China on our doorstep

[rederob]

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out with maritime access once/if China do control the SCS. It might mean that the SCS is bypassed, or deals are struck to allow China through the Malacca Strait and between the Andaman and Nicobar Islands for passage through the SCS. India could quite easily shut down that path from west to east in the future, isolating China. Hence one of the reasons why India are so important to the Quad.

How is the South China Sea on our doorstep?

The so called "freedom of navigation" exercises are utter nonsense. There is nothing hindering navigation in the SCS. If there is, perhaps someone can spell it out.

The notion that any nation other than China will be able to "control" traffic in the region will only be dispelled if and when India achieve dominance, and that's the latter part of this century if at all. It's no secret that US war games have not shown an American victory possible for some years now, and China's might is steadily increasing, numerically and technologically.

But isn't the reality here that most of the world's shipping trade is dominated by China's imports and exports? In that context China can be seen as ensuring its trade routes are not going to be compromised. Are we somehow to believe that China needs the west's assistance to maintain safe trade? Or perhaps that the west protecting our interests by containing China. The mindless logic to the west's assertions are counterproductive. The more China is isolated, the more it will do to ensure it does not have to rely on the west. And whether we like it or not, globalisation is here to stay. How it works is becoming more problematic, but cold war cliques and trade sanctions will not prove to be our friend into the future.

 

[rederob]

I am sure there is plenty of sensitive sites in the South China Sea too, but no maybe our ships and planes are just counting sea gulls and tracking turtles ?

Maybe the Chinese spy ship off our coast was looking for more sacred sited that were going to be bulldozed to make way for progress, and then rub our noses in it, à la Uyghurs.

 

[JohnDe]

More dangerous flight activity by the Chinese Airforce, now with the Canadian's.

"accused the Chinese air force of unprofessional and risky behaviour during the incidents.​

​

The Canadian aircraft were deployed in Japan as part of a multinational effort to enforce United Nations sanctions against North Korea, which has faced international penalties over its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles program.​

​

In some instances, the Canadian crews had to quickly modify their flight paths to “avoid a potential collision with the intercepting aircraft”, the Canadian military said in a statement."​

Trudeau slams ‘provocative’ air encounter with China

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has denounced Beijing’s “irresponsible and provocative” actions after Chinese jets came dangerous close to Canadian aircraft over Asia.

The incidents, in which Canadian aircraft deployed in Japan encountered, and in some cases had to avoid colliding with, Chinese jets, has again raised tensions between Beijing and Ottawa, just as the crisis over Canada’s 2018 arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou began to subside.

It comes just two days after Australia’s Chief of the Defence Force Angus Campbell and Defence secretary Greg Moriarty lodged furious protests with their counterparts in Beijing after a Chinese J-16 fighter placed the crew of an RAAF surveillance jet in jeopardy. In that incident, a Chinese J-16 fighter jet released chaff which was sucked into the engines of the RAAF P-8A Poseidon.

Speaking on Tuesday, Mr Trudeau said: “China’s actions are irresponsible and provocative in this case, and we will continue to register strongly that they are putting people at risk.”

Ottawa also accused the Chinese air force of unprofessional and risky behaviour during the incidents.

The Canadian aircraft were deployed in Japan as part of a multinational effort to enforce United Nations sanctions against North Korea, which has faced international penalties over its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles program.

In some instances, the Canadian crews had to quickly modify their flight paths to “avoid a potential collision with the intercepting aircraft”, the Canadian military said in a statement.

And at times Chinese planes tried to divert Canadian aircraft from their flight path and flew so close that the crew was “very clearly visible”, the statement read.

Mr Trudeau went on to say that China’s actions were “not respecting decisions by the UN to enforce UN sanctions on North Korea”.

China and Canada’s relationship has deteriorated severely following Ms Meng’s arrest at the request of the United States, and the subsequent detention of former diplomat Michael Kovrig and businessman Michael Spavor, both Canadian citizens, by China.

All three were finally released in September last year.

Beijing on Monday responded to Australia’s protests about the May 26 encounter between the J-16 fighter and the Poseidon, warning Canberra to “act prudently” or face “serious consequences”.

Former Australian air force chief Leo Davies described the Chinese actions “as aggressive as I have heard of”.

 

[JohnDe]

"A dismaying case in point involves fighter jets of China’s People’s Liberation Army (pla), which have in recent months staged dangerous, high-speed passes to intimidate Western military aircraft in international airspace near China."

