Pacific Islands - Polynesia and Melanesia.

[StevoJH]

I think that a refocus on our immediate area would be a good thing, especially with China showing an interest over the last couple of years. Whatever Australia & New Zealand can do to keep these countries in our sphere's of influence and out of China's needs to be done.

Especially if China is even considering the basing of forces on these islands. Considering the population base and economies of these countries it wouldn't take much to completely dominate their trade and economies if China were to build an air or naval base in the area purely through the consumption and spending of those forces.

 

[MrConservative]

The Pacific Island forum is one place where Aust and NZ can do much more.
This annual meeting has languished ever since the coup in Fiji and given the latest events it's a place where many of these suggestions can be matured and progressed.
I only hope that more can be done as there was a time, in the 50s and 60s when Pacific affairs were the primary focus for our two countries, our presence on the world stage was far more restricted and the Pacific was one place where our influence mattered.
Unfortunately our focus has shifted but it needs to once more include this vital area of interest.

Pacific Islands Forum head says China base OK if no risk posed

Indeed if the above is the accepted messaging from its current political leadership.

https://www.victoria.ac.nz/chinares...om-oceania/4-Dame-Meg-Taylor-SG-statement.pdf

The senior official is probably more measured in a diplomats view and it would be interesting to get her comments.

 

[StevoJH]

I do notice that they decline to mention that Guam is a Sovereign US Territory and has been since 1898.

I would argue that is a slightly different situation, and given the relationship between the US and the major powers of the region, much less destabilising then even a token Chinese military presence would be.

 

[MrConservative]

I think that a refocus on our immediate area would be a good thing, especially with China showing an interest over the last couple of years. Whatever Australia & New Zealand can do to keep these countries in our sphere's of influence and out of China's needs to be done.

Especially if China is even considering the basing of forces on these islands. Considering the population base and economies of these countries it wouldn't take much to completely dominate their trade and economies if China were to build an air or naval base in the area purely through the consumption and spending of those forces.

With the use of "our" I do hope you are including all the nations of the South Pacific and not just NZ and Australia because we do need to distance ourselves from the "colonialist" label as it is a weapon used against us.

 

[StevoJH]

Of course.

Those times ended for Australia on the 16th of September 1975, no matter what certain politicians may claim.

The fact remains though, that China involving itself in the region military poses a potential risk to every nation, *especially* the smaller ones who have less means to do something about it.

 

[Wombat000]

There is no real thing as a power vacuum.
Someone will move to exploit any potential.
I dont think one needs a carrier group to make ‘passive’ military expansionism difficult.
I believe it requires persistent competent even modest military presence/diplomacy. - regular interactions via a frigate is more effective than only a patrol boat, but a capable frigate is a good diplomatic statement (‘the lights are on AND someone is home!’).
A tokenistic approach to Defence will not allow definitive projection of influence in the South Pacific (NZ prime area of influence) during this era of a rising China.
Perceptions (rightly or wrongly) of NZ regional irrelevance will ultimately hurt it.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

New Zealand can not win a head to head arms race against any G20 member. So we must use hacks. Imagine the Armes race is a swimming pool, and G20 nations win the race with industrial brute force blowing up the pool. But a hack can find the one pane of glass amongst many tiles, using the least amount of force to break the glass spilling the water every where destroying the pool.

Because New Zealand's industrial economy is insufficient today does not mean she will not be superior to that of other nations tomorrow. New Zealand's average wage is a little over $74,000. China's is 1/6 that about $12,000. To maintain this lead in productivity NZStatistics must add so many more indicators to how they measure high standards of living, weather, consumption taxes, good terms of trade, holiday, health, education, leisure, travel, energy security, sustenance and freedoms of speech and other democratic rights so parliament can feasibly manage the carrying capacity of land. And as I say, using the least amount of force to break the glass.

 

[ASSAIL]

New Zealand can not win a head to head arms race against any G20 member. So we must use hacks. Imagine the Armes race is a swimming pool, and G20 nations win the race with industrial brute force blowing up the pool. But a hack can find the one pane of glass amongst many tiles, using the least amount of force to break the glass spilling the water every where destroying the pool.

Because New Zealand's industrial economy is insufficient today does not mean she will not be superior to that of other nations tomorrow. New Zealand's average wage is a little over $74,000. China's is 1/6 that about $12,000. To maintain this lead in productivity NZStatistics must add so many more indicators to how they measure high standards of living, weather, consumption taxes, good terms of trade, holiday, health, education, leisure, travel, energy security, sustenance and freedoms of speech and other democratic rights so parliament can feasibly manage the carrying capacity of land. And as I say, using the least amount of force to break the glass.

I have no idea of what point you are making apart from saying that freedoms and standards of living are greater in NZ than in China?

