Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Most popular

    China

    Home China

    Betrayal for Bucks: A Seduction Story

    By
    Fiona Hui
    -
    0

    If Foreign Interference is still a strange concept for laid-back Aussies, we will all soon be familiar with it – directed, supervised or financed foreign meddling and, unfortunately, citizens who knowingly assist with such foreign meddling for various reasons.

    The most common reason, of course, is financial benefits. And the most rampant meddler is not Iran, or even Russia, but Communist China, a fact the Albanese Government refuses to admit. But they know. We also know. It is the elephant in the room.

    Playing by the rules is not in the Beijing psyche. We can, therefore, expect more and more of these novel criminal charges to occur in Australia.

    On 14 April 2023, Sydney man, Alexander Csergo, was charged with one count of ‘Reckless Foreign Interference’ by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for allegedly selling sensitive Australian defence and economic information to the Chinese Communist Party.

    Australian businessman, Alexander Csergo

    That was the second time anyone had been charged with a Foreign Interference Offence in the country since the relevant legislation passed in the Australian Parliament in 2018. The first Australian charged with Foreign Interference, a Melbourne man with Vietnamese heritage, was reported in Liberty Itch in February 2023.

    A savvy Australian entrepreneur, a UNSW graduate, Mr Csergo, aged 55, had taken cash payments from the CCP proxies in exchange for his reports on Australia’s defence and trade matters, Sydney Court heard on 17 April 2023.

    Mr Csergo was approached by two individuals via LinkedIn, calling themselves ‘Ken’ and ‘Evelyn’, who told Mr Csergo that they were from a ‘think tank’. They asked Mr Csergo to assist with their ‘research’ by providing information on highly sensitive national security matters to their make-believe research centre.

    Mr Csergo was arrested at his Bondi NSW home on 14 April 2023

    Magistrate Michael Barko denied bail for Mr Csergo, stating that the prosecution had a compelling case and the defendant was a “sophisticated, worldly businessperson” with flight risks.

    According to court proceedings reported by The Australian Financial Review on 14 April 2023, Mr Csergo admitted that he knew the two individuals who approached him were from China’s Ministry of State Security.

    The reports compiled by Mr Csergo included data on Australia’s AUKUS defence technology partnership, the QUAD, iron ore and lithium mining. They had been discovered by the AFP three weeks after Csergo returned to Sydney. Mr Csergo had been on the AFP radar since 2021, the court was told.

    On 23 April 2023, The Guardian reported that Mr Csergo’s defence lawyer, Bernard Collaery, was requesting the Attorney General, the Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP, to drop the matter before the court.

    As libertarians, we may have conflicting emotions regarding these charges. While we advocate for personal freedom, privacy, and limited government intervention, we are also becoming increasingly aware of the growing threat posed by the CCP, as it aggressively abuses and exploits our open and ‘lenient’ democratic policy.

    Liberty Itch has reported on numerous CCP influence operations in our institutions, including in Higher Education and Political Parties.

    Without tough legislation in place, our freedom, sovereignty and the integrity of our institutions will be, if not already, in jeopardy.

    As democracy loving liberals, of course, we presume Mr Csergo innocent until proven guilty. We also appreciate how important it is to have separation of powers between the executive and the judicial system.

    Asking the AG to exercise his executive power to drop the prosecution is questionable to those who believe in the rule of law. This is a national security matter for all Australians and a matter of public interest.

    In light of this, Liberty Itch earnestly hopes that the Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP will continue to resist pressure from the defense lawyer which could obstruct the discovery of truth and the delivery of justice in our court.

    Amidst the disappointments that we have held in recent times as a nation, I hope that we have not all completely lost our faith in the institutions that form the backbone of our society. Otherwise, we would only serve to amuse the manipulative Chinese regime that seeks to exploit our discord and disunity.

    China’s Dystopia II: The Digital Panopticon

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    2

    During my recent one-month stay in China’s bustling metropolises, the omnipresence of technology, particularly WeChat (a “Super App” Elon Musk wants X to be for the West), was starkly evident. QR codes adorned nearly every surface, from restaurant menus to market stalls, making WeChat an indispensable part of daily life. The ‘everything app’ seamlessly integrates functions akin to WhatsApp, Facebook, eBay, Uber and many others into one platform. 

    The convenience it offers is undeniable: messaging, social networking, making payments, ordering food and hailing rides are all accomplished with a few taps on a smartphone. However, beneath this veneer of ultra-convenience lies a more ominous reality.

    The Illusion of Convenience Over Privacy

    In Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, a superficially perfect society masks deep underlying issues. This theme resonates profoundly with my experience in China. On the surface, life is streamlined and digitised. In cities like Shanghai, cash is almost obsolete (I used no cash at all for the one-month trip), and every need or whim is catered to with astonishing efficiency, with technology not just an enabler but a dominant force shaping society. Yet, this convenience comes at a steep cost – privacy is virtually non-existent.

     The convenience of digital transactions allows the government to track and control the financial activities of its citizens.

    Surveillance: Beyond the Physical Realm

    The extensive surveillance network I described in “China’s Dystopia I: Security to Slavery” is not limited to physical spaces. Every transaction, interaction or movement facilitated by WeChat and other digital platforms is tracked, recorded, and scrutinised whenever the government deems necessary. The app, while a marvel of modern technology, doubles as a tool for surveillance, with the Chinese government having unfettered access to the data collected.

