In Brief
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?
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.