Is the Chinese regime ready for Global leadership?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard posed the following question – “Who really thinks that China’s half-reformed Communist regime is ready for global leadership?”





Has supported or currently supporting Islamic terror groups/freedom fighters?



Iranian Sunni

Not known, paradoxically China has been known to support Islamic governments.

Invaded Afghanistan



Spending $400 for a US gallon (3.8l) of petrol in Afghanistan



Shares border with Afghanistan



Invaded countries in the last Century to expand political influence.

Yes – Panama, Cuba, Grenada, Haiti, Haiti, Lebanon, Vietnam etc

No – Tibet is a special case in that there is legal argument that Tibet was once part of China.

Has over 100 thousand troops occupying Oil-rich nation.



Bombed countries that it has never been at war with in the last century.

Yes (At least Laos and Cambodia)


Used to managing Billion plus population.



Expanded political influence by diplomacy alone



Has fought border skirmishes in last 100 years.

Yes – Mexico

Yes – India, USSR and Vietnam

Has Capital punishment for financial malfeasance



Has had double digit or near double digit growth in their economy over the last ten years?



Banks owned by the people



Banks subsidised by the people

Yes, Government (taxpayers) lends money to banks at 0% interest and borrows it back at 2%.


Winners of Nobel prizes in Economics living in the country

All the winners of the prize except one in the last ten years are resident in the USA.


Had terror incident at last Olympic games?

Yes – guilty party caught years later by rookie cop



When I reflected on the above question, I came to the startling conclusion that the Chinese leadership may actually be better qualified for global leadership than the USA.


On Heather Gray’s A New Perspective on the Confederacy

The good folks at Counterpunch published an article by Heather Gray called A New Perspective on the Confederacy.

I invite all interested people to read Heather’s article.

This aspect of the American civil war, I have never seen before. I know in Australian history that a huge amount of our political thought came out of the USA. I will probably find that there is some Australian historian that has linked the the rise of radical ideas coming from the political challenges that the working class faced in the Civil war.

The First World War was not fought for freedom

The Radical Antipodes or the WW1

was not fought for freedom

Here is a pub trivia question.

Which countries that were involved in the First World War had what we consider to be universal suffrage?

Universal suffrage being defined as all people over the age of majority (21 years in 1914) having the right to vote.

The answer may surprise you. It was only Australia (qualified) and New Zealand. To our Australian shame I should point out that Aborigines were considered simple and thus were wards of the State and we had failed to grant woman the right to vote at Federation.

Allies WW1 Women suffrage in 1914 Year granted Notes
Australia Yes


Belgium No


Canada No


Quebec women had wait until 1940 before they could vote in provincial elections
France No


Only exercised at national level in 1945
Egypt No


Great Britain No


in 1918 for 30 years and over, full extension in 1930
India No


Dominion of the British Empire in 1914
Italy No


Japan No


Some county level voting before 1945
New Zealand Yes


Pakistan No


Dominion of the British Empire in 1914
Portugal No


Russia No


Saudi Arabia No Not yet Considered part of the Ottoman empire in 1914
South Africa No


1930 for white women and 1996 for all citizens




Central powers WW1 Women suffrage in 1914 Year granted Notes
Austria No


Part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914
Germany No


Hungary No


Part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914
Iraq No


Part of the Ottoman empire in 1914
Syria No


Part of the Ottoman empire in 1914
Turkey No


Part of the Ottoman empire in 1914


Some of the values are based on Wikipedia and quick google search give qualified answers for the vote actually given. Examples are French women being given the vote in 1944 but only able use it in 1945 and if you were a muslim woman living in Algeria (then considered part of France) you could only vote in 1958 or in Australia real true franchise being granted after the 1967 referendum which recognized Aborigines.

It should be pointed out that full legal rights for women followed or is following years after the right to vote was granted. As a male it is embarrassing to think that in 1914 in many respects even in Australia a woman’s rights were marginally more than a child’s.

The paradox of the First World War was that it was not fought for freedom but that many of the freedoms that we take for granted came out of the changes that that terrible event created.

Bill Moyers interview of William Black

Mike Morgan has highlighted a Bill Moyers interview of William Black.

Please watch the interview at PBS.

Why is this interview of interest to an Australian. It means that the USA may be on the verge of a collapse. In Australia this is as unimaginable as the Sun not rising tomorrow.

Conspiracy Alert?

On Monday, the Prime Minister Lee Kuwin (Kevin Rudd) leaves for Washington saying that he will tell President Obama that the Chinese need a bigger say in the running of the world.