The hotheads who could start a cold war
China’s deep distrust of America and the West is making it reckless

It is almost too polite to call the deepening rivalry between China and the American-led West a new cold war. The original cold war between America and the Soviet Union was grimly rational: a nuclear-armed confrontation between hostile ideological blocs which both longed to see the other fail. For all their differences, China and Western countries profit vastly if unevenly from exchanges of goods, people and services worth billions of dollars a year. Their respective leaders know that global problems from climate change to pandemics or nuclear proliferation can only be solved if they work together. Yet increasingly, interdependency is not enough to stop one side—often China, but not always—from starting reckless disputes rooted in suspicion of the other.

A dismaying case in point involves fighter jets of China’s People’s Liberation Army (pla), which have in recent months staged dangerous, high-speed passes to intimidate Western military aircraft in international airspace near China. Chinese pilots have flown so close that diplomats from America, Australia and Canada have lodged formal complaints with officials in Beijing. Western governments recall the crisis caused by a Chinese pilot who died after colliding with an American spy plane over the South China Sea in 2001. Going public, Australia’s defence minister accused a pla jet of cutting in front of one of its maritime-surveillance aircraft in the same area on May 26th, before releasing “chaff”—tiny metal-coated strips meant to confuse radar—that were sucked into one of the Australian plane’s engines. For its part, Canada accuses Chinese fighter jets of endangering one of its maritime-patrol aircraft flying out of Japan. Canadian officials note that their plane was on a month-long mission to detect North Korean smuggling, including ship-to-ship fuel transfers at sea, in support of United Nations sanctions designed to deter North Korea from developing nuclear missiles. These are sanctions that China approved as a permanent member of the Security Council. China’s actions “are putting people at risk while at the same time not respecting decisions by the un”, said Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau.

These mid-air interceptions are worrying evidence of the pla’s appetite for risk. But defences offered by the Chinese government point to a still larger problem. Chinese distrust of America and its allies is so deep that the two camps do not agree about even basic principles. When America and Western powers try to discuss rules to ensure safe encounters in international waters or skies, China’s response is to growl that foreign warships and planes should stay far from its shores. Its foreign ministry, which has promoted spokespeople who thrill nationalists with shows of contempt for the West, questions the legitimacy of surveillance missions, though these are normal for advanced armed forces, as when a Chinese spy ship loitered 50 nautical miles (93km) from an Australian military communications base last month. Zhao Lijian, a pugnacious foreign-ministry spokesman, said that Australia’s aircraft “seriously threatened China’s sovereignty and security”, and called China’s response “professional, safe, reasonable and legal”. The defence ministry accused Canada of using sanctions as a pretext for “provocations against China” and noted that un resolutions on North Korea offer no mandate for anti-smuggling operations.

Take a step back, and the row reveals how China and the West doubt one another’s sincerity when it comes to ridding the Korean peninsula of nuclear weapons. The un’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, warned on June 6th that the first North Korean nuclear test since 2017 may be imminent, noting activity at a test site. Markus Garlauskas of Georgetown University in Washington was America’s national intelligence officer for North Korea from 2014 to 2020. He calls Chinese “obstructionism” over sanctions enforcement “exactly the wrong message” to send to North Korea at such a moment. Last month China and Russia vetoed an American-drafted un resolution tightening sanctions on North Korea after it tested ballistic missiles. Western diplomats worry that a rare area of agreement with China—a shared concern about a nuclear-armed North Korea— is crumbling.

Such mistrust is mirrored in China, whose diplomats scold America for failing to offer any incentives for North Korea to return to the negotiating table, after failed summit meetings between Kim Jong Un, the North Korean leader, and Donald Trump, the president at the time. Zhao Tong, a Beijing-based disarmament expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a research institute, reports that a growing number of Chinese scholars suspect that America “doesn’t want to resolve the North Korean nuclear problem”. Such scholars believe that America is using the threat from North Korea to rally South Korea and Japan behind its true goal, namely containing China, says Mr Zhao.

Close encounters of the reckless kind
China faces unwelcome choices, says Li Nan, an expert on North Korea at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. He reports that North Korean officials yearn for a cold war in Asia, believing that Russia and China would take their side, wrecking the long-standing Chinese policy of seeking balanced relations with North and South Korea, which is an important Chinese trading partner. He says that China is anxious to avoid an ideological division of Asia, which would push South Korea and Japan even closer to America. Indeed, China still supports un sanctions on North Korea, insists Mr Li. In his telling, China sees Korean disarmament as an area for co-operation with America, but is losing hope that North Korea is a priority for Joe Biden, America’s president.

