, and that is the phase we have now reached as governing authority crumbles across Europe. The Project bleeds the lifeblood of the national institutions, but fails to replace them with anything lovable or legitimate at a European level. It draws away charisma, and destroys it. This is how democracies die.


Photo by Kate Green/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images




Anne-Marie Balbi says of the Orlando shootings that 'So intense and regular is media coverage of such incidents that the impact is being muted. The terrorists are failing in their goal of instilling fear because to feel fear we need to be human and each mass shooting diminishes our humanity.'

But if that was true, why didn't the terrorists give up long ago? There have been a number of mass-casualty atrocities in Western cities since 9/11, and each one get blanket media coverage. If this sequence was somehow degrading our sense of humanity and thus undermining the terrorists' goals, we ought to be seeing some evidence of that by now in terrorist tactics. And yet the targeting of innocent civilians persists, partly because the terrorists understand how highly we value life.

What is the evidence that humanity places ever higher value on life? Look at the enormous advances made in life expectancy in recent decades in the West and around the world. Look at the huge strides made in education, so that individuals can live meaningful and productive lives. Look at the shift in Western societies to a post-industrial economic model which puts human capital rather than machinery at the centre of production, thus increasing the economic value of life. And when jihadists see Western military forces operating in the Middle East, what do they observe? Massive investment in technology and tactics (everything from body armour to satellite-operated drones) designed to protect soldiers from harm because they are so valuable and the costs of losing them are so high.

Anne-Marie Balbi goes on to say that 'Recent events, be it hooligans at a soccer game or the bashing of atheists in Bangladesh, are proof that around the globe the normative barriers that stop people crossing the line to the use of violence are eroding.' Evidence, maybe, but proof? How does Anne-Marie reconcile her claim with the fact that deaths as a result of war have been in steady decline for decades now? What about the growing stigmatisation of racial violence and violence against women? (Just one data-point: Hillary Clinton is months away from becoming America's first female president, yet up until her mid-twenties it was not illegal in America to rape your wife.)

The reason terrorists persist with their tactics is because they see not an erosion in our care for life, but an ever-greater regard for it. We love life; that, in the eyes of terrorists, is our weakness.

Photo: Getty images/Daniel Munoz





Along with the most of Australia, The Interpreter is taking Monday off (note to international readers: it's slightly embarrassing to say why Monday is a holiday; I mean even the Brits don't take a day off for the Queen's birthday). You will see some new stuff on the site on Monday but normal service returns on Tuesday.

Photo by Flickr user z Q.


This morning I stumbled on an economics blog which claimed bluntly, and without much argument, that the Soviet national anthem was the best ever:

I'm not saying this claim is wrong (the version in The Hunt for Red October is pretty stirring too, though the accents sound dodgy), it just needs some more investigation and comparison. Let's open this up to our readers. Which country do you think has the best anthem, and why? Send your submissions to sroggeveen@lowyinstitute.org along with one or two sentences explaining your choice, and a link to a YouTube clip.

Just to open up the topic a bit further, I recommend this New Yorker piece on Whitney Houston's spine-tingling rendition of 'Star-Spangled Banner' at the 1991 Super Bowl:

As for 'Advance Australia Fair', Australians seem to have an ambivalent relationship with this tune. It's belted out with gusto at sporting events, but do we really love it? For me, only when it's sung by Wolverine:


In the intermittent Greg Sheridan-Hugh White skirmish over whether Prime Minister Turnbull is a 'mainstream' pro-US alliance figure or a revisionist who would like to see the US do more to accommodate China's rise, we must note more evidence overnight for the Sheridan view that Turnbull is thoroughly orthodox. Some extracts from Turnbull's short remarks at a US Studies Centre event last evening:

It is clearer now than it has been for decades that the US is absolutely central to the rules-based order upon which our regional peace and prosperity depends.

The prosperity of our region is the consequence of 40 years of a pax Americana. Every single country in our region has benefited from that. From the security the US has delivered, the stability it has delivered, and of course China above all has been able to prosper and grow in those 40 years from being a nation that was barely engaged in the global economy to now being - depending on who is measuring it - either the world’s largest or the world’s second largest national economy.

All of that has been the product of a peace, relative tranquillity, and that has been guaranteed by that massive sheet-anchor of American commitment and American strategic power in our region.

This, about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, also stood out:

...a successful TPP will entrench the US as the strong, credible and enduring guarantor of the rules based order in our region.

