Nat. Security Comm. Advises Gov NOT To Join New China Bank
Oct 31, 2014 2:38:42 GMT 10
You Must Enter A Name and Frank like this
Post by Matilda on Oct 31, 2014 2:38:42 GMT 10
I'm a bit perplexed. We are in the Asia region; the US$ is collapsing; USA has begged us not to join; we are suppose to be signing a new trade agreement with China...do we tread softly and stick with the USA or jump ship? All I can say is that I'm glad I'm prepping.
STRATEGY FEARS SANK CHINA DEAL.
THE AUSTRALIAN OCTOBER 31, 2014 12:00AM
Paul Kelly
Editor-At-Large
Sydney
CABINET’S national security committee has found against Australia joining a new, China-dominated $50 billion Asian bank, accepting the argument put by Julie Bishop against involvement on strategic grounds over the position of Joe Hockey.
Tony Abbott has shifted his position on this pivotal issue, moving from his initial inclination to support Australia’s entry into the China bank to a tougher position that, on strategic grounds, Australia could not accept the current Chinese proposal.
The Prime Minister’s long-run view is that Australia would join a new multilateral regional bank involving China as distinct from a regional institution effectively run and dominated by Beijing. The government wants to be positive, but so far there is little sign China is prepared to transform its proposal to satisfy Australia’s entry conditions.
US President Barack Obama rang Mr Abbott before the decision to outline US concerns and urge Australia not to participate in the Asian bank. This was part of a strong US regional diplomatic offensive in collaboration with Japan revealing deep US concerns over this issue.
The Treasurer had believed that Australia would participate in the bank following an earlier debate within the full cabinet. This discussion saw an agreement reached on the financial and governance conditions Australia would require. At that point it seemed Australia was moving towards a negotiation for its entry.
The subsequent decision in the NSC is a serious defeat for Mr Hockey and the Treasury. It is a defining event for Australia’s regional outlook. This is a win for the Foreign Minister with consequences for Australia’s strategic and financial position within the region.
At the earlier full cabinet meeting, Mr Abbott was more sympathetic to China’s initiative, advocated by Chinese President Xi Jinping. The Prime Minister’s message to senior ministers, including Mr Hockey, was that he was “inclined” towards joining.
A number of ministers believe Mr Abbott’s change of heart is the pivotal aspect in the decision-making.
The issue has triggered a core split within cabinet over the classic dilemma for Australia’s future — how to decide between China and our US-led alliance partners. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was keen for Australia to remain tied to the existing institutions, the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, now dominated by the US and Japan.
It is revealing that the second debate was conducted in cabinet’s NSC, where strategic rather than financial arguments became paramount. Ms Bishop provided scenarios of how China could convert financial power via investment loans into direct military advantage in vulnerable nations close to Australia.
This penetrated to the essence of the issue: is the proposed bank an instrument of China’s national interest or a new multilateral facility for the region? For Mr Abbott, the balancing act is extreme. As a realist he welcomes China’s assertion as a great financial power, yet recognises Australia’s commitment to the US in any contest for strategic primacy.
After the full cabinet decision, a confident Mr Hockey, equipped with a mandate, advanced his talks with the Chinese, assuming this would lead to a memorandum of understanding with China about Australia’s entry.
Treasury believed Australia’s role in the new bank was vital to maintaining our influence in the changing financial architecture of the region.
While China is ready to make some concessions, the document is still far short of the concessions that Australia needs. The political sensitivities are intense. The Abbott government is hoping to finalise a free-trade agreement with China before the end of the year, with Mr Xi visiting next month for the G20 summit in Brisbane. Some ministers believe Mr Hockey exceeded his negotiating mandate from the full cabinet, leading China to think Australia would participate.
Other ministers believe Ms Bishop went too far in signalling to the US that Australia would remain aloof. It was recognised during the debate in the full cabinet that China was unlikely to meet the financial standards Australia required to join. Both Mr Hockey and Ms Bishop, along with other ministers, were alert to this reality.
The cabinet sentiment, however, was that even if not all Australia’s conditions were met, this should not necessarily rule out our participation. In the full cabinet debate Ms Bishop did not put the strategic argument against Australia’s role that dominated her subsequent NSC presentation.
The pressure from the Obama administration has been intense. Representations have come from the President, Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. This does not gainsay Australia’s own assessment. Ms Bishop has argued the issue in terms of the future strategic struggle within the Asia-Pacific between China and the US.
A majority of Asian nations, including India and Indonesia, are participating. But the Australian government believes that South Korea, another vital US ally, will stay aloof. Senior regional figures said they were looking to Australia to participate and negotiate away some of the unacceptable features of China’s proposal.
Former prime minister Paul Keating said yesterday that Australian’s involvement at a time when China was assuming greater regional responsibility was essential. Regional expert Ross Garnaut told The Australian: “The world needs much larger transfers of income-earning investments into infrastructure. Australia should welcome China’s commitment to this infrastructure bank.”