The prospect of North Korea fielding nuclear missiles that can hit far-off continents—a nightmare that brought China and the West together at the un as recently as 2017—is no longer enough to build trust. Meanwhile, the pla tries to use fear to put Western powers in their place and show that China plays by different rules. It is not a cold war yet. But hotheads are courting disaster. ■

 

[JohnDe]

Speaking in April 2021, New Zealand Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta likened her country’s relationship with China to a harmonious connection between two mythical creatures.
“Taniwha are protectors or guardians, often of water, and hold dominion over rivers, seas, lands and territories,” she told the NZ China Council in Wellington. “The Dragon and the Taniwha can have respect for solutions that seek to benefit kotahitanga (solidarity) and our future generations.”

Not surprisingly, progressives responded to this declaration with the usual oohs and aahs, particularly given Mahuta was the first Indigenous woman to hold the foreign affairs portfolio. Never mind that she had no formal experience in this field. As she said upon assuming her role six months before this speech, she wanted to bring a “Māori world view” to the role.

Her critics, commentator Carrie Stoddart-Smith told Radio New Zealand, were motivated by bias. “Just as the antique wood and vintage carpets of the old men’s clubs across Wellington still carry the stench of colonisation, so too does their crumbling fortress,” she sneered.

So how did that turn out? Well, the best that can be said of Mahuta’s simile is that it was creative and original. Her China policy, otherwise known as fence-sitting, was not.

But that changed when the Kiwis belatedly recognised that China’s Pacific expansionism also threatens their country. When Washington and Wellington released a joint statement last week warning of “the establishment of a persistent military presence in the Pacific by a state that does not share our values,” Beijing reacted menacingly, warning that New Zealand’s reputation as a “green, clean, open and friendly country” should not be “squandered”.

In other words, the country’s $19 billion trade relationship with China is at risk. Suffice to say Dragon no longer tickles Taniwha’s tummy, instead threatening to bite him on the backside. I hate to say it, Ms Mahuta, but Kangaroo did warn his friend Taniwha repeatedly that Dragon was up to no good.
This blinkered approach was due not just to naivety and incompetence, but also opportunistic sycophancy. Take for example Trade Minister Damien O’Connor. Interviewed last year by CNBC following New Zealand’s upgraded trade deal with China, he spoke of his country’s “mature and honest” relationship with Beijing. “If (the Australians) were to follow us and show respect, I guess a little more diplomacy from time to time, and be cautious with wording, then they, too, hopefully could be in a similar situation,” he said obsequiously.
When Mahuta publicly announced last year that New Zealand would not countenance expanding the remit of the Five Eyes alliance to pressure Beijing, she blindsided Australian officials. China’s state-run media was delighted.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Picture: AFP
“In sharp contrast with Australia, which tied itself to the US’ chariot, New Zealand has maintained a relatively independent approach on foreign policies, paving the way for the country to pursue policies that benefit its own economy,” the Global Times declared. Beijing had good reason to be smug. It had succeeded in fracturing an alliance that goes back 80 years.
Ultimately, however, it is Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who bears responsibility. “The New Zealand Labour leader’s preference for cosying up to China’s communist rulers comes at a time when the consensus among the world’s leading democracies is that Beijing poses the greatest threat to their long-term well-being and prosperity,” wrote the UK Telegraph’s chief foreign affairs columnist Con Coughlin.
As for what Ardern has done for the Pacific, she saw the region primarily as just another backdrop to grandstand and make provincial cheap shots. Who could forget her sanctimonious declaration in 2019 at the Pacific Islands Forum that “Australia has to answer to the Pacific” for its climate change policies? China’s Foreign Ministry gleefully seized on these remarks, accusing Australia of acting like a “condescending master” towards Pacific Island countries.
That’s not to say our diplomatic efforts in the Pacific have been without fault, but at least Australia has been consistent in resisting and calling out Beijing’s hegemony. The same cannot be said of Ardern, Mahuta, and O’Connor, whose contributions to regional security are worthy of a comedy stage show. The Three Amigos of Aotearoa, perhaps?
–
A question for Kiwi readers: is there something across the Tasman that fosters ridiculous expectations and an obnoxious sense of entitlement, particularly when it comes to Australia?
What prompted me to ask was Filipa Payne, a co-founder of the group Iwi in Australia and lead activist for Route 501, an organisation that takes its name from the section of the Migration Act allowing visa cancellations on character grounds. As she told Newstalk ZB radio last month, she intends bringing a class action against the Australian government for deporting New Zealand citizens who have committed criminal offences resulting in 12 months or more imprisonment.
So egregious is their alleged treatment she intends reporting Australia to the United Nations for human rights violations. After all, it is our fault these Kiwi expatriates commit offences in the first place, at least according to Payne.
“It’s not just that people go there and decide to be a criminal,” she told New Zealand television news show ‘Breakfast’ in February. “It’s the fact that we don’t get support in Australian society to sustain us to the standard to keep our families healthy … So before we put the accountability on criminal activity, I think the accountability should go on the Australian government … they invite us into their country to work there.”