Wednesday, the Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon gets dropped in the shit. A close relationship with a Chinese-Australian business woman Helen Liu was revealed with the minister eventually admitting to two trips paid for by Ms Liu to China. The minister has only been in the job for nearly a year and half. The dirty laundry apparently fell off a DSD truck.

It may come as a surprise but the secret police do run a dossier on our elected leaders as soon as they have to be trusted with state secrets. Any dirty laundry would have been noted over a year ago. The timing is very curious.

Is the Government being cautioned? Is sailing too close to the China coast something that our glorious allies the USA and the UK do not want us to do?


Believe it or not, it is common practice to have these sort of trips to allow networking between various players. It is a two way street.


I am ambiguous about the following that the ABC posted

China trips business as usual, says Smith


But Professor Clive Williams, from the department of strategic and defence studies at the Australian National University, says there are dangers in powerful Australians having links to people close to the Chinese Government.

“China is very adept at manipulating people and one of the things that they often do is to get people to visit China and during the visit they’ll try and compromise them,” he said.

“They’ll almost certainly copy the contents of their laptop for further use in the future – that sort of thing.

“You’ve got to be very careful about how you deal with people that are close to the Chinese Government.”



I should point out all governments do the above, it is standard operating procedure. The USA and UK however do copy the files of the laptop, they get them off the network via Echelon.

Joel Fitzgibbon while apparently has a poor memory does come out of the NSW Labor party where should we say a certain degree of street smarts is acquired very early on.

Of course Joel Fitzgibbon may be the ALP version of Peter Reith.

Peter Schiff on Breakfast, Radio National Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 25 Feb 2009

Part of writing a blog is recording for myself events and issues. I include this interview of Peter Schiff of Europacific Capital because of his large following. If you have been following Peter Schiff there will be little that you have not already heard.

Peter Schiff

Peter Schiff

In summary Peter says that the USA debt burden is too high, argues for the efficient allocation of capital by allowing creative destruction (taking the pain quickly and massively, and shift from consumption and debt to saving and production. He mentions that there is a global cost to the USA continuing to consume.

To listen (quality may vary) or search Radio National at or check Europacific Capital as Peter normally captures everything for the record.

To download for better quality sound.
Peter Schiff, Breakfast

The implications for Australia is that our national paradigm is based on a strong USA with a growing economy. We rely on this to shape our financial policy, our foreign policy, our trade policy and our defence policy. To argue that we need to make major changes is a bit like trying to argue the theory of Evolution before the Pope at the time of the Reformation.

Hope for Success for Australia – 求成澳大利亚




Premier Wen Jiabao, hope for Australia

Premier Wen Jiabao, hope for Australia



In Jan 2009, the CIA World book listed estimated growth rates for 2008 for the following regions.

China, 9.8%, (GDP PPP – USD$ 7 800 Billion)
South Korea, 4.3%, (GDP PPP – USD$ 1 312 Billion)
Australia, 2.5%, (GDP PPP – USD$ 825 Billion)
European Union, 1.5%, (GDP PPP – USD$ 14 960 Billion)
USA, 1.4%, (GDP PPP – USD$ 14 580 Billion)
United Kingdom, 1.1%, (GDP PPP – USD$ 2 281 Billion)
Japan, 0.7%, (GDP PPP – USD$ 4 487 Billion)

On Wednesday 28 January 2009, Premier Wen Jiabao delivers the speech that anybody with brains was waiting for. Premier Wen is not a failed businessman, he is not a lawyer or an actor by training. Premier Wen is a bureaucrat whose primary training was as a geologist. Premier Wen announces that China has been set the goal of 8% growth in GDP in 2009 and although this growth target would be difficult, it was achievable. A matrix of policies would be used to reach this target. The stand out feature was that the Chinese government was going spend the equivalent of 16% of the 2007 GDP or 4 TRILLION yuan over two years.

Thanks to the magic of Google (to achieve ball park estimates.)
4 Trillion Yuan is about USD$ 585 billion or AUD$ 878 Billion. It is of the same order as the amount of money the USA burnt in Iraq from Mar 2003 to Aug 2008.

If Australia was doing something similar and scale it to Australian terms, the Australian Government would allocating USD$130 billion or AUD $195 billion over 2 years at the problem.

When China (I am an optimist) achieves its goal, it is going to add USD $625 billion to their economy, or the equivalent of three quarters of the total of the Australian economy to the Chinese economy or one Saudi Arabia equivalent.

The good news for Australia is that a lot of crumbs will fall off the table. If you live in a resource state, it is possible that that you might even miss the recession.

I still find it mind-blowing that no Australian media outlet picked up on this three days later.

I apologise to all Chinese people that our Prime Kevin Rudd 陆克文 was not there at Davos to given Premier Wen a standing ovation at the end of his speech.