    Digital Dystopia: A Double-Edged Sword

    This digital ecosystem, on one hand, epitomises technological advancement and consumer convenience. On the other, it represents a dystopian reality where personal details, preferences, and even thoughts are no longer private. Every digital footprint is monitored, contributing to a profile that the government can access and analyse at will. The notion of ”Big Brother” in George Orwell’s “1984” finds a parallel here, though it is perhaps more aptly described by Huxley’s vision where citizens are placated with pleasures and conveniences, unaware of or indifferent to the loss of their freedoms.

    The Perils of a Cashless Society and Social Credit

    The move towards a cashless society in China brings its own set of risks. The convenience of digital transactions allows the government to track and control the financial activities of its citizens. Coupled with the social credit system, this creates a scenario where individuals can be rewarded or punished not just for their actions, but also for their associations.

    This system has become a tool for cracking down on dissent. Individuals or groups who interact with or support entities disfavoured by the government can find themselves facing financial restrictions or worse. Being locked out of WeChat, for example, effectively prevents participation in daily life. 

    This level of control over personal and financial interactions adds another layer to the surveillance state, where not just actions, but also associations, are monitored and controlled.

    This digital ecosystem, on one hand, epitomises technological advancement and consumer convenience.

    Rethinking Freedom in a Digitally Connected World

    As we progress further into the digital era, the Chinese model serves as a crucial case study for the rest of the world. It poses a fundamental question: what is the true cost of convenience? In a society where every digital interaction is monitored, can freedom truly exist? The allure of a frictionless, digital life is powerful, but it should not blind us to the importance of safeguarding our privacy and freedom.

    Join Mailing List

    As Australia observes the unfolding digital dystopia in China, it becomes imperative to reflect upon our own relationship with technology and surveillance. While enjoying a more open and democratic society, Australia is not immune to the risks posed by the unchecked expansion of surveillance technologies. The use of such technologies for contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic signalled clear privacy erosion and government overreach. 

    As Australia strides forward in its technological journey, it must tread cautiously to avoid the pitfalls seen in China. As Huxley’s “Brave New World” warns, a society enamoured with comfort and entertainment may be blind to the erosion of its essential liberties. The challenge for us is to ensure that technological advancements serve humanity, not government.

    INTERVIEW: Undaunted, He Still Fights For Freedom

    By
    Fiona Hui
    -
    0
    Tibetan Australian, Tenpa Dargye.

    Australia is home to nearly 3,000 Tibetans. This number has increased steadily by around 100 new Tibetans a year. Almost all are on humanitarian visas.

    3,000 is not a huge number, but it fills up the whole town of, say, McLaren Vale, a well-known wine-producing region in South Australia. Whilst it may sound quite cozy, the reality of life for these Tibetans, of course, is nothing like sipping delicious wine.

    These Tibetans are political prisoners who have fled Tibet and come to Australia for safety, due to the brutal persecution by Beijing since its Tibet annexation in 1951. Although it may seem like a long time ago, the human rights abuses in Tibet have not stopped since the Chinese invasion.

    Religious persecution has been a consistent theme in China. Liberty Itch has reported the Chinese Communist Party’s unspeakable abuses of the Uyghurs, Christians, and Falun Gong.

    The Chinese regime is determined that all their citizens worship nothing but the Chinese Communist Party – except that Tibetans are not even ‘Chinese citizens.’ Like East Turkistan, Tibet was an independent neighbouring country on the Western side of China.

    Neighbours of the People’s Republic of China.

    It’s unfortunate to be China’s neighbours, as their autonomy and freedom are constantly at risk.

    Alarmingly, the CCP’s invasion of economically weaker countries is not just a matter of history. We know that Taiwan is the next immediate invasion target while the Indo-Pacific region has received increasing ‘interest’ and economic coercion by the Chinese State.Subscribe

    It is not right that only the Chinese propaganda machine has the power to narrate history. Liberty Itch is eager to reach out to individuals, who possess first-hand stories of what has occurred in their nation’s history.

    We made contact with Perth based Tibetan Australian, Tenpa Dargye, who spent five years in a Chinese prison from 2001 to 2006. He is a direct victim of the atrocities committed by the Chinese government. Although he is well settled in Australia, his life continues to be impacted today.

    Tanpa visited Adelaide last week and the interview was conducted face to face.