Back to your first point, no one is suggesting that NZ ramps up her defence spending to rate with G20 nations, that's not the point of influence.
NZ has great connections throughout the S Pacific nations, there are family relationships, large movement of peoples and a common love of Rugby which has always made NZ nation of influence for these islands, more so than Australia. NZ is part of the Polynesian family.
However, that relationship needs nurturing and over the last decade and with particular respect to Fiji, that relationship has become bruised. These nations need our capital, they need our aid and we need to make a greater effort by more frequent joint operations and military support.
What China can't provide is these social affiliations most enjoyed by NZ. What they can provide is bag loads of cash and that's the point of difference and our advantage if greater effort, both civil and military is provided.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

I have no idea of what point you are making.

I seriously think the community underestimate just how powerful China really is. And in saying this I'm not aware of any one in the pacific islands that say New Zealand is an essential feature in there sporting history. In fact they say we are a net drain on them. But if you wish to start your history from like this morning then some may be right to think New Zealand is just that outstanding that we could carry the South Pacific through an industrial revolution that would make the even American fore fathers jealous. So thank you for allowing me to properly explain what y'all are talking about.

When I was a boy going through my education in the 80's China was not a problem. We were told to be disciplined and kind to others, and each time the teacher would be satisfied they'd done a fine job indoctrinating the class. 30 years later China is a problem so what's happened to the discipline and kindness me and my class mates were told are fantastic kiwi values? Well over the last 10 years the land has turned stagnant and septic. And that's hardened attitudes and made kiwi values selfish. We even celebrate the failure of New Zealand's infrastructure as a kind of highly nobble effort. Which is rubbish. And now we seek to replace China's roads to nowhere with our blinged out roads of national significance. Come on now, pacific leaders are not that stupid. It could be pacific island nations watch subtitled movies of a Bollywood style Avengers. Point is we do not have our hands on pacific nations levers of power.

Chinese chemicals and minerals essential for modern day life is cheap and will remain cheap. China has 4 times more workers than the US, so China could be a quarter as productive to be level with the US economy. China could even be half as productive and have an economy twice as powerful as the US. And the Chinese can do this in a matter of days. Meaning that China can totally overwhelm the US both technologically and logistically in a matter of days if they wanted, or are pushed to. So medium term Chinese manufacturing will be the big winners.

Who ever can integrate those roads into there cultural identity and make society wealthier while doing so will ultimately have there hands around South Pacific levers of power.

But none of this means we modify the $20bln defence fund. Not at all. If anything we should add another $10bln fund after that, so $30bln over the next 27 years so that we can actually do what we're are supposed to, deploy and sustain a battalion sized element in any threat profile, casually.

 

[StevoJH]

I'm failing to understand quite what point you are making.

Are you trying to say that everyone should just give up because China is just not even worth trying to counter?

As for comparing the US to China, there are a lot of *if* and *but* statements in that Paragraph. Yes China's economy is growing rapidly and will probably eclipse the US in the next 10-15 years, however that doesn't explain why you seem to think they can do this and develop technology to defeat the US in a matter of days. Even if they (hypothetically) had 100 million people working in R & D labs doing nothing else, it takes *years* to develop, test and then implement/produce items that are more then a slight evolution on the current state of the art for that country.

Which is possibly why China purchased and put into service a part built Russian Carrier that had rusted away for the better part of 10 years before being sent to China and finished, and why their first completely indigenously built carrier is an evolved version of that ship. It was a short-cut on the technological learning curve.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

I'm failing to understand quite what point you are making.

Are you trying to say that everyone should just give up because China is just not even worth trying to counter?

As for comparing the US to China, there are a lot of *if* and *but* statements in that Paragraph. Yes China's economy is growing rapidly and will probably eclipse the US in the next 10-15 years, however that doesn't explain why you seem to think they can do this and develop technology to defeat the US in a matter of days. Even if they (hypothetically) had 100 million people working in R & D labs doing nothing else, it takes *years* to develop, test and then implement/produce items that are more then a slight evolution on the current state of the art for that country.

Which is possibly why China purchased and put into service a part built Russian Carrier that had rusted away for the better part of 10 years before being sent to China and finished, and why their first completely indigenously built carrier is an evolved version of that ship. It was a short-cut on the technological learning curve.

Counter what exactly? Until the opium wars China was the preeminent Global Super Power. Now China seeks to roll back 200 years of western meddling. So what exactly do you propose New Zealand counter mr aussie?

 

[MrConservative]

Counter what exactly? Until the opium wars China was the preeminent Global Super Power. Now China seeks to roll back 200 years of western meddling. So what exactly do you propose New Zealand counter mr aussie?

