 20 jaar geleden was ik in Houten, het met een ouding van de 2003 State Electroën en ik heb een ouding van New York gehaald. Die ouding was van iemand, een ouding van die cooberatie, die het op die electroën gehaald was, maar het is de oplossing om me te talen over invagioen van de Rijker in Starman, de dag vorig. Ik heb het gesproken dat m'n duiters in het op die frontpage van die Sunday-papers, labes, spekulis, win in die Nieuws-Houtwaar volks. Dus die grievings die ik aan die ministerie gesproken was dit dag. Ik zei, wat was die ertoe van die ertoe van die woord? Wouden die nie? En die zei, welle, He said the White House believes that in defeating us that are the same, that they are quickly greener and that there is an opportunity for America to intervene in other Arab dictatorships, even in Iran. He said this will quickly remake the Middle East. The Middle East will be remade for market economies and democracies and peace with Israel. There will be an unimpeded flow of oil to Western governments. He said the example of the remaking, the rebuilding of Iraq will be impossible for any other Arab state to resist. In that spirit that invasion had taken place. The invasion was based on the same faithful focus that is directing a very good policy in Asia today, 20 years on. It's a focus on a word that Lawrence used, privacy. Or as Gary Evans puts it, this is about the DLP words, dominance, leadership, privacy. America's goal is to see that no power can channel, can challenge its privacy in the world. And that is the spirit that drove the invasion of Iraq after America's win over the Soviet Union in the Cold War. A concentration of opera nationalists and neo-conservatives formed the doctrine to guarantee that America could never be challenged. And any nation that sought the challenge would be reduced to rubber. The focus was on entrenching in the wake of its victory over the Soviet Union, American dominance, leadership, privacy. And that's the focus of US policy in Asia today to respond to the challenge that China represents to American dominance, leadership and privacy. And we are forward up against it. In 2017, I noticed the shift in what was being said by Prime Minister Turnwall and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop about China. There was a sudden shift in rhetoric and I became curious. Some Chinese, I remember raised with it once, was the then Chinese ambassador in fact and said, what's going on? Julie Bishop was just being saying, China will never be great until it becomes an opera singer. And speaking, Singapore Melton Turnwall said, we need a very good military build up in Asia. It was an unmistakable shift. And that was backed by all sorts of things appearing in the media. I recall John Gardner, who later became advisor on China policy to Melton Turnwall, saying that the Chinese students in Australia were embodying ethno-nationalism. Because I was working in this area at UTS at the time, I committed to a research project. There were 130,000 Chinese students now in our university. There were only four incidents where it couldn't be alleged students had pushed an argument in a classroom. I'm serious, there were four incidents in four reports in the media of incidents where a Chinese student pushed back against a map that showed Taiwan as an independent country. For example, but the headline is here. We're facing ethno-nationalism from Chinese students. It's a concrete example where I ran the China Bank. For five years, now seven years, we had China Bank. With no evidence to justify, for example, a headline on the telegraph, the Chinese ownership of solar panels in West of East South Wales gave them the power of one like our electricity system. Or a story in the Sydney Morning Hero broken as an exclusive that the Chinese had plans for a base in Vanuatu. It took Prime Minister Turnbull standing here in Commonwealth Summit next to the Prime Minister of Vanuatu to say, this is not the case, Vanuatu is a member of the long alive moon. We had a four horrors program among other things that will lead to the big serious Chinese history in the United States of Public Service, a quote in the case of a public servant who had sacred material ladies home in Canberra. Anyone watching that four horrors program in 2017 would have assumed serious assault, like Canberra, directed by Chinese security agencies. The public servant was taken to court, he's been issued with a $200 fine for having minor documents in his own something of Donald Trump and Joe Biden, himself responsible for in recent months, he was dreaming. But if you watched four horrors, you'd have believed in part of a major Chinese history in the United States Trust. We've produced a document in the NCS called China, Australia Talks China replete with examples of stories loaded into our media with the help of security agencies to create the sense of a Chinese threat, and sometimes across Chinese behavior, fitness, mistreatment of Uighurs, for example, on a Western China. But everything was subject to almost unlaperated exaggeration, lead upside down. One of her most experienced editors is someone called Max Such, the editor of National View, we edited the old National Files. He investigates this China panic in the media. He said there's an editor he witnessed many campaigns in the Australian media over the end. He had never witnessed any as professional as the China panic campaign unleashed in our media from 2017. Malcomton, influence legislation, it's on the course to burn on the books of five years. It hasn't produced a single example of Chinese horrors, but I could instance, the US study centre in Sydney, or ASPI, Australia's Purity Policy Institute, which receives funding from the State Department and American Army in those countries, as pure examples of foreign influence seek to be shaped by Australian foreign policy that deserve the media to be orchestrated by the media. And talk about another lobby, which is the best funded. Most generously start from foreign influence lobbying. You can imagine operating in Australia today to see if the Palestinian voice gets plotted out at every opportunity. Who was driving us? Why were some juniors being favoured with a special thing, be it the home of Shiket Muslim-Main at 6 in the morning tomorrow? And you can have an explanation about a raid on the home of the member of the NSW House. That was three years ago. Shiket Muslim-Main's political career was destroyed. Not a fine thing has been made against him. Anyone would have assumed that that story was packaged and massaged and presented exclusively to Nick McKenzie for 60 point error and 60 minutes that Shiket Muslim-Main had to lengthen himself to become an agent of Chinese influence, as if a whip in