I reckon Australians who see themselves as progressive & liberal minded, by & large are "concerned" about a commercial lease for Port Darwin by a Chinese company because it's a Chinese company. Yet seldom voice the same concern about US military installations on Australian soil E.g Pine Gap.
The Port Darwin thing secures bilateral trade & was a win win scenario; while Pine Gap secures an irradiated landscape ... but then it's protecting ya'll freedumbs so I guess there's that.
The acceptance of the US has a legacy in growing liberalization of the western world until about 40 years ago when it shifted away from liberty and towards wealth extraction. China has no such pretense.
There have been plenty of protests about Pine Gap, way back in cold war days when there was an active actual Peace Movement. Maybe we all just grew older and gave up, in the face of government indifference to people's opinions, together with the end of the cold war.
And as someone else pointed out in this thread, it is not a case of "either-or".
Personally, I would kick both of them out.
The bilateral trade advantage seems to go down the drain when it suits them (like now) so I would rather the CCP didn't have a controlling interest in access to our ports and air-space.
Hehe, if you think property is sacrosanct, good on you, that puts you squarely in the 99% cattle class with the rest of us. Tell that one to anyone from any people who's some how survived Eminent Domain, or perhaps go to chat with a Oz based diplomat from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela, or better yet a headman of the Wakkawakka about the value of a contract or common law rights. Frankly, considering the foundations of "white" Australia, I think the Chinese are idiots to trust their investments to the protection of the state, but what exactly did they buy them with, US Fed notes of deposit, which are also a fiction.
I reckon Australians who see themselves as progressive & liberal minded, by & large are "concerned" about a commercial lease for Port Darwin by a Chinese company because it's a Chinese company. Yet seldom voice the same concern about US military installations on Australian soil E.g Pine Gap.
The Port Darwin thing secures bilateral trade & was a win win scenario; while Pine Gap secures an irradiated landscape ... but then it's protecting ya'll freedumbs so I guess there's that.
The acceptance of the US has a legacy in growing liberalization of the western world until about 40 years ago when it shifted away from liberty and towards wealth extraction. China has no such pretense.
There have been plenty of protests about Pine Gap, way back in cold war days when there was an active actual Peace Movement. Maybe we all just grew older and gave up, in the face of government indifference to people's opinions, together with the end of the cold war.
And as someone else pointed out in this thread, it is not a case of "either-or".
Personally, I would kick both of them out.
The bilateral trade advantage seems to go down the drain when it suits them (like now) so I would rather the CCP didn't have a controlling interest in access to our ports and air-space.
Hehe, if you think property is sacrosanct, good on you, that puts you squarely in the 99% cattle class with the rest of us. Tell that one to anyone from any people who's some how survived Eminent Domain, or perhaps go to chat with a Oz based diplomat from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela, or better yet a headman of the Wakkawakka about the value of a contract or common law rights. Frankly, considering the foundations of "white" Australia, I think the Chinese are idiots to trust their investments to the protection of the state, but what exactly did they buy them with, US Fed notes of deposit, which are also a fiction.
Point taken, but given its strategic position and that "Chinese company" means Chinese government ultimately it wasn't decision serving our interest.