Well, maybe that will be the effect of the TPP, or maybe not. But to the extent Turnbull is right, this is exactly what bothers the Chinese about the TPP. Of course, Turnbull and his speechwriters know this, so it's interesting to see that they have framed the agreement this way.

China, in this speech, is cast as a beneficiary of the existing US-led order, with the implication that Beijing would do well to leave it be and even to reinforce it by joining initiatives such as the TPP. But as noted earlier this week, it is unlikely the Chinese share this benign view of the US-led order and their place within it.


First, this speech by Singapore’s Ambassador-at-Large Bilahari Kausikan, delivered in Tokyo last week (thanks Merriden):

The South China Sea (SCS) has emerged as something of a proxy for the adjustments underway between the US and China. I do not think either is looking for trouble. War by design is highly improbable. Despite their bluster, China’s leaders know that war with the US can only have one outcome and place the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s most vital interest—its hold on power – in great jeopardy. China is not reckless. President Xi Jinping is a ‘princeling’; the CCP is his patrimony and I don’t think he will gamble with it. But rivalry is intrinsic to any major power relationship and nether will forswear pursuing their interests, at times robustly.

The CCP is today confronted with fundamental questions about itself as it embarks on complex second phase of reforms. These reforms must square the circle: give the market a larger role in crucial areas of the economy to maintain competitiveness, while preserving central political control by the Party. Can it be done? No one really knows. Social and labour unrest are endemic at the local level. The anti-corruption campaign has unsettled CCP cadres in every sector. But we should not assume failure. Unlike the former Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the CCP has proven to be an extremely adaptable creature, the latest and most successful iteration of a series of political experiments in search of wealth and power to resist western predations dating from the late Qing dynasty.

President Xi Jinping has termed the CCP’s role as leading the “Great Rejuvenation” of the Chinese nation after a century of weakness and humiliation. But the outcome of reforms, even if completely successful, will be slower growth, as the CCP has itself acknowledged. The “Great Rejuvenation” must therefore be as much, if not more, outwardly than internally directed. Externally, it is increasingly an essentially revanchist narrative. Herein lies the importance of the SCS to China. Put simply, it is the least risky way of putting some shreds of meat on the bare bones of the historical narrative by which the CCP justifies its right to rule.

The US defines its interests in the SCS in terms of upholding international law and freedom of navigation. These are important interests but not of the same order as the CCP’s primary interest which is existential: the legitimacy and ultimately the survival of the CCP. The US has made clear that the US-Japan alliance covers the Senkaku (or Diaoyu in Chinese) islands; it has been ambiguous about the US-Philippines alliance, and hence in effect made clear, that it does not cover the disputed areas in the SCS. War in support of the principal US East Asian ally is credible, if unlikely. War over rocks, shoals and reefs would be absurd.

Second, a piece I found via the always excellent Sinocism newsletter. I know nothing of the author, so I'm not being swayed by reputation or affiliation with a prestigious think tank or university. It's just a really smart take on China's perspective: 

Read More

The Chinese believe that our international order is a rigged system set up by the imperial victors of the last round of bloodshed to perpetuate the power of its winners. They use the system, quite cynically, but at its base they find it and its symbols hypocritical, embarrassing, outrageous, and (according to the most strident among them), evil. In their minds it is a system of lies and half-truths. In some cases they have a point. Most of their actions in the East or South China Seas are designed to show just how large a gap exists between the grim realities of great power politics and soaring rhetoric Americans use to describe our role in the region...

...Wedded to this cynical vision of the current arrangements is an equally cynical take on the history of America's imposed order. Beijing is well aware that if it decided to do to Tonga now what the United States did to Hawaii more than a century ago it would mean war. At the time the United States suffered nothing of the sort. Not that American wars were without their own rewards—the Americans claim island bases like Guam and Saipan as prizes won through conquest. China is not allowed to conquer its own prizes. It cannot fight wars to give its forces a new ports and bases; it is not even allowed build little artificial islands for the purpose.

Never mind that all of that strikes the Chinese's ire happened generations ago. Anything this side of the Taiping is modern history for the Chinese. American attempts to deny that, to claim that the world should work differently now than it did when the American star first began to rise, simply prove that morality and sweet sounding words like ‘international norms’ are for the winners. All of that talk about being a responsible stakeholder is just a nicer way to say we plan on kicking down the ladder now that we have finished climbing up it.