the NSW House was capable of anything that would be of interest to Chinese agents taking interest in Australia's geo-strategie position. Absurd. I can go on. We brought these things together. When I was at a UTS, we brought these things together in a publication. I think the clue to it lies in an article. Someone who is now the director of the Office of National Intelligence, Andrew Sheeran, had worked as a foreign policy adviser to Tony Abbott and briefly for Tony. He wrote in this giveaway that there are some people here in Washington who are working with American Think Tech at the time who think that Australia is still a very good ally, prepared to take the fight with a very good side-by-side in the Middle East. But Americans at the beginning and down in Australia is such a strong ally in Asia. I think that was a similarly important article. I believe that the biggest factor in this China package driving this consistent mass-article in Australian media were people in Australian security agencies who believed their counterparts in Washington were disappointed and fearful that we might not go all the way when they knew it was China and wanted this corrected. I believe with that very remotely for spirits of theorists that this is a large part of the journey this country has been on. The professor of industrial and international relations in the Chicago University John Meershine or an advocate of American national interest was a guy in the foreign policy who said when he was in Australia a few years ago the opportunity to be, I heard this from him directly, he said the same thing publicly. He said America will never allow its privacy to be challenged. We showed in World War I defeating the Kaiser Germany, we showed in World War II defeating two rivaling buyers. We've shown in defeating the Soviet Union that we will never allow our power of dominance to be challenged. The alternative, new friends, is that there is room for multiple sovereigns on this planet. And that is that we will be able to touch between British and Soviet Union, invading Afghanistan, supporting only North Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, presiding over an arms drill gun that they taught between Red Earth Russia and America under Nixon, that they taught between China under Xi and America under Biden, to justify a war between these sovereigns. It can very easily become a nuclear exchange. Two sources for that. It's quite excellent sleep war to war. It spells out the subjects to which one side of the other could decide to demonstrate its seriousness with the nuclear strike that would seem the other side back down, fearing that if it responded with a nuclear exchange there'd be a mass exile from the other taking other city. There is even a goal for 2034, Therobladers James Srewires an American animal Mereke Adderall was de supreme commander van Laker en de commander van de Amerikaanse aardraaar, aardraaar groeps, maakendehende voorten die er in die toekomst, die die de generatie, die er in die aardraaar gehaald is, omaakende dat een weke US prinsen, die die eurlige Chinese aardraaar, synging to aircraft carrier battle groups kon nie be responden toe with the detonation of an American tactical nuclear weapon over a Chinese city with a population of 10 million. No one believes, no expert believes the risks of a nuclear exchange here can be dismissed as critical. We've got to research something with the spirit of South East Asia, the nations of South East Asia believe in themselves they can live in a world where power is a region where power is shared between China and the United States one balance in the other in a principle that has been known to underpin peace the borders of war in human history if Singapore believes that it can deal with a strong China as one of their former farmers has said very eloquently then who are we to dash up to Singapore and say you're wrong? The Singaporeans are anticipating a world in which power in the region is divided and in which they welcome the fact the Chinese power is offset by an American presence just over the horizon and vice versa Indonesia has demonstrated the same system the Philippines will fluctuate Philippines nationalism finds an expression of anti-Chinese postures at the present time that's what you can expect in a region of 10 nations each finding its own way and having different attitudes at different times but the region there is no nation in South East Asia itching to join a showdown over Taiwan and I conclude by undermining that the historic Australian position is in Taiwan non-triggered answers and that's what Alexander Downer gushed out in a burst of ill-applies to truth-telling in 2004 when the H. McDonald to put to him in China wouldn't the answers treaty apply in the event of a showdown in America and China in the Taiwan states? Alexander Downer said though and indeed he was thinking through a tradition in Australian diplomacy that goes back to Menzies prime minister in 1949 to 1966 on two occasions Menzies was inspired by Washington to take a stand on Taiwan one was Eisenhower president Eisenhower was saying we fear there might be a war the Chinese threat of oil violence Menzies liberal prime minister went to Washington and advised against it and said Australia would not be involved in it when President Kennedy invited Australia to lead a community of nations that included Taiwan Menzies liberal prime minister said that the American president nothing doing we won't lead a new community of nations in Asia we support Taiwan it was not going to be when I started to send to the department can you give me can you give me a briefing for my first visit to China what if I asked the Alexander Downer question I got a very concise briefing for the fact would Australia be committed in a dispute over the Taiwan streets the fact recommended that the deputy minister said that's a hypothetical question what if the leading assistant would definitely recommend that the robotic minister should say the answers treaty is an obligation to insult that was the official response from Australian diplomats to me in May 2012 going to China why can't we return to that position why can't we say that as an American ally we're not going to be committed to an entirely unnecessary war over sovereignty in Taiwan let's reinstate the diplomatic status quo the forward words that since 1972 enable the people of Taiwan to fulfill their own aspiration enable China to have recognised or acknowledged its position that Taiwan was the province of China both sides happen America several moment foreloaders the Shanghai Communicator after Right Kissinger we need that wisdom back again the war wouldn't be a horror for all of us, our country included thank you for that