The government is prepared to join an institution where China has the biggest voice but rejects any arrangement where China can dictate events. Ms Bishop warned against joining an institution where Australia had no say where funds were invested. Ms Bishop argued the governance rules pointed to a financial institution whose purpose was to advance China’s interests in the region. Mr Hockey has the support of other economic ministers and business figures alert to the role China must play in funding Asia’s infrastructure. His most telling argument is that Australia can best exercise its regional influence by negotiating in good faith and then operating from within the new bank.
STRATEGY FEARS SANK CHINA DEAL.
THE AUSTRALIAN OCTOBER 31, 2014 12:00AM
Paul Kelly
Editor-At-Large
Sydney
CABINET’S national security committee has found against Australia joining a new, China-dominated $50 billion Asian bank, accepting the argument put by Julie Bishop against involvement on strategic grounds over the position of Joe Hockey.
Tony Abbott has shifted his position on this pivotal issue, moving from his initial inclination to support Australia’s entry into the China bank to a tougher position that, on strategic grounds, Australia could not accept the current Chinese proposal.
The Prime Minister’s long-run view is that Australia would join a new multilateral regional bank involving China as distinct from a regional institution effectively run and dominated by Beijing. The government wants to be positive, but so far there is little sign China is prepared to transform its proposal to satisfy Australia’s entry conditions.
US President Barack Obama rang Mr Abbott before the decision to outline US concerns and urge Australia not to participate in the Asian bank. This was part of a strong US regional diplomatic offensive in collaboration with Japan revealing deep US concerns over this issue.
The Treasurer had believed that Australia would participate in the bank following an earlier debate within the full cabinet. This discussion saw an agreement reached on the financial and governance conditions Australia would require. At that point it seemed Australia was moving towards a negotiation for its entry.
The subsequent decision in the NSC is a serious defeat for Mr Hockey and the Treasury. It is a defining event for Australia’s regional outlook. This is a win for the Foreign Minister with consequences for Australia’s strategic and financial position within the region.
At the earlier full cabinet meeting, Mr Abbott was more sympathetic to China’s initiative, advocated by Chinese President Xi Jinping. The Prime Minister’s message to senior ministers, including Mr Hockey, was that he was “inclined” towards joining.
A number of ministers believe Mr Abbott’s change of heart is the pivotal aspect in the decision-making.
The issue has triggered a core split within cabinet over the classic dilemma for Australia’s future — how to decide between China and our US-led alliance partners. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was keen for Australia to remain tied to the existing institutions, the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, now dominated by the US and Japan.
It is revealing that the second debate was conducted in cabinet’s NSC, where strategic rather than financial arguments became paramount. Ms Bishop provided scenarios of how China could convert financial power via investment loans into direct military advantage in vulnerable nations close to Australia.
This penetrated to the essence of the issue: is the proposed bank an instrument of China’s national interest or a new multilateral facility for the region? For Mr Abbott, the balancing act is extreme. As a realist he welcomes China’s assertion as a great financial power, yet recognises Australia’s commitment to the US in any contest for strategic primacy.
After the full cabinet decision, a confident Mr Hockey, equipped with a mandate, advanced his talks with the Chinese, assuming this would lead to a memorandum of understanding with China about Australia’s entry.
Treasury believed Australia’s role in the new bank was vital to maintaining our influence in the changing financial architecture of the region.
While China is ready to make some concessions, the document is still far short of the concessions that Australia needs. The political sensitivities are intense. The Abbott government is hoping to finalise a free-trade agreement with China before the end of the year, with Mr Xi visiting next month for the G20 summit in Brisbane. Some ministers believe Mr Hockey exceeded his negotiating mandate from the full cabinet, leading China to think Australia would participate.
Other ministers believe Ms Bishop went too far in signalling to the US that Australia would remain aloof. It was recognised during the debate in the full cabinet that China was unlikely to meet the financial standards Australia required to join. Both Mr Hockey and Ms Bishop, along with other ministers, were alert to this reality.
The cabinet sentiment, however, was that even if not all Australia’s conditions were met, this should not necessarily rule out our participation. In the full cabinet debate Ms Bishop did not put the strategic argument against Australia’s role that dominated her subsequent NSC presentation.
The pressure from the Obama administration has been intense. Representations have come from the President, Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. This does not gainsay Australia’s own assessment. Ms Bishop has argued the issue in terms of the future strategic struggle within the Asia-Pacific between China and the US.
A majority of Asian nations, including India and Indonesia, are participating. But the Australian government believes that South Korea, another vital US ally, will stay aloof. Senior regional figures said they were looking to Australia to participate and negotiate away some of the unacceptable features of China’s proposal.
Former prime minister Paul Keating said yesterday that Australian’s involvement at a time when China was assuming greater regional responsibility was essential. Regional expert Ross Garnaut told The Australian: “The world needs much larger transfers of income-earning investments into infrastructure. Australia should welcome China’s commitment to this infrastructure bank.”
The government is prepared to join an institution where China has the biggest voice but rejects any arrangement where China can dictate events. Ms Bishop warned against joining an institution where Australia had no say where funds were invested. Ms Bishop argued the governance rules pointed to a financial institution whose purpose was to advance China’s interests in the region. Mr Hockey has the support of other economic ministers and business figures alert to the role China must play in funding Asia’s infrastructure. His most telling argument is that Australia can best exercise its regional influence by negotiating in good faith and then operating from within the new bank.
