President Joe Biden

[Len Rum]

Also in other news, China has applied to join CPTPP - source Politico

Which complicates our attempt to join.
IMO it will at least delay it.

 

[BobKowalski]

Which complicates our attempt to join.
IMO it will at least delay it.

It will definitely complicate matters. China applying to join complicates matters for all current members.

Also, how does the US react? Insist Australia blocks China otherwise no nuclear submarines? Do we want to join if China joins? Will the US insist we don’t join if China joins?

Lots of things to mull over. No clue as to how this plays out.

 

[west didsblue]

Which complicates our attempt to join.
IMO it will at least delay it.

Maybe we’ll look for a trading bloc to join a bit closer to home?

 

[BobKowalski]

Update on CPTPP...

‘The Biden administration is willing to consider an “opportunity” to negotiate entry into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on Thursday‘ @InsideUSTrade

 

[BobKowalski]

Argument against the deal by ex-PM Keating. The bit about the Taliban is a cheap shot and weakens the case being made.

 

[Chris in London]

Argument against the deal by ex-PM Keating. The bit about the Taliban is a cheap shot and weakens the case being made.

Historically ignorant, too.

Napoleonic France v Britain was overwhelmingly a conflict between a country with a very strong navy and a moderately strong army against a country with a very strong army and a moderately strong navy.

And we all know how that panned out.

 

[mancity1]

I understand the previous deal had been overtaken by events, although the French has expertise with their own nuclear submarines. But if the price for visible US protection is the purchase of nuclear subs from them, then Australia will take that deal. Right now, it suits their interests.

For the US it is slightly shortsighted because France out of all the European nations has the biggest presence in the area (albeit tiny compared to the US) and also because the US wants the EU to form a common trade front with China. How this all plays out depends on how pissed off the French are. Personally, I think they are overdoing the outrage bit, these things happen and all that.

As for UK providing expertise on Australia‘s potential nuclear power program, well slightly bad news as Hinkley Point our latest and biggest is being largely built by French and Chinese companies as they have the expertise. Which is kind of ironic :)

I’m still not sure what we are meant to be doing, or what the obligations are under this pact or what impact there will be on UK/China relations or how other countries react in the region.

Going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

This is why the French will continue to play a role and don't forget the UK still require assistance from French assets when their own power supplies fall short of the mark.

They have every right to pissed off but also have expertise as you indicate that will be required and will be used.

For Australia its evitable that nuclear technology will become every more important both locally and overseas given out uranium reserves.

It has to if we are to decarbonise our industry ( 80 per cent of electricity is generated from fossil fuels on average ) and in terms of electricity generation into the future while expensive to set up its the safest and most environmentally friendly way to do so far more so than renewable energy and the best way to despatch reliable energy that we need as our population grows coming out of Covid.

I agree with you Bob interesting times ahead but make no mistake China's influence in the Pacific is on the increase and has been for many years on many levels least of all militarily.

Notwithstanding the local issues impacting on the US at present how the current admin handles China will be significant for countries like Australia and New Zealand and Indonesia and the list goes on.

I think so far so good but its early days in terms of engagement.

 

[mancity1]

Historically ignorant, too.

Napoleonic France v Britain was overwhelmingly a conflict between a country with a very strong navy and a moderately strong army against a country with a very strong army and a moderately strong navy.

And we all know how that panned out.

Keating has made nearly all of his money since leaving politics by an association with China and Chinese based interests in Australia and in the region.

Nothing wrong with that per say but he has a vested interest that we continue to supply China with Iron Ore , Coal etc as does the WA government that he has close links to.

He was always critical of our association with the US and Malaysia.

He rarely speaks about the US , UN and UK desire for Australia to act appropriately regarding reducing our carbon footprint albeit small in global terms but high per capita terms.

he rarely speaks out against China's human rights record under the current regime and the use of what he would have described when Treasurer and Prime Minister as slave labour.

 

[mancity1]

Argument against the deal by ex-PM Keating. The bit about the Taliban is a cheap shot and weakens the case being made.

Well summarised Bob , Laura Tingle is often posting and passing critical often unjustifiable and ignorant commentary using critics of government always one sided when her job at the ABC is supposedly as a reporter of events.

Keating comments if accurately reported is from an anti American standpoint and IMO it is beyond a cheap shot its inaccurate.

 

[Vic]

Historically ignorant, too.

Napoleonic France v Britain was overwhelmingly a conflict between a country with a very strong navy and a moderately strong army against a country with a very strong army and a moderately strong navy.

And we all know how that panned out.

A. How many ships marched on Moscow?

B. How many ships were at Waterloo?

C. Did the Prussian navy help Wellington at Waterloo, or was that their land army?