Invite? No other country enjoys the blanket residency and work visas that New Zealanders have in Australia. But as far as freeloaders are concerned, no good deed goes unpunished. “Mr Albanese should give us a shared pathway to residency in Australia” and “voting rights,” said Payne. That’s just “for a start” she added.
According to New Zealand magazine In The Dogbox, Payne likens her campaign against the Australian government to the actions of Wang Weilin, the Chinese protester who stood in front of tanks in Tiananmen Square. I have no words.
Ardern has indicated the removal of Kiwi criminals, which she strongly objects to, will be “front and centre” at talks today with Prime Minster Anthony Albanese. This is an example of the stark difference between what one wants and what one needs to hear. I am reminded of The Spectator columnist Rod Liddle, who was amused by British activists protesting the deportations of foreign-born residents who committed serious offences. “If I were in charge of the deportation program, it would be like the Berlin airlift,” he wrote. “One plane leaving every 30 seconds”.

THE MOCKER​

 

[Sean K]

The Mocker nails it every week. NZ is almost a liability to ANZUS at the moment.

 

[3 hound]

Wouldn't be so bad if these clowns only hurt themselves but good innocent people will have to suffer for their narcissism.

 

[bux2000]

and yet we live in clown world where even the Australian version of Bernie Sanders just became Prime Minister on a vote of less than 40% ( of first preferences )

Welcome to our world I just hope it isn't to be yours soon too

The Mocker nails it every week. NZ is almost a liability to ANZUS at the moment.

No argument from me

There are so many things going on here at the moment that makes my head spin

3 waters

What is the Government's Three Waters plan and why is it making mayors so upset?

"We don't trust it, we don't have confidence in it, and we don't find it credible."

www.newshub.co.nz

Since then 3 waters has been mandated by our government and there is a lot more to that story. You have to hope there is nothing sinister about a Governments complete control of what is added to its populations drinking water.

and Our only Oil Refinery

Marsden Point: New Zealand 'naive' to shut down its only oil refinery - Australian analyst

"If the oil refinery in New Zealand closes, you are totally reliant on oil companies doing the right things... a really dangerous proposition."

www.newshub.co.nz

If I understand it correctly the nuts and bolts of this refinery has been sold and packed up to go to China and the balance of the bulky items sent to scrap (China) with the remaining pipework now being filled with concrete.

What is disturbing is it appears 99% of NZ's population is either unaware of what is going on or uninterested.

NZ's manufacturing has gone along with the generations from the 60's, 70's and 80's with the skills and know how, are to old to build the machines that were once built here to once again create any sort of manufacturing base.

All done to support an emerging economy that is now China.

I am not sure how the Electric Cars are going to travel on roads without bitumen.........that's right we can just import it from China.

bux

 

[Value Collector]

I am not sure how the Electric Cars are going to travel on roads without bitumen.........that's right we can just import it from China.

bux

New Zealand can mine bitumen directly if they need to, but Bitumen is also highly recycled so a lot of the bitumen supply comes from old roads that are resurfaced, you can also add plastics into bitumen during the recycling process.

Here is a 35 page document from the New Zealand government looking into alternative supplies of bitumen, so I think it’s something they have been looking at for a while.

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/Hig...itumen-alternatives-report-31-august-2021.PDF

 

[Telamelo]

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/chinas-new-nuclear-plans-could-see-them-strike-australia-within-a-week/news-story/1ae74924f37abdd9103aa6e36e9762ce

 

[mullokintyre]

The Chinese embassy have accused right wing activist Drew Pavlou with making a bomb Hoax, and had him arrested by british police as a terrorist.
From The Guardian

Australian activist Drew Pavlou has been arrested in the UK over a false “bomb threat” delivered to the Chinese embassy in London, that he claims came from a fake email address designed to frame him.

Pavlou said the “absurd” email claimed he would blow up the embassy over Beijing’s oppression of its Uyghur Muslim minority, but that it was confected by the embassy in order to have him arrested.


Pavlou said he held a “small peaceful human rights protest” carrying a Uyghur flag outside the Chinese embassy in central London. In retaliation, he alleged, the embassy reported him to police as a suspected “terrorist”.

The fake email allegedly said: “this is Drew Pavlou, you have until 12pm to stop the Uyghur genocide or I blow up the embassy with a bomb. Regards, Drew”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ijing-accuses-australia-of-provocation-at-sea
Pavlou, a longstanding and vociferous critic of Beijing’s oppression of China’s Uyghur minority, said the email was allegedly sent from an account: drewpavlou99@protonmail.me.

