More comments on the ‘great balancing act’

A 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:

  1. Australia has a valuable role in the “great balancing act”
  2. Global re-balancing: the G20 can learn from the misguided Plaza Accord
  3. Nuclear power and spent fuel in East Asia: Balancing energy, politics and nonproliferation
  4. Australia: balancing the long with the short

What other people are reading:

  1. Why Lord Patten is half-right on China
  2. Will China change the region or end up changing itself?
  3. The cost of US debt and rebalancing Asian growth

1 Comment

Post a comment

Post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

 
  • Dominic Meagher

    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.