    • Liberty Itch: Please tell us about your experience in Tibet.
    • Tenpa Dargye: I was born and grew up in the Golog of Eastern Tibet. Today, Tibet is the least free country in the world, among the same ranks of Syria and South Sudan. I believe in Buddhism and my spiritual leader is the Dalai Lama. I meditate regularly and believe in peace and kindness.
    Golog, Eastern Tibet.
    • Prior to People’s Republic of China’s invasion in 1950, Tibet was an independent country with its own government, military, national flag, language and currency. The majority of Tibetans practice Buddhism and respect the nature that inherits the Ancient Bon Religion, the indigenous religious tradition of Tibet.
    • Since 1987, the PRC government suddenly tightened its control over the three regions of Tibet again. I was imprisoned by the Colonial Government of the PRC for practicing the political vision of the 14th Dalai Lama. I was in prison for five years from 2001 to 2006. I was released in 2006 but I got arrested again, during the 2008 Tibetan uprising, for another two months.
    • LI: Five years is a long time. What was it like in a Chinese prison during this period?
    • TD: I was in a Colonial Government prison in Lhasa, which is the capital city of Tibet. The interrogations in prison were unbearable. Without given any reason, I was given electric shocks to my heart and mouth. The PRC prison guards seemed to enjoy causing anguish, as they were laughing after giving me each shock. During interrogations, they demanded I recant my faith in the Dalai Lama and declare loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. I felt powerless and terrified.
    Potala Palace, Lhasa City, Tibet.
    • I was finally released in 2006 on admitted that the Chinese Communist Party rule was the best rule for all Tibetans. I was coerced into admitting it so I could get out of prison.
    • Then in 2008, I was arrested again for two months. Arbitrary arrest and detention are ‘normal’ in Tibet. I was arrested for ‘having incorrect sentiment’ towards to Chinese Communist Party.
    • This time when they released me, I fled to India. India is a common place to which Tibetans escape, because of its proximity to Tibet.
    • LI: How did you end up in Australia? How is your life impacted today?
    • TD: When I was in India in 2009, I was helped by people who created the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. They were very kind and helped me apply for an Australian humanitarian visa.
    • In 2014, I started the campaign, “I’m not celebrating the Tibetan New year before the reunion of inside and outside Tibetan people”. As part of the campaign, each year, I visit a different Australian capital city during Tibetan New Year, usually in February. I want people to understand and remember the 160 Tibetan self-immolators, including among them 41 Buddhist monks and 8 nuns, who have set fire to themselves in protest at the Chinese occupation.
    • ‘Self-immolation’ is an action in Tibetan Buddhism, where one sets fire to oneself as a form of protest and sacrifice. I want people to honour and remember them, like we honour our war heroes on Anzac Day. All of them have sacrificed themselves for our freedom.
    • My campaign started in Dharamshala in North India in 2014. Then I went to Brisbane in 2015, Sydney in 2016, Canberra in 2017, Melbourne in 2018, Perth in 2019, Hobart in 2020, Perth again in 2021 and 2022 due to COVID restrictions, and in 2023 I visited Adelaide for the first time.
    Tenpa Dargye at Parliament House, Adelaide. 21 February 2023.
    • I want my fellow compatriots to understand that although Tibet seems ‘invisible’ today due to Chinese occupation, I still refuse to accept my nation’s invasion by Beijing.
    • Tibet still lives in my heart and I dream of a day when it will be free again, with spirituality replacing the CCP’s vandalism.

    The Death of Li Keqiang

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    1

    Li Keqiang, China’s former Prime Minister, passed away on 27th October 2023, at the age of 68. His death has plunged many in China and around the world into mourning, particularly those who supported his vision of greater economic freedom rather than increased state control in China, and towards more political diversity instead of ever-increasing centralised power.

    Li Keqiang was widely regarded as a successor to Deng Xiaoping’s reform and opening-up policy, favouring reform-oriented policies and continued economic liberalisation within the framework of the Chinese socialist market economy. Throughout his tenure he was a steadfast advocate for economic liberalisation, transparency, and international cooperation. His economic philosophy, often summarised as “Likonomics,” was characterised by avoiding large-scale government stimulus measures, focusing on reducing debt levels within the economy, especially in the shadow banking system and amongst local governments, and pushing for structural reforms to let market forces play a decisive role in the economy.

    For many advocates of change, Li Keqiang’s death highlights the significant obstacles on the road to transforming China into a society in step with the wider world’s aspirations for open economic engagement and improved political stability.

    Despite his concerted efforts, Li Keqiang faced an ongoing struggle with the more dominant state-centric approach favoured by Supreme Leader Xi Jinping. Li’s push for economic reforms often met with a level of centralised power not seen since the death of Chairman Mao. Xi aggressively consolidated power, even amending the Constitution of China to grant himself the potential for a lifelong presidency. Although Li sometimes seemed sidelined, his commitment to his reformist principles never wavered as he continued to advocate for economic modernisation and the growth of private enterprise within the confines of the prevailing political climate.

    The passing of Li Keqiang carries weight that goes beyond the loss of a political figure; it symbolises the dimming of a progressive era in China’s storied journey toward modernisation. As a top-tier leader with a solid background in economics, he championed a new direction in Chinese policy – a route lined with broader economic and political freedoms. For the many Chinese who share his dream, his death sharply underscores the complex and often difficult political realities that shape the nation’s progression towards liberalisation.

    During Li Keqiang’s time as Prime Minister, clashes between two opposing ideologies were occasionally evident – Xi Jinping’s assertive centralisation of power on one side and Li’s advocacy for economic decentralisation on the other. The 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, held in October 2022, signalled a decisive shift, affirming the dominance of Xi’s vision. It was a defining moment that resulted in the thorough marginalisation of Li and his fellow reform-minded colleagues, signalling the end of the reformist era they had supported.

    Li Keqiang’s legacy will be recorded in the annals of China’s contemporary history as a testament to ‘what might have been’ in an era of tightened control. His consistent efforts to liberalise the economy—where private enterprise could operate with greater autonomy and where market forces were allowed a more decisive role — resonated with many who envisioned a China more integrated with the global economic system. As China’s second-in-command, Li’s voice for moderate reform provided a counterpoint to the prevailing trend of centralisation, offering a ray of hope for a middle path that might lead China towards a more open society and a more resilient economy.