Enough of the exaggerated claims and pointless digression. Improve the quality of your posts or you will be gone from here.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Enough of the exaggerated claims and pointless digression. Improve the quality of your posts or you will be gone from here.

Then let me ask you a question? Of any of the OECD metrics, how many would you imagine New Zealand dominating China over? Perhaps NZ will dominate Chinese sporting achievements.

 

[StevoJH]

No one is claiming that, and that wouldn't be the Scenario for any conflict. If nothing else Geography ensures that.

You cannot compare countries in isolation, China is actually fairly isolated as with the possible exceptions of Russia and North Korea, what real friends does it have?

New Zealand on the other hand would have the whole so-called "Western World" in its corner. NATO, FPDA, ANZUS, Japan & South Korea just for starters.

 

[ASSAIL]

Then let me ask you a question? Of any of the OECD metrics, how many would you imagine New Zealand dominating China over? Perhaps NZ will dominate Chinese sporting achievements.

I think what you are trying to say is that no matter what NZ, or Australia for that matter, do in the Pacific Islands China's wealth and power will win over the hearts, minds and pocket books of their inhabitants.?

This is a cynical point of view because it dismisses all the historical influence NZ has had for over a century. I suggest that would only happen if NZ and Oz treat the relationship with gross negligence and contempt and I can assure you that wouldn't happen.

The many other things mentioned over the last few posts matter, we are part of the S. Pacific. China may be a world power but as the US and Great Britain before it found, might is not always right and often doesn't deliver the outcomes and the influence desired.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

I think what you are trying to say is that no matter what NZ, or Australia for that matter, do in the Pacific Islands China's wealth and power will win over the hearts, minds and pocket books of their inhabitants.?

This is a cynical point of view because it dismisses all the historical influence NZ has had for over a century. I suggest that would only happen if NZ and Oz treat the relationship with gross negligence and contempt and I can assure you that wouldn't happen.

The many other things mentioned over the last few posts matter, we are part of the S. Pacific. China may be a world power but as the US and Great Britain before it found, might is not always right and often doesn't deliver the outcomes and the influence desired.

It's my belief Chinese Manufacturing will be the winners in the medium term but the owners of the new world will successfully integrate infrastructure with a sales and marketing strategy that promotes a national identity that every one can make money from. Which one wins the long term economic battle will determine who is the owners of the new world. And if that winner is to be us then we need to have a presence in the South Pacific so that we get to write the trade rules.

 

[malleboy]

China will not dominate the world in the manner the US did in the 20th century..
The World in 2050
On current projections there will be four major economic powers, China, US, India and EU.
China shares a land boundary with numerous rival powers with large armies unlike the US which shares a land boundary with 2 countries only neither are a major power and they are friendly to the US, which means China has to invest more heavily in land forces as opposed to being primarily a sea power.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

China will not dominate the world in the manner the US did in the 20th century..
The World in 2050
On current projections there will be four major economic powers, China, US, India and EU.
China shares a land boundary with numerous rival powers with large armies unlike the US which shares a land boundary with 2 countries only neither are a major power and they are friendly to the US, which means China has to invest more heavily in land forces as opposed to being primarily a sea power.

Hi there. I see this is your first message. No doubt one of the mods will be along shortly to give you a greetings and introduction to DT. That said I just wanted to mention a few things about Chinese expansion policy.

Until China has built up a technological lead vs the US, Beijing will not confront the US directly. Beijing will use small but numerous provocations everywhere overwhelming diplomatic efforts so to increase China's strategic footprint in a process known in China as salami slicing. To counter salami slicing tactics New Zealand must show a united front with Australia and Pacific Island Nations so the South Pacific becomes a first world trade hub that can turn ships around faster than any one else.

 

[STURM]

China will not dominate the world in the manner the US did in the 20th century..

But does China actually want to dominate the world in the manner the U.S. has since 1945? Sure, China sees itself as a global power to rival the U.S. It seeks to gain hegemony in the Asia Pacific region and increase its influence in other parts of the world but does it really seek global hegemony?

which means China has to invest more heavily in land forces as opposed to being primarily a sea power.

A Robert Kaplan points out; China's land borders at present are the most secure they have been for centuries. It is the sea; China's access to it [for trade and other reasons] and the ability of others to restrict Chinese access to the sea that most worries China's leaders, not its land borders.

 

[malleboy]

Sturm, no, I do not think China seeks global hegemony. I was just highlighting that at times some people over exaggerate China's growing power.
People often fail to take into account other rising economic powers like India and in the next 50 years Indonesia.
People also fail to take into account the far more challenging environment China finds it self in, then either of the last two naval hegemonic powers, both in terms of having large and powerful land neighbors to have to defend and significant rival naval powers in its own region. I think we are returning to a more multi polar world, where China will be a significant player.