Helen Clark and Don Brash pen open letter asking the Coalition Government not to join any military arrangements that might damage the NZ–China relationship

Helen Clark is undeniably  opinionated, but at the same time not exactly always completely wrong. For instance her remark that the world would have been a lot to the better if Al Gore and not George Bush junior had won the Presidency in 2000 resonated somewhat, but was politically, internationally speaking, misguided going on naive and in similar recent fashion to her almost cloned successor, Phil Goff’s utterance in London that got him sacked. Some politicians though just can’t seem to let it go and this is an example of the old mantra of Clark’s government - we know, we say, you do.  Leave off the dabbling, you had your time, there’s another elected government now, 

When NZ recognised China more than 50 years ago, it was explicit that there was only 'One China'. The Taiwanese authorities had the same perspective except that they should be the Government thereof. The fact that New Zealand does not have an Ambassador in Taiwan is reflective of this situation.  The USA also does not have an Ambassador in Taiwan.  My own assessment is that China and Taiwan will eventually sort out things between themselves. The USA, New Zealand, and other countries need to step back and let this happen. 
 

As Mao said to Kissinger, also now more than 50 years ago, reunification might take 200 years but it would happen. 
Prior to 1949, Taiwan was never an independent nation to the best of my knowledge. It became a separate entity when the Kuomintang retreated there with there with a  managed retreat from the Mainland assisted by the USA. since the early 1970s, the One China versus Two China situation has been managed with considerable skill by all of the interested parties.  What Clark, Brash and others are now saying is don't mess that up. 
KeithW

I agree with your statement Murray "Ukraine should surrender to Russia". They are saying "Don't stand up to an aggressor". There is a big BUT in our case that I agree with in their summations. We are reliant on exports to the "big bogy" China. There is very little chance of USA taking that spot in the future. Look around, Asians are increasing everywhere. Not a concern to my mind, considering where we are situated geographically.

I think they are thinking ahead in time and what the World will look like. As a small trading nation, we will never call the shots. We can't take sides in any dramatic fashion. Whatever happens we should float along and hopefully the tides are favourable.

We are not in anyway comparable to a European nation as we are isolated and on our own.

Murray86, you said..."The US involvement is to try to assist in stabilising the area."



IMO Keith nailed the situation we face 100%.



I don't share your opinion so I will make a few more observations...



With the situation in Taiwan, the US is in the business of perpetual destabilisation, just as it is with Ukraine, Palestine, Iran, and Pakistan. Seemingly 4 dangerous situations are not enough, they want to stoke up yet another one.



For my entire 70 years of existence, the US has been involved in one or more wars in every single one of those years. Their economy has devolved into a financialised and largely military-based economy that in terms of PGDP (Productive GDP) is only a third the size of that of China - that's $5 trillion, compared to $15 trillion. 



They live completely beyond their means and try to retain their military/financial hegemony by force and coercion running themselves into such a self-inflicted debt trap that their entire economy, currency, and reserve currency is on the brink of total collapse.



The central banks of the world became net sellers of US treasuries back in 2014, and now that Trump has declared a trade/tariff war on the entire planet they will be in no mood to buy this debt. That only leaves individuals and institutions as buyers - PROBLEM - they know that US treasuries carry a huge risk, not just in their loss in value when yields rise significantly, but in losses in capital value because of the US's explicit intention to significantly weaken its dollar. They risk taking major losses for both of these reasons.



Buyers of this debt will demand more and more risk-weighted yield or they simply won't buy show up. If the Fed buys this debt, that will be highly inflationary, and the country will dive further into its self-inflicted debt trap and enter a stagflationary phase.   



With a deficit this year likely to be between $2.5 - $3 trillion, and over $10 trillion of bonds to try to sell just to extend their debt trap, they are on the brink of a collapse worse than the Great Depression and with no entity willing to bail them out.



It looks very much to me as though the U$ and global Deep State are deliberately trying to start a hot WW3 - the hybrid WW3 started quite some time ago on Obama's watch - as Gerald Cilente' says - "When all else fails they take us to war".           



Have you ever stopped to think about why the US so-called 'defence' budget, when you add in all the alphabet, agencies, private mercenaries, NGOs, proxies, etc, comes to more than $1.5 trillion - more than the next 70 largest countries' military spends combined?



Why have they got more than 800 overseas military bases and Russia and China, between them, a grand total of 3.5?       



American Prof. Jeffrey Sachs made the following observations almost a year ago. These are uncomfortable truths for the US and its vassals, but he makes them in the hope that he might just be able to wake up his country before it's all too late - before they cause an existential nuclear apocalypse.



...quoted...



"The US launched a policy around 2015 to “contain” China, including several components. These policies – spelled out in a 2015 article for the Council on Foreign Relations by Robert Blackwill and Ashley Tellis – included the attempt to create trade agreements, such as the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) designed to exclude China, increased export bans on hi-tech products such as advanced semiconductors, increased trade barriers to China’s exports to the US (and Europe), increased militarisation of the South China Sea, new military alignments such as Aukus, and opposition to Chinese initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative.

I believe that every one of these approaches is a failure. They do not “contain” China, but they raise tensions, lower economic well-being and global economic efficiency, divide the world economy, and bring us close to war.

The deep state is the set of US security institutions, including the White House (and the president’s National Security Council), the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies (centred on the CIA), the Armed Services Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee of Congress, and the major arms contractors (notably Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman).



They are the drivers of America’s wars, regime-change operations, and foreign policy more generally. This is a big business, involving more than US$1 trillion dollar per year in direct outlays, so there is heavy lobbying involved as well.

This is not any kind of conspiracy theory, just a fact about the organisation of the US state. There is little role of public opinion involved in US security policy (including wars and regime-change operations). Much of it is indeed secretive, which is why whistle-blowing and leaks are considered such a high offence in the US. The deep state has been engaged in perhaps 90 covert and overt regime-change operations since 1947 (the date the CIA was created), and in pervasive warfare. The deep state manages a network of more than 750 overseas military bases in around 80 countries, and those bases of operation are key to US-led wars and regime-change operations.

Beijing and Western countries have been accusing each other of conducting covert operations to destabilise the other side. How much of this do you think is conspiracy theories, and how much is real?

US foreign policy is based on military alliances, economic pressures, and covert operations of destabilisation. This is all well documented, and applies to China, Russia and other regions of the world. US actions in East Asia (military bases, military alliances, trade measures, covert operations) are indeed designed to contain or weaken China. US actions vis-à-vis Taiwan, especially continuing to arm Taiwan contrary to the letter and spirit of the August 17, 1982 US-PRC Communique, are the most dangerous and destabilising of the US actions.

It is worth recalling key language of that communique: “The United States government states that it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, and that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution.”

That was 42 years ago."

Nvidia makes most of its chips in Taiwan, if the US keeps banning their import to China , they will invade to stop US getting any,

even if it kills all production, Yes AI is THAT IMPORTANT Here

unmanned drones and bots in military depend on AI Advantage.