    Join Mailing List

    For many advocates of change, Li Keqiang’s death highlights the significant obstacles on the road to transforming China into a society in step with the wider world’s aspirations for open economic engagement and improved political stability. The sorrow that has accompanied his passing goes beyond a simple tribute to a leader’s memory. It reflects a profound collective longing to preserve his vision for China – a vision of a balanced economy that supports both individual and economic freedoms in society. In the wake of his passing, his parting words resonate with particular poignancy: “While people work, heaven watches. Heaven has eyes.” These words, ultimately omitted from the official record, now take on a profound significance as the nation reflects on the end of his tenure and his life.

    As the nation arrives at a pivotal juncture in its history, this period of mourning also presents a vital opportunity for reflection on how China will navigate the intricate balance between preserving internal stability, managing relations with Taiwan and the Western world, and confronting the myriad challenges posed by regional conflicts and global economic instability.

    How Sunk Cost Fallacy Drives Authoritarian Policies

    By
    Jess Colby
    -
    0

    Sunk cost fallacy is the tendency of people to stick with a decision or course of action that isn’t having a positive result because the person has invested time, money and/or resources that cannot be recovered and do not want to feel that they have wasted them. In many cases, sunk cost fallacy can even drive people to double down on a bad decision or course of action. 

    Here are two real life examples of how people can be affected by sunk cost fallacy.

    Example 1: 

    Amy buys a ticket to see a movie and goes into the cinema to watch it. After about 30 minutes she concludes the movie is not very good but watches it to the end because she doesn’t want to feel she has wasted her money on the ticket nor her time watching it.

    Example 2: 

    Kiara has gambled away thousands of dollars hoping one day to win big. Kiara does not want to stop gambling because she thinks she will win big one day and doesn’t want to think her ‘investment’ was a waste. She continues to double down and gamble away even more money in the hope it will one day pay off.

    What is authoritarian policy and what drives it?

    Authoritarian public policy restricts the choices of individuals or violates recognised civil rights and liberties. It is typically driven either by a desire to control others or to solve a problem or perceived problem within society. 

    Governments convince themselves that the War on Drugs is necessary, and to end the war would turn the investment into a sunk cost.

    It can be driven by malevolent forces, such as a group or individual wanting to increase their power or cause harm to a person or group they don’t like, or by benevolent forces wanting to solve a problem or make society a better place in the belief that the end justifies the means.

    How is sunk cost fallacy relevant to authoritarian policies?

    The imposition of any policy requires time, money and resources. Authoritarian policies also involve sacrificing rights and liberties, often even including those of the people supporting and perpetuating the policy.

    Most people like to think they are decent and not causing harm to others and society. We each want to be the hero of our own story. Those who support and perpetuate authoritarian policies often have good intentions. But good intentions do not alter the harm they cause to individuals and society. To these people, any so called ‘sacrifices’ are a means to an end, and the erosion of civil liberties and human suffering are an investment. Any attempt to reverse such investment is considered an attempt to turn an investment into waste. 

    Some real-life examples of sunk cost fallacy driving authoritarian policies

    I will use two real life authoritarian policies as examples of sunk cost fallacy: the War on Drugs, and the Authoritarian Covid Response. Both came with significant social and economic costs, leading to major restrictions on individual freedom and causing significant suffering within society.

    The War on Drugs:

    The war on drugs has been waged for over half a century. Although there were laws that restricted and criminalised drugs in various countries, in the early 70s US President Richard Nixon found a way to criminalise groups that he did not like such as hippies and black people. 

    He knew that he couldn’t directly criminalise people for being hippies or black, but he also knew that drug use, in particular marijuana, was popular in both communities. From this, he enacted a policy in 1971 called the War on Drugs and created a government agency called the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) using the excuse of public safety. 

    And in a fashion typical of the US government, the policy began to be promoted to other countries, with many falling into line.

    The War on Drugs has proven to be incredibly destructive, with billions spent on enforcement around the world. Arresting people and putting them in jail uses a lot of resources and costs taxpayers a lot of money.

    The criminalisation of drug use has also had many negative social effects such as making criminals of those who were otherwise causing no harm to others, and being used an excuse to introduce policies such as civil asset forfeiture. 

    On top of this, the War on Drugs has been a failure:  drugs have won the war. People still use drugs. Yet governments around the world remain determined to make the policy work. New excuses are offered to justify the policy, such as public health and the cost to taxpayers in countries with socialised healthcare. Governments convince themselves that the War on Drugs is necessary, and to end the war would turn the investment into a sunk cost.

    Sunk cost fallacy can even drive people to double down on a bad decision or course of action. 

    Authoritarian Covid Response:

    The authoritarian Covid response (ACR) is a set of government responses to the Covid-19 virus which originated in China in late 2019 and proceeded to spread throughout the world. Although some people such the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions can get very sick, most people have mild symptoms and many don’t even know they have it.

    In reaction to the virus, governments threw out their prepared pandemic plans and implemented extreme restrictions on everyday life that severely curtailed civil liberties and derailed the lives of millions of people all over the world. 

    People were subjected to rules that were overly restrictive, made no scientific sense and were counterproductive. The rules were constantly changing, often confusing and practically impossible to follow even for those who wanted to follow them.