Using something like Proton mail is purely for encrypted anonymity.
It hides the tracks of the sender.
Why you would go to that much trouble then put your name to the email?
Kinda makes me think its more likely someone else sending the emai in Pavlou's namel.
I wonder who that might have been??
Mick

 

[3 hound]

right wing activist....

a longstanding and vociferous critic of Beijing’s oppression of China’s Uyghur minority,

Geez according to the guardian anyone right of Chairman Mao or Stalin is a right wing activist.


Also

Regards, Drew”.

LMAO.

 

[againsthegrain]

Geez according to the guardian anyone right of Chairman Mao or Stalin is a right wing activist.


Also

Regards, Drew”.

LMAO.

surprisingly they haven't labelled him a white nationalist... yet

 

[qldfrog]

surprisingly they haven't labelled him a white nationalist... yet

Maybe he is not white..ohh horror...
How can the West be so dumb.
There is probably a thread on the embassy WeChat full of ????

 

[3 hound]

surprisingly they haven't labelled him a white nationalist... yet

By definition a sovereign nation has borders = white nationalist = bad.

....goes on to support Ukraine's national sovereignty with sanctions crippling the world economy, military hardware & intelligence, billions of dollars.....all to maintain Ukraine's borders.

 

[qldfrog]

By definition a sovereign nation has borders = white nationalist = bad.

....goes on to support Ukraine's national sovereignty with sanctions crippling the world economy, military hardware & intelligence, billions of dollars.....all to maintain Ukraine's borders.

If Ukraine was attacked by a Muslim or non White country, NATO would be bombing Kiev..
Remember Serbia and Kosovo?
Discovered that the poor bugger daring to face CCP is Australian activist.
Silly him, he should have been protesting against Putin and would have been offered protective escort and some grants.
Funny how our country produces truth fighters Assange, this guy who are quickly forgotten by both sides of our politicians..and our citizens...
Maybe as a lessons : keep quiet, get another booster, and watch their ABC or latest Big Brother or MAFS

 

[qldfrog]

And about China....
When i think these dimwit giverning us , both sides, are going to spent billions to get a dozen tin can targets, potentially dangerous when sunk and be unable to defend us.i cry..

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/chinas-new-nuclear-plans-could-see-them-strike-australia-within-a-week/news-story/1ae74924f37abdd9103aa6e36e9762ce

 

[3 hound]

And about China....
When i think these dimwit giverning us , both sides, are going to spent billions to get a dozen tin can targets, potentially dangerous when sunk and be unable to defend us.i cry..

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/chinas-new-nuclear-plans-could-see-them-strike-australia-within-a-week/news-story/1ae74924f37abdd9103aa6e36e9762ce

From the article, this gives me so much confidence in our leadership to organise things and stay ahead of the curve.

"Australia’s defence force aspires to a $170 billion force of 12 large, fully crewed submarines.

China’s researchers say they can deliver wolf-packs of the AI-controlled weapon within 10 years.

After 15 years of dithering over a replacement for the ageing Collins-class diesel-electric submarines, Australia’s earliest possible date for constructing nuclear replacements is in the 2040s."

 

[JohnDe]

I understand their would be two different views to the concept of China parking a security presents in the Solomon Islands. Personally I say no worry's mate, China's just moving forward and could help the economy of the Solomon Islands. As for military bases I don't look so far into it and I like to stay away from US intel and reference because their a bad cook, can't be trusted. Plus I believe Australia being a monarchy doesn't help our cause or know were it's coming from exactly.
Scomo on the other hand is sh*ting his dipers, and putting money into defence. fair enough do that any way but it doesn't need the war mung a. A influence he picks up from the US. It's all about who's got the biggest weapons with them. NO NEED

Anyone got any views on the matter? What economic implications it has on Australia I don't know besides Scomo...

...Competition between the US and China is likely to be economic rather than military, Kissinger suggests. But how the US and its allies such as Australia deal with China is “a historic task”. With Taiwan a flashpoint, Kissinger urges a “cooling” of rhetoric by the US and China because it makes the situation more “tense” and heightens the risk of conflict.​

​

Describing Australia as part of the “complex tapestry” in Asia-Pacific region, Kissinger believes we should continue to deepen relations with the US; he welcomes the Quad with the US, India and Japan; and encourages continued dialogue with China.​

​

“Australia, as an American ally, is entitled to the protection of its security and therefore its close strategic co-operation with the US,” he says. On China, Kissinger adds: “The dialogue can take place in which the two sides are trusting in their conduct towards each other to prevent accidents and unnecessary confrontation.”​

Kissinger’s advice to Australia​

The US statesman on Australia’s China dilemma, when the Ukraine war is likely to end and names the two historical leaders we most need today.

