More comments on the ‘great balancing act’
August 15th, 2008A Loyal Reader has added further depth to Jane Golley’s piece on China’s “great balancing act” and Hugh White’s comments. They write:
As my former HOM would have said, the argument is “completely fallacial”.
Seeking equidistance between China and the US will only serve to reduce our leverage over both. We get more out of both under the current arrangement.”
The big question to come out of this then is what exactly are the “current arrangements” (emphasis on “current” as against 1996-2007)?
Comments?
Related articles:
- Is Japan balancing?
- The Great Crash – Weekly editorial
- The role of macroeconomic management in the Great Crash
- The Great Crash of 2008 and getting financial regulation right
- The ASEAN-China FTA: driving competitiveness in Malaysia
- Rudd’s adventures in a changing Asia
- Who said anything about an Asia Pacific Union?
Print this post
This is a fairly curious comment which I’d like to see elaborated upon.
The implication is that Jane has suggested Australia seek “equidistance between China and the US” but I can’t find evidence of this in her post. The closest I can come up with is this:
“It will be better if Australia can play the respected partner of both the US and China”
I hope this loyal reader can explain what is meant here.