    The first two weeks and maybe even the first two months could have been forgiven but once it become obvious the rules were excessive and needless, they continued with significant societal support. The perpetuation of the policy had significant social and economic costs, has permanently eroded civil liberties, and has permanently and negatively altered the trajectory of the lives of many people including myself.

    Whenever the excessive nature of the ACR was mentioned, those who support it wouldn’t just disagree but would respond in a manner that can be best described as emotional and angry. I noticed many Gen Z peers to be very supportive of the ACR policy despite our age group disproportionately experiencing many of its negative effects.

    Join Mailing List

    The longer a person supported the ACR, the less likely they were to stop supporting it, with their support becoming more aggressive over time, even to the point of cutting off close friends and family. Given the extensive personal and societal ‘sacrifices’ created by ACR policies, many who supported the ACR came to view the ‘sacrifices’ caused by the policy to be an investment. 

    Ending the ACR policy would mean that the ‘sacrifices’ were a pointless sunk cost and a loss of their investment, and that they had needlessly harmed society. This desire to avoid losing out on their investment helped perpetuate the ACR policy and continue its existence.

    The implications of sunk cost fallacy driving authoritarian policies

    Knowing that sunk cost fallacy drives authoritarian policy emphasises the importance of working to stop authoritarian policies before they even take hold. Once they do take hold, people become invested in their continuation which makes it more difficult to eliminate them. 

    Exciting times ahead for uranium mining in Western Australia

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    0

    During the 2017 WA election, McGowan’s Labor opposition campaigned hard to reinstate the ban on uranium mining. They followed through on this after winning the state election that year. 

    Both Labor and the Greens ran scare mongering campaigns conflating uranium mining with the public’s historic nervousness regarding nuclear energy. Prior scare mongering has led to uranium mining projects being distrusted and shunned by the community. 

    However, public opinion on uranium and nuclear energy are rapidly evolving. The Liberals and Nationals are leading their 2025 federal election campaign with pro nuclear energy messaging. Peter Dutton advised an economic forum in Sydney recently that he has consulted face-to-face with leading energy professionals from Europe, Asia and North America. Dutton will also be attending similar meetings in the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates. 

    Should the uranium mining ban be lifted, the number of uranium mines across Western Australia will most certainly increase. 

    Following Dutton’s announcement, Western Australia’s Liberal leader Libby Mettam declared her party will repeal Labor’s state uranium mining ban, if Liberals win the 2025 state election. If this were to occur, uranium miners could utilise the standard minerals environmental approvals process.

    Labor has continued its anti-uranium campaign, with WA Premier Roger Cook saying uranium mines are not profitable at current prices. This is a big call and not very credible, considering uranium has already more than tripled in price since 2020 as the world re-embraces nuclear energy. 

    Western Australia has a robust, experienced labour force in the mining and resources sector. This labour force is perfectly poised to take up work in uranium mining. 

    Global demand for uranium looks to be steadily increasing. Opening up uranium mines in Western Australia will offer stable employment for the sector’s workforce. This will be a relief, given fluctuations in other sectors. For example, six nickel mines across the state closed in 2023 as a consequence of a 43% price drop on nickel after Indonesia, the Philippines and China caused a glut in the market.

    Western Australia has 11 known deposits of uranium, totalling approximately 226,000 tonnes.

    The Liberals and Nationals are leading their 2025 federal election campaign with pro nuclear energy messaging.

    In 2017, Labor gave exemptions to four uranium projects which had been approved prior to the state election: 

    • Wiluna Project, owned by Toro Energy 
    • Yeelirrie Project owned by Cameco
    • Mulga Rock Project owned by Vimy Resources
    • Kintyre Project, owned by Cameco

    Mulga Rock Project never started production, and the other three stalled due to financial pressures soon thereafter. Should the uranium mining ban be lifted, the number of uranium mines across Western Australia will most certainly increase. 

    2025 will see nuclear power generation reach new records globally, heralding an exciting renaissance of nuclear energy. This is driven by increasing demands for electricity that is both cheap and reliable while not being reliant on fossil fuels. 

    Thirty-two countries already utilise the energy source, and 50 are set to introduce it. Many of these 82 countries will be potential buyers, should Western Australia lift its ban on uranium mining. 

    Join Mailing List

    In a recent interview the successful contrarian investor Rick Rule, President and CEO of Sprott US Holdings, commented that:

    “The country that has access to the uranium, the country that has access to the stable craton that’s dry, the country that has access to a skilled labour force and the rule of law, is this truly odd country called Australia. The uranium business should be an Australian business.”

    Western Australia is perfectly positioned to remove the government ban on uranium mining, and capitalise on Rick’s salient advice.

    What should the Australian Defence Force do?

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    0

    Hint: the answer is in the name

    The Australian Defence Force (ADF) does lots of things it shouldn’t.

    Restrict the trading of others

    The Australian Defence Force (ADF) helps to enforce sanctions.  

    It contributes in varying degrees to efforts to enforce sanctions endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, like sanctions against North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and various countries in Africa, as well as other sanctions like those against Russia, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe.

    Sanctions impede and redirect, rather than stop, trade involving the targeted countries.  They rarely bring about regime or policy change in the targeted country, and any impact in this regard is more often negative than positive.  Sanctions amount to a diplomat’s response to a call to ‘do something’ without the commitment of ground troops.