Henry Kissinger was an academic theorist and geopolitical strategist who became synonymous with high-level summitry and shuttle diplomacy, a counsellor to successive US presidents, lauded by many as a statesman and Nobel prize-winner yet loathed by others for his realpolitik approach to global affairs.
In a wide-ranging interview, the nonagenarian former US national security adviser and secretary of state to Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford discusses his new book profiling six world leaders alongside his formative years, academic career, White House tenure, and thoughts on Russia-Ukraine, China’s ambitions, US divisions and Australia’s position in the fracturing world order.

Kissinger’s life has been interlinked with critical world events from the coming to power of Adolf Hitler in Germany, World War II and the Holocaust, the Cold War and fear of nuclear armageddon, to the struggle for peace in the Middle East, the Vietnam War, detente with the Soviet Union, the opening to China and its superpower rivalry with the US.

It is this intersection with history that makes Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy such a compelling book. He combines personal encounters with historical analysis to vividly chronicle the lives of Konrad Adenauer, Charles de Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat, Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher.

Each possessed the vital attributes of courage and character and were shaped by “the fiery furnace” of the 30-year period from the end of World War I to the end of World War II. They came of age as war shattered certainties and sought to redefine the purpose and direction of their countries, and contributed to the development of a new structure for world affairs.

They pursued strategies that defined themselves and the ambitions for their country and its place among the community of nations. Adenauer adopted a strategy of “humility”; for de Gaulle it was “will”; Nixon applied “equilibrium”; Sadat sought “transcendence”; Lee practised “excellence”, and Thatcher was bound by unshakeable “conviction”.

But the problem today, Kissinger says, is he cannot identify a single leader who has those essential qualities of courage, which brings virtue at the critical hours of decision, and character, which ensures dedication to values over time. Nor can he see an emerging leader to match that of the post-war era.

“You have to be optimistic about this because if it doesn’t happen, the situation will become more and more confused and world order will become more and more harder to implement,” a relaxed and reflective Kissinger says in his unmistakeable Bavarian accent via Zoom.

“In fairness, too, the great leaders may not have looked so great at earlier stages in their career.”

In 1938, at age 15, Kissinger escaped with his family from Nazi Germany, first to London and then to New York to make a new life. They met other Jewish families who had also fled Europe. It took a huge toll on his father, Louis, and mother, Paula. Because of their ages, it had less of an impact on Kissinger and his younger brother, Walter.

They did not know the horrors that were to be unleashed and would later discover that many family members were killed during the Holocaust. Kissinger never imagined he would return to Germany just six years later as a soldier in the US Army.

I was a child when Hitler came to office,” Kissinger recalls. “All civil rights of the Jewish people in Germany were abolished and there were restrictions on where you could live. And so, it was an experience as a discriminated minority … but it didn’t have the impact on me that it had on my parents, whose lives were destroyed.”

While studying at college, Kissinger was drafted and joined the 84th Infantry Division. He landed on the same Normandy beach where Allied forces had waded ashore months earlier. He helped liberate a concentration camp at Ahlem and earned a Bronze Star for counterintelligence work that led to the busting of a Gestapo unit.

After the war, he earned a bachelor’s degree, masters and doctorate from Harvard. He drew lessons from the broad sweep of history, studying Arnold Toynbee and Oswald Spengler, together with statecraft, diplomacy and balance-of-power politics, and wrote a doctorate on the Congress of Vienna, which redrew the map of Europe in the post-Napoleonic era.

He taught government and international affairs at Harvard, and wrote several books. But Kissinger was eyeing a larger canvas, eager to influence contemporary policy. He served as consultant to the National Security Council, writing memos to John F. Kennedy, and as an adviser to New York governor Nelson Rockefeller’s 1960 and 1968 campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination.

“Working in the Kennedy White House for about 15 months taught me two things,” Kissinger says. “One, how the government operated; before that I didn’t really know how the security adviser conducts himself because it was a relatively new position in the American government. And, secondly, it showed me the complexity of the process of decision-making.”

Kissinger did not know Nixon well before being offered the position of national security adviser. He initially baulked at the invitation. Rockefeller urged him to accept. Kissinger soon found that Nixon was “the best prepared” incoming president on foreign policy since Theodore Roosevelt.

“Nixon had an unusual understanding of the strategic elements that were involved in policymaking and so from that point of view he was the most unique American leader, and he had great courage in implementing his convictions,” Kissinger judged.

