"Assuming" - a major error in international relations

Interesting reading on how assumptions, even with close allies, can be troublesome - here in the case of Australia and the problems China raises, from the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney:  The problem with American assumptions about Australia. First, a very nice description of what China is possibly doing to the international rule of law:

China's rise is not a threat in and of itself. But if Chinese leaders believe that they are not bound by international laws and norms, or that they can intimidate China's smaller neighbors into waiving their sovereign rights — as recent actions in the South China Sea would suggest — then China's rise could undermine the system that has served to foster an extraordinary run of peace and prosperity in this region for the last 25 years, with devastating consequences for the region, including Australia and the US.

But, the article goes on, it is a mistake for the U.S. to "assume" that this means all Aussies see the same threat level as some Americans do:

American officials frequently err, however, in assuming that the Australian defence community's views reflect a broader consensus in Australian society, or even the backbenches of parliament. As Rory Medcalf and James Brown noted in their Lowy Institute analysis in 2013, very few parliamentarians expressed much interest in defence policy. To the extent more do today, much of it seems to be motivated by rent-seeking in acquisitions. The Lowy Institute Poll last year showed that 77% of Australians see China as 'more of an economic partner to Australia' than 'a military threat.' Despite increased Chinese assertiveness over the previous few months, only 39% of Australians said they saw China as likely to be a military threat to Australia in 20 years, 9% fewer than the year before.

These views are particularly noticeable among elites in Australia's financial centres. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page seemed surprised to find former Prime Minister John Howard, 'sitting high above Sydney's sparkling harbor... [to be] cool when asked about China's maritime aggression in recent years.' But Howard reflects the sanguine view from executives in the office towers of Sydney and Melbourne, and among commercial elites in Australia's other capital cities.

In several corner suites, moreover, there is a concern, not that the Chinese leadership might be undermining the rules-based order, but that the US is recklessly raising tensions with China in a contest for regional primacy. This view holds that Australia's closeness to the US could pull it into a conflict that is not in Australia's interests. Such arguments overrate the risk of conflict between the US and China, and underrate the importance of the rules–based order to Australian prosperity. Some in the Australian defence community discourage their American counterparts from taking these arguments seriously, breezily declaring their proponents to be soft on China. But the Australians making them are not uninfluential.

Recommended reading.

The Groucho Marx State of the Union: "Are you going to believe me, or what you see with your own eyes?"

What happens when the President of the United States and the people of the country don't share the same vision of the path forward?

Finger pointing and blame, I gather.

As I read about the State of the Union speech, I can see that this President still doesn't think we, the majority of the American people, his ultimate bosses, "get it."

We've seen this before when he has blamed our reluctance to follow his path to his perceived socialist-lite heaven on a failure to properly communicate his message - his vision of where the U.S. ought to be.

Robert W. Merry at The National Interest in Obama’s Lecture Against Americans' Concerns writes:

But ultimately he blamed the American people for whatever concerns and fears they’re feeling. A president can only do so much, he said, without the people pulling their weight. Looking into the camera to the folks at home, he said, “It depends on you.” The grand vision he outlined “will only happen when the American people demand it.” By way of bringing the point home, he added that our form of government “is hard; it’s a lot easier to be cynical.”

What happens when the people don't support the President's vision? They elect members of the opposition to office in Congress in hopes of controlling the direction of country. As they did in the last election.

 If you are frustrated, you might well ponder that. Sure, it might be a failure of messaging, but it seems to me to be more likely that they are rejecting your desired path, over and over again. In short, the majority of the American people do not "demand" your vision but rather reject it. Reality keeps the majority grounded - they can see what is happening and they are not happy.

It doesn't help that the efforts to spin the achievements of your administration is so obvious that we are left with that Groucho Marx quote in the header to this post - a President asking "Are you going to believe me, or what you see with your own eyes?"

The Ship of State Sails On

A little Longfellow in the morning:

O Ship of State

Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
We know what Master laid thy keel,
What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel,
Who made each mast, and sail, and rope,
What anvils rang, what hammers beat,
In what a forge and what a heat
Were shaped the anchors of thy hope!
Fear not each sudden sound and shock,
'Tis of the wave and not the rock;
'Tis but the flapping of the sail,
And not a rent made by the gale!
In spite of rock and tempest's roar,
In spite of false lights on the shore,
Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea!
Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee.
Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,
Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,
Are all with thee, -are all with thee!