    Deterring and countering restrictions on our own trade

    Some say the ADF can and should defend Australian trade by ensuring the ADF can project power including through a long-range navy.

    This is wrong.

    The likelihood of any attempts to stop Australia’s trade is low, the likelihood of success of any such attempts is low, the impact of a successful attempt to stop Australia’s trade would be far from catastrophic, and the ADF can do little to deter or counter any of this anyway.

    Firstly, consider the likelihood of attempts to stop Australian trade.  Here are some scenarios, from less to more likely.

    • The United Nations Security Council agreeing to impose sanctions on Australia in an attempt to stop Australian trade.
    • An assortment of powerful countries defying the Security Council and attempting to stop Australian trade themselves.
    • One country, such as China, unilaterally attempting to stop Australian trade, including through war.
    • Pirates attempting to stop Australian trade.

    Each scenario is unlikely, except perhaps the risk of piracy, for which traders can arrange their own security.

    The federal government should not have supported this illiberal state policy

    Secondly, consider the likelihood of success of any attempts to stop Australian trade. As we see with current sanction efforts, and even at the height of the last world war, even the most sophisticated campaigns against a country’s trade tend to impede and redirect trade, rather than stop it.

    Thirdly, consider the impact of a successful attempt to stop Australian trade. Despite popular impressions that Australia is heavily trade dependent, Australia has a below-average reliance on trade.  We are more self-sufficient than you think.  So a successful blockade of Australia would cause some hardship, but any claims beyond this are hyperbolic.

    Finally, even in the unlikely event of a successful trade blockade against Australia, what would be the optimal ADF response?

    Nothing.  

    The point is, the cost of having a military powerful enough to counter such a blockade would be greater than the cost of living self-sufficiently.

    The ADF as foreign aid

    The ADF is building infrastructure in PNG, Vanuatu, Fiji and the Solomons, doing maritime surveillance to defend the fisheries of various Pacific Islands, and training military and police forces in various Pacific countries. 

    Such action may fail to deliver political stability and prosperity to the Pacific, and may fail to deter the establishment of Chinese military bases in the Pacific.  Moreover, Australians suffer little from instability and poverty in the Pacific, and Chinese military bases in the Pacific would do little to increase the risk of, or damage from, Chinese aggression to Australia.  

    The ADF’s actions in the Pacific are essentially foreign aid, the funding of which should not be forced on all taxpayers.

    Despite popular impressions that Australia is heavily trade dependent, Australia has a below-average reliance on trade.

    Other overseas operations

    The operations of the ADF beyond the Pacific are unwarranted too.

    The ADF is training Ukrainians to fight Russia and remains in a fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, with a current focus on training Iraqi forces. The ADF dons blue berets to police the borders of Israel and the Koreas and to provide security in South Sudan, having recently provided security in Mali.

    These are not our fights. Interested Australians should be free to engage in these conflicts if they so choose, without roping the Australian taxpayer in. The ADF’s engagement in these fights does not represent cost-effective training for defending Australian soil, which is best done through defensive exercises in Australian conditions.  And while ADF personnel are overseas, they are not defending Australia.  

    Enforcing obedience to state law

    During the Covid lockdowns, the ADF was used in support of state police to prevent travel beyond legally permitted limits and to keep state borders closed. 

    The federal government should not have supported this illiberal state policy, and the military should not have been tasked with law enforcement.  In liberal democracies, we train and regulate our military primarily for the exertion of force on enemies, and our police primarily for the service and protection of citizens.

    Join Mailing List

    Disaster relief

    The ADF is increasingly being used for humanitarian assistance following floods and bushfires. This is not its role; indeed, such activities are a serious distraction from its primary role of the defence of Australia. 

    State governments should bolster the ranks of volunteer organisations to provide humanitarian assistance.

    Facing China with a Third Path: The Libertarian Road

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    1

    Chinese Premier Li Qiang has just concluded a four-day visit to Australia, marking the highest-level visit in seven years and widely seen as a full restoration of Sino-Australian relations. Over the past few decades, Sino-Australian relations have experienced ups and downs, primarily reflecting two distinct paths: the friendly approach of the Labor Party and the adversarial stance of the Liberal Party.

    The Labor Party’s Friendly Approach

    The Labor Party has historically been more accommodating towards China, often fostering closer ties and cooperation. This affinity can be attributed to ideological and historical reasons. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating, for instance, is infamously known for his pro-China stance, often criticising Western countries for their adversarial policies towards China. Kevin Rudd, another former Labor Prime Minister, who can speak Mandarin, worked tirelessly to strengthen Sino-Australian ties during his tenure and beyond. Additionally, Victoria’s ex-Premier Dan Andrews bypassed the federal government to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative at the state level, highlighting the depth of this alignment.

    China imposed tariffs and restrictions on Australian exports

    This historical closeness is not just about political manoeuvring but is rooted in ideological similarities. Both parties emphasise social welfare, state intervention in the economy, and a collectivist approach to governance. These shared values have facilitated a more collaborative relationship between the Australian Labor Party and the Chinese Communist Party. Notably, several former Labor politicians have been implicated in scandals involving Chinese influence, reinforcing the perception of an inherent closeness between the two.