Kissinger, short, stocky and curly-haired with trademark horn-rimmed glasses, became a global celebrity in his own right. Although the White House was simmering with animosity and suspicion, and Nixon and Kissinger secretly recorded phone conversations, even with each other, Kissinger says they formed a close “partnership” that grew personally warmer over time. He credits Nixon with taking the US from “faltering dominance to creative leadership” around the world.

“There was no real rivalry between us but, given the passions of the period, the media had a tendency to give me maybe undue credit for individual decisions,” Kissinger says. “Whatever contribution I made could not have been made in the absence of a strong and thoughtful president.”

They inherited the Vietnam War, which destroyed Lyndon Johnson’s presidency and divided Americans. Nixon promised “peace with honour”. The task, Kissinger saw it, was “navigating between victory and defeat”. He defends the conduct of the war and the peace settlement even though they intensified the conflict knowing victory was unlikely. They wanted to force North Vietnam to the negotiating table. The secret bombing of Cambodia killed about 100,000 people and devastated the country.

“There were North Vietnamese divisions on Cambodian territory which were killing Americans daily, (so) the basic structure of our policy was correct,” Kissinger maintains. “Every American president, having to deal with this kind of war, has carried it out in roughly the same manner. But, no doubt, we could have handled some things more skilfully.” The Paris Accords, Kissinger argues, “depended on the willingness” of congress “to enforce its provisions”. But lawmakers reduced economic and military assistance to South Vietnam, and refused to authorise US airpower across Indochina. The North overran the South and Saigon fell in 1975.

It is 50 years since Nixon met Mao Zedong. Kissinger led the secret negotiations with China, visiting in 1971, and paving the way for Nixon’s trip the following year. Kissinger, who had five meetings with Mao, says the strategy was to have the US closer to China and the Soviet Union than they were to each other.

“China was strategically much weaker than the US and the greatest threat to the balance in the world order was the Soviet Union,” Kissinger explains. “This co-operation between China and the US lasted until little more than a decade ago, and now a new situation exists.”

Competition between the US and China is likely to be economic rather than military, Kissinger suggests. But how the US and its allies such as Australia deal with China is “a historic task”. With Taiwan a flashpoint, Kissinger urges a “cooling” of rhetoric by the US and China because it makes the situation more “tense” and heightens the risk of conflict.

Describing Australia as part of the “complex tapestry” in Asia-Pacific region, Kissinger believes we should continue to deepen relations with the US; he welcomes the Quad with the US, India and Japan; and encourages continued dialogue with China.

“Australia, as an American ally, is entitled to the protection of its security and therefore its close strategic co-operation with the US,” he says. On China, Kissinger adds: “The dialogue can take place in which the two sides are trusting in their conduct towards each other to prevent accidents and unnecessary confrontation.”

Russia’s need to “dominate its surroundings” and its “expansionist urge” is fundamental to its security, Kissinger says. He has met Vladimir Putin many times since the 1990s. He says Putin has a “mystic” view of Russia, believing its strength comes from its resilience and laments the break-up of the Soviet Union. He doubts Russia can continue to wage war with Ukraine long-term. He recently suggested the conflict might cease with Russia returning to the “status quo” as in before February when Crimea had been annexed and Donetsk and Luhansk were controlled by Russian separatists. He believes Russia would see this as a victory but in reality, it is a defeat.

“The question is: should it be fought to the absolute exhaustion of all participants or whether at some point there will be a discussion after which Ukraine, Russia and Europe can live together,” Kissinger says. “I expect there to be a diplomatic effort. My instincts say it will happen sometime this year. There is no ambient sign of this happening yet.”

Kissinger remains a realist and pragmatist in the conduct of foreign relations in pursuit of a more stable world order. He has long argued that countries need to accommodate the interests of other countries within the limits of what is acceptable against national values. He places a premium on discussion and negotiation, especially in an age of artificial intelligence weaponry, which is more dangerous than the risk of nuclear conflict during the Cold War. “Russia and the US permitted themselves to be defeated by non-nuclear countries without resorting to nuclear weapons,” Kissinger says. “Hi-tech countries should not get themselves involved in a war with each other and have an obligation … to remain in dialogue with each other to prevent it. This is not yet happening and therefore the danger of a military conflict is greater than should be.”

The cover-up of the break-in at Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Office Building by Republican Party operatives resulted in Nixon’s resignation in 1974. Kissinger describes Nixon’s downfall as a “tragedy” as the inner demons of insecurity, paranoia and hate overwhelmed him.

“Some people in the administration were afraid that he might make a coup,” Kissinger recalls. “There was never any such thought … Nixon knew that he was partly responsible for what had happened and that it was not something that was imposed on him. It grew out of mistakes he had made and the atmospheres he had created.”

Nixon’s resignation letter was written to Kissinger as secretary of state, who had been appointed to that position in 1973 and remained national security adviser. It was, for Kissinger, a sad end to a consequential presidency that changed the world. He recalls the final night of the Nixon presidency. Summoned to the White House, Kissinger found Nixon alone in the Lincoln Sitting Room. He was seated on a lounge chair with his legs on a settee and yellow legal pad on his lap. The president was “distraught” and in “agony”. They spoke for almost three hours and prayed in the Lincoln Bedroom as the clock ticked towards midnight.

“He wanted to go over with me what had happened in his administration and how history would deal with it,” Kissinger recollects. “I said to him, ‘History will treat you better than your contemporaries did’. And so, this was really the theme of that evening.

“He invited me to a short prayer – he didn’t define what faith he was praying to – but he did it with the conviction that, however God was expressed in the various religions, he could recognise what was sincere. But this was not a melodramatic event; it was sort of a conclusion to a meeting that was very moving because here he had appointed the chief adviser of his principal rival (Rockefeller) to join him as his national security adviser.”

Kissinger, who served Ford as secretary of state until 1977, notes Dean Acheson once said retired leaders often reflect on “alternative course of action” they could have taken. So, I ask Kissinger if he regretted any actions, or failures of action, regarding Indochina, the coup in Chile, the invasion of East Timor or any of the other controversies during his tenure.

“We certainly don’t claim to be infallible,” he responds. “We tried not to do impetuous things and in almost every case thought through our issues carefully, which doesn’t preclude that other points of view may not have some validity, but on the key issues we tried to act responsibly towards people who differed with us and towards the way history would look at what we did.”

In the 45 years since Kissinger left government, his counsel has been sought by every president from Jimmy Carter to Donald Trump (he met Joe Biden as vice-president) and countless world leaders. He has “compassion” for all the presidents he has known given the “pressures” they face. Asked to nominate who would have made a great president, he offers two: Rockefeller and John McCain.

Today, the US faces an outlook like that when Nixon took office. “It is a tale first of exuberant confidence generating overextension and then of overextension giving birth to debilitating self-doubt,” Kissinger writes. The US faces challenges to its strategies and values, and “there is renewed potential for catastrophic confrontation”.

There is little comparison between Nixon’s attempted cover-up of the Watergate burglary and Trump’s attempt to overturn an election, Kissinger says. He is appalled by Trump’s behaviour and troubled by divisions in the US at a time when the rules-based order is under strain.

“These (January 6th Committee) hearings that are now taking place are not about an attempt to carry out American politics by inappropriate means but an attempt to undo a constitutional process,” he says. “We were lucky that Gerald Ford as vice-president and then president was a man who brought about a greater degree of moral cohesion. Right now, we have not yet found the anchor point of cohesion in America.”

Kissinger is right that leadership, especially in the political arena, alters the destiny of nations. Human agency is often the driving force of change. He is an advocate for “transformative” leadership, categorised as “statesmen” or “prophets”, who transcend crises and “raise their society to their visions”. His six case studies – Adenauer, de Gaulle, Nixon, Sadat, Lee and Thatcher – illustrate this. Each of them had qualities that are in short supply today.

But asked which leader we most need today, Kissinger names de Gaulle and Thatcher. “They understood their own societies very well and so they knew how to formulate their politics in a way that they would likely win support,” he says. De Gaulle, he adds, understood “how to gain power and how to use it” and Thatcher had convictions that she defended so “the middle ground would move towards her”.

At 99, Kissinger remains sharp with a remarkable recall of people and events, and an informed and perceptive take on global issues. He remains an ever-present figure on the world stage, sometimes controversial but with unique authority.

So, after an hour-long tour d’horizon, I ask the secret to living a long and productive life?

“Two things: choose your parents well,” he says with a smile. “Both my parents lived into their late 90s, an ambition I never had explicitly, but I am happy to take it.”

Henry Kissinger’s Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy is published by Allen Lane.

TROY BRAMSTON​

SENIOR WRITER

 

[Telamelo]

Australia given our rich natural resources/mineral's can/should thank China for keeping our economy above water so to speak as our largest trading partner over these past several decades.

Wish this rhetoric around China being our perceived enemy/theat in the Asia Pacific region would stop - what makes it worse is our further strengthening of our alliance with Britain & the US as of course China sees this as a security threat within the Asia Pacific region. No wonder our recent relationship with China has derailed as a result.

If Australia was neutral in such matters we would be able to trade with everyone & not be impacted by silly sanctions (as imposed by China in recent times).

We don't need to be spending billions of $$ on national security as it ain't going to achieve anything/no benefit whatsoever as in fact makes us more of an imminent target imo