This is an extended version of an article recently published in the China Daily (see: https://www.chinadailyasia.com/hk/article/640699).

Introduction

In less than a year, it will be three decades since China resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong on July 1, 1997. It did so by applying the One Country Two Systems (OCTS) formula previously developed in its modern form by Deng Xiaoping.

The essence of this concept is to foster unification while respecting established history and certain, prevailing political-economic realities, alongside safeguarding the fundamental interests of the entire Chinese nation (see: https://auckland.china-consulate.gov.cn/eng/zt/twwt/200311/t20031119_230551.htm).

Critics of how OCTS has been applied in Hong Kong are numerous and mainly Western-based. The stridency of this continuous censure intensified following the hugely disruptive insurrection that evolved in Hong Kong from mid-2019 (see: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/umbrella-movement-20-exposes-flaws-one-country-two-systems).

It is timely, at this point, to consider facts on the ground. In particular, it is instructive to study how the OCTS framework has coped with the continuous stress-testing it has experienced since its initial application in Hong Kong.

Stress-testing begins

A severe test commenced on day one when the Asian Financial Crisis began following the collapse of the Thai Baht in mid-1997. According to two French economists, eager (then suddenly curtailed) Japanese lending to high growth South East Asian countries combined with lax local regulation were primary factors triggering this crisis (see: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0922142508000054).

This financial turmoil soon led to a brazen attack by certain Western speculators on the Hong Kong dollar peg to the US dollar, following which, the new HKSAR government delivered a swift punishing response to the speculators, with crucial support from Beijing (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/603094).

Over a decade later, direct political pressures, within the SAR, challenging the operation of the OCTS framework began to intensify,

British Hong Kong & One Country Two Systems

The Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR established the constitutional basis for applying OCTS in Hong Kong. It was enacted by the Nation People’s Congress in 1990 after extended discussions dating back to a pivotal meeting, in Beijing, between Deng Xiaoping and British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, in 1982 that ultimately led to the signing of the Joint Declaration in 1984 (https://www.cmab.gov.hk/en/issues/joint2.htm).

In the post-war era, British Hong Kong was widely applauded for its remarkable “Asian tiger” success, not least by the American economist and Nobel Laureate, Milton Friedman (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/631846). It is, however, worth recalling some essential features of the British ruling regime that underpinned this admired performance.

From 1842 until 1991, the British ruled Hong Kong without recourse to any tangible form of elected participation in government. Much Western commentary still commonly emphasizes an adverse distinction between what are termed democratic and authoritarian jurisdictions. Using the Western political science tests associated with these terms, Britain ran Hong Kong for almost the entire period of its tenure relying on an (increasingly legalized) authoritarian governance system. The Governor, who formally enjoyed almost unqualified power, was appointed indefinitely. For a very long time the Governor also selected his own Legislative Council (LegCo) (see: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/authoritarian-legality-in-asia/understanding-authoritarian-legality-in-hong-kong/C9E98DFFDC4A087849F2B005FAADA92D).

Consistent with the OCTS formula, the Basic Law sharply varied this enduring British-shaped governance regime. LegCo was one-third directly elected in 1998 and the Basic Law spelled out an ultimate aim that both the HKSAR Chief Executive and Legislature should be elected by universal suffrage, “in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress.”

Stress-testing intensifies

These Basic Law provisions swiftly became the paramount focus of those political groups in Hong Kong most absorbed by the project of expediting radical electoral reform of the political structures that had underpinned almost 150 years of British rule.

After 1997, the pan-democrat camp steadily became almost spellbound by this issue, regularly quarreling within about lack of sufficient commitment to this cause, by one group or another. Attention to many key issues related to people’s livelihood either fell away – or those issues were recast and slanted to serve the transcendent objective of spurring rapid electoral reform.

This powerful, competitive fixation on accelerated electoral reform, come what may, proved to be the source of the most intense stress-tests applied to OCTS.

After the Democratic Party worked constructively with the HKSAR Government and Beijing in 2010 to secure significant further reform of the LegCo electoral system, certain other elements with the pan-democrat circle turned on these reformers, which saw the movement split into two factions according to professor Ma Ngoc (https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/hong-kongs-democrats-divide/). This beneficial reform was secured after a reckless, “de facto referendum” tactic employed by the radical faction fell flat (see: https://sites.google.com/site/mathewyhwong/data/hong-kong-politics-database/-de-facto-referendum-and-the-political-reform).

Radical protest behavior subsequently intensified.

In 2014, Hong Kong was subjected to the Occupy Central protest, which, again demanded rapid, sweeping electoral reform. The movement’s competing leadership factions emphasized they had scant interest in compromise. Severe disruption endured for almost three months. Massive levels of dislocation were imposed on normal life in Hong Kong, especially in primary business areas (see: https://law.nus.edu.sg/projects/occupy-central-for-universal-suffrage-constitutional-development-and-political-reform-in-hong-kong/).

Then, in 2016, came the Lunar New Year violent political protest in Mong Kok. The Economist said it was: “The worst outbreak of rioting since the 1960s. The violence flared amid rumours that officials were trying to clear away unlicensed hawkers selling local delicacies. Reports that some rioters shouted “establish Hong Kong as a country!” suggest that it was about more than fried food.” Of the 120 people injured, 90 were police officers (see: https://www.economist.com/china/2016/02/13/street-violence-and-politics).

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) of the leading G7 group of countries had urged Hong Kong, in 2008, to reform its visibly inadequate extradition regime. In 2019, the SAR government introduced badly needed extradition reforms. As the government attempted to explain the new bill, the initiative was swiftly reframed (wrongly but successfully) by certain strident media outlets as a fearsome new, freedom-threatening law (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/159971).

Major anti-bill marches followed. Soon after, organized political violence on a far-reaching, continuous scale began and certain opposition members openly sought offshore support - from the US especially - including intervention to back the growing political upheaval in Hong Kong. On June 12, 2019, a grim political riot vandalized the LegCo building and stopped LegCo from operating completely. This posed a unique threat to the constitutional order.

This swelling political hostility ultimately developed into a gravely destabilizing insurrection which lasted from mid-2019 into the following year.

Even after that unprecedented turmoil was brought under control, militant elements within the opposition remained undeterred. They moved on to a fresh scheme, in 2020, to create fundamental disruption under the so-called 35+ plan. Using a hoped-for opposition majority, they planned to use provisions in the Basic Law (contrary to their proper purpose) to coerce the Government by denying essential funding. This was a key step in provoking a new constitutional and political crisis, where an ultimate laam chau – burn together - outcome was openly visualized.

Meanwhile, Washington had become, by 2017, directly confrontational towards Beijing in its attempt to contain China’s rise. Customary menacing methods were deployed – including now well-documented moral, organizational and financial support for the ongoing insurgency in Hong Kong (see: https://the-reasonable-man.com/posts/nury-vittachi-other-side-story).

During the later British Hong Kong era, although the media and residents could openly criticize the government, they had to do so without directly challenging the constitutional framework of the colonial governance system. When particular governance red lines were crossed, the British moved swiftly and forcefully to restrain such breaches of these “loyal opposition” expectations. They did so, for example, by suspending publications, by charging media operatives, and, in extreme cases, like the political riots in 1967, by applying lethal political force.

The insurrection that gained traction in Hong Kong from mid-2019, confirms how those most implacably opposed to the HKSAR government — and Beijing — had evolved into an openly violent, disloyal opposition. One where the radicals set the agenda. One where they sought to upend the prevailing constitutional order, insisting that only their view of the correct political structures was admissible

No responsible group within the opposition dared to step forward to say that the continuous violence was unconscionable and the insurrection was unsupportable.

Beijing responds

For Beijing, it became unambiguously clear that the political insurgency of 2019 must not be allowed to recur. Furthermore, foreign actors must never, in future, be permitted such a free hand to involve themselves in destabilizing politics in Hong Kong.

At the same time, Beijing remained resolutely committed to supporting the OCTS framework. Exceptional impulse control was displayed in 2019. There was no resort to military force to restore order in Hong Kong.

There was, however, an eventual resort to fundamental, radical legal reform to bolster national security and to restructure LegCo. These needed reforms have been instrumental in restoring stability in the SAR. They also ratified the pivotal importance of OCTS.

This recharged stability enabled Hong Kong’s remarkable, proved capacity to cope with and recover robustly from adverse experiences, to reassert itself.

Rejuvenation indications

Following the 2019 insurgency, a wave of personnel departures from Hong Kong universities and varied professional occupations was evident. Today, five universities in the SAR are ranked in the Top 100 universities worldwide according to a recent report, which described this affirmative change as part of an “historic realignment of academic prowess from West to East” (see: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education/article/3369243/5-universities-hong-kong-rank-top-100-historic-shift-west-east).

Hong Kong role as an international financial centre has seen a similar rebound, “reclaiming its spot as the world’s leading initial public offering (IPO) fundraising venue in 2025”, while witnessing total equity fundraising in excess of US$100 billion (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/640268). It was recently reported that UK, US and Singaporean companies were among the leading sources of inbound foreign capital to Hong Kong in 2026 (see: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/hong-kong-economy/article/3369494/money-money-us-uk-firms-still-coming-hong-kong-commerce-chief-says).

Meanwhile, the SAR has regained a fully functioning legislature. As I noted last year, the contrast with the previous, vigorously dysfunctional LegCo is stark. We can already see the how this beneficial lift has improved the focus on addressing a range of pivotal livelihood issues, including Hong Kong’s serious housing, aged-care, and healthcare challenges. LegCo is now an institution that is set to play a central role in shaping Hong Kong’s future (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/624689).

There are many other indications of how well Hong Kong has recovered, including: the confident development of the SAR’s first Five Year Plan, the pivotal Northern Metropolis project, rising visitor numbers, continual infrastructure improvements, and Hong Kong’s elevated, globally-measured, rule-of-law ranking (see: https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/Hong%20Kong%20SAR,%20China_1.pdf). .

One exceptional example of Hong Kong’s coping and recovery capacity evident in 2019 confirms why we should not be too surprised by this remarkable range of rejuvenation indicators. According to Bloomberg, insurgency rioters inflicted damage costing over US$200 million on the MTR during that year (see: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-05/hong-kong-protests-cost-embattled-mtr-operator-204-million).

Despite this massive level of system damage, the operator kept the system running throughout almost all of the insurrection period -an extraordinary achievement (see: https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201912/04/WS5de716cba310cf3e3557bdb8.html)

Looking forward

When President Xi Jinping visited Hong Kong on July 1, 2022, to mark the 25^th anniversary of China’s resumption over sovereignty over Hong Kong, he applauded the success of the OCTS framework, stressing that: “There is no reason