    The Liberal Party’s Adversarial Stance

    In contrast, the Liberal Party has often taken a more adversarial stance towards China. Under the leadership of Scott Morrison, Sino-Australian relations reached their lowest point, characterised by trade sanctions and diplomatic tensions. The Liberal government’s pushback against Chinese influence in Australian politics, its criticism of China’s human rights record, and its calls for an independent investigation into the origins of COVID-19 exacerbated tensions.

    The economic consequences of this adversarial stance were significant. China imposed tariffs and restrictions on Australian exports, including wine, coal, and barley, causing substantial economic harm, while Australia imposed anti-dumping duties. This “enemy road” approach could be described as “killing a thousand enemies at the cost of eight hundred of our own.” While it aimed to curb Chinese influence, it also inflicted self-damage, undermining Australia’s economic interests and causing strain on key industries.

    The Third Path: A Principle-Based Approach

    While the first path seems shameless, the second path is also mindless. A third path, rooted in libertarian principles, might be more sensible and offer a principled and pragmatic alternative. This path advocates for free trade as an essential component of a free economy, emphasising mutual benefit rather than using trade as a political weapon.

    The Labor Party has historically been more accommodating towards China

    Libertarianism, influenced by the Austrian School of Economics, champions free markets, minimal government intervention, and individual liberty. As Mises put it, “The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war,” while free trade, on the other hand, makes for peace. Rothbard argued in his Ethics of Liberty, “Economic sanctions are coercive measures that violate the principles of a free society. They harm innocent people and are ineffective in bringing about political change.” 

    What’s more effective, in my opinion, is those unfree countries’ own policies. Authoritarian countries have often died because of themselves rather than external sanctions.

    Recent years, marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, have highlighted the vulnerabilities of non-free economies, China in particular, which suffered due to restrictive economic and political policies. China’s growing centralised economic policies, ridiculously restrictive lockdown policies, anti-capitalism attitude, especially in the real estate market, and growing hostile international policies against a variety of countries, including Australia, have brought huge miseries which haven’t been seen for over three decades to the Chinese people.

    Join Mailing List

    In conclusion, while the Labor Party’s approach may appear overly accommodating and the Liberal Party’s stance overly confrontational, a libertarian path offers a balanced and principled alternative, which advocates for maintaining principled economic policies that prioritise free trade, not as a means of leverage but as a foundation for mutual benefit and economic growth. By embracing and always standing firmly on free trade, Australia can foster a relationship with China that is in the best interest of Australian businesses and the Australian people, while not compromising our independent sovereignty, democratic liberty, and economic freedom.

    Laughing In The Face of Tyranny, $1 Million Bounty On Their Heads

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    Imagine you lived in Australia and enjoyed a great life. Then the government became tyrannical, you protested for democracy, but an anti-democratic security law was passed and you were intimidated and arrested. Released, you fled to New Zealand and were granted a visa there. But the Australian Federal Police placed a bounty on your head of $A190,202 (US$127,728) and activated its security apparatus to ‘extract’ you.

    Can you image this breach of your basic civil liberties? In what kind of psychological state would you be?

    As far as Liberty Itch knows, this story is fictitious. However, it corresponds to a true story so similar that we need only change three facts. In the real-life version you were born and raised in British-ruled Hong Kong, a Commonwealth country. Your new home is Australia. And your name is Ted Hui. All other details are the same.

    If you default to the ‘don’t-rock-the-boat’ conservative position of, ‘Yeah, well, that’s none of our business because he’s not an Australian citizen’, let’s take Mr. Hui’s situation but assume the victim is an Australian citizen. You now have the factual circumstances of Australian lawyer, Kevin Yam.

    Ted Hui
    Kevin Yam

    The Hong Kong Police has issued a HK$1 million bounty on someone who is not only an Australian resident, but an Australian citizen!

    Slothful ‘status-quo’ thinking might argue, “These men have obviously broken the law. They’re criminals. Police issue bounties all the time.” But there’s a lot more to the story.

    When the British transferred Hong Kong to China in 1997, the City was imbued with all the benefits of British culture: a parliamentary democracy, small government, plus a robust common law judicial system protecting civil liberties and property rights. It was a stable, bustling success story. China agreed to preserve democracy there for at least 50 years.

    Hong Kong Handover. 1997.

    Six years in and the Chinese Communist Party couldn’t resist meddling. Small snippets at first, then an attempt to implement a security law in 2003, thwarted by democrats. The student Umbrella Movement resisted the tyranny from 2014. But by 2019, the communists had installed sufficient sympathisers to flex their coercive muscle. Pro-democracy protests continued, in some ways similar to Australia’s Freedom Rallies protesting against the Covid lockdowns, but with higher stakes. In 2020, the Hong Kong National Security Law was passed, establishing “crimes” of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign organisations, control mechanisms to entrench authoritarianism.

    In Mr. Hui’s case, he was elected to the Legislative Council as a Hong Kong Democracy Party MP. He lent his support to the protests. For his efforts Mr. Hui was arrested and imprisoned without trial several times, the duration each time becoming longer than the last. In jail, he was coerced to be silent about the loss of freedoms and assaulted. He was released, fled and today lives in Adelaide.

    Liberty Itch has covered Mr. Hui here and here.

    Mr. Yam’s story is that he is an Australian citizen and merely lived in Hong Kong for twenty years. He’s a legal scholar with Georgetown University’s Centre for Asian Law and lives in Melbourne.

    These aren’t the backgrounds of criminals.

    These are scholarly, principled men acting for democracy and freedom.

    The CCP-backed Hong Kong Government is using extra-territorial arrest warrants and bounties as an intimidation tactic against an Australian lawyer. In light of the new security law, Australia rightly cancelled its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in 2020. Interpol has not been issued with a Red Notice by the Hong Kong Police. It would never be approved.

    In response to the Chinese Communist Party’s bounty, Mr. Hui said it “makes it clearer to Western democracies that China is going towards more extreme authoritarianism.”

    Mr. Yam stated, “It’s my duty to speak out against the crackdown that is going on right now, against the tyranny that is now reigning over the City that was once one of the freest in Asia. All they want to do is try to make a show of their view that the national security law has extra-territorial effect.”

    The freedoms of speech, assembly, movement, the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial are cornerstones of liberal democracy which libertarians cherish.

    It would be an error to view these men as an overseas problem. A CCP edict that Australian citizens and residents be ‘pursued for life’ is an affront to all Australians. If you support Assange’s freedom, you will find these bounties on Mr Hui and Mr Yam abhorrent. And, being the thinking, philosophically consistent libertarian that you are, you should express support for their human rights.

    If you don’t, who will support yours?

    Mind Your Language

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    1

    Everyone knows a suit is comprised of a jacket and a pair of pants. Two jackets are not a suit. Neither can two pairs of pants be called a suit. 

    This was an argument I often made during the marriage debate. Marriage, I argued, was the joining of a man and woman in a special relationship.  

    If two men or two women wished to be joined together then they can call it something else, but not marriage; not a suit.

    This idea of insisting that words reflect their true meaning and that things be called what they are, is not a new idea.

    As long ago as 500BC, Chinese philosopher Confucius said, “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.”

    Modern day politics has become largely about controlling the language. 

    As US preacher Chuck Swindoll says, ‘they adopt our vocabulary but not our dictionary.’

    A person on 50 per cent of the median wage is officially on the ‘poverty line’.

    Farmers used to drain water-logged swamp areas of their land, and no-one batted an eye. 

    Then swamps were renamed ‘wetlands’, and now can’t be touched. 

    We’ve re-named euthanasia ‘dying with dignity’; abortion is now referred to as ‘reproductive health’ or ‘planned parenthood’ or simply ‘pro-choice’. 

    Free speech is branded hate speech, local aboriginal tribes have become ‘First Nations’, power cuts are now called ‘load shedding’, tax increases are re-badged as ‘budget savings’ and denying one’s gender has become gender affirming.

    A person on 50 per cent of the median wage is officially on the ‘poverty line’.

    ‘Safe schools’ and ‘respectful relationships’ are anything but – as evidenced by lessons in bestiality presented to 14-year-old schoolgirls in South Australia.

    The Good Book says, ‘Woe to those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.’ – Isaiah 5:20.

    Then there are the perpetual ‘straw man’ arguments – misrepresenting an opponent’s position in order to quickly and easily destroy their argument.

    ‘Trickle-down economics’ is a straw man argument. There is no such theory in economics. But opponents of free-market economics invented the term ‘trickle-down’ to suggest free-markets are all about favouring the rich and hoping some of their wealth will ‘trickle down’ to those lower on the socio-economic ladder.

    Modern day politics has become largely about controlling the language. 

    Then there’s the ubiquitous use of the term ‘flat earthers’ when no-one, anywhere throughout history thought the world was flat. Not the Egyptians, not the Phoenicians, not the ancient Greeks; no-one thought the earth was flat. They weren’t silly. By standing on high ground and watching their tall ships sail over the horizon, they knew the earth was round, they just didn’t know how big it was. Christopher Columbus left Spain and headed west for India, not to prove the world was round, but to determine its size.

    Or the phrase Terra Nullius, a term used to manipulate debate on indigenous matters. 

    ‘Australia was founded on the basis of Terra Nullius,’ is one of those myths that survives by repetition, not historical fact.

    Terra Nullius is a Latin term meaning ‘land belonging to no one’. 

    Yet no-one ever said Australia was not occupied.

    The term ‘terra nullius’ was not mentioned anywhere in Australia until 1977!

    Join Mailing List

    Regarding exploration and occupation, the book 18th Century Principles of International Law stated that, “All territory not in the possession of states who are members of the family of nations and subjects of International Law must be considered as technically res nullius and therefore open to occupation”. ‘Res nullius’ – land not owned by a recognised nation, is not the same as ‘terra nullius’ – land not occupied by anyone e.g. Antarctica.

    And on a similar vein, that Aborigines didn’t get the vote, or were treated as ‘flora and fauna,’ until 1967. 

    All false. All examples of the mutilation of language to influence political debate. US author Michael Malice writes, ‘they’re not using language to communicate, they’re using it to manipulate.’

    12Page 1 of 2

    Popular Posts

    My Favorites

    The Covid Precursor Everybody Ignored

    Damon Hayhow - 1
    You May Be Shocked To Learn This Imagine the Australian government weaponising an engineered health crisis to rob citizens of their freedoms and destroy businesses....

    China’s Covert Australian Ops

    Bureaucracy and The Australian Ethos

    Raw Deal

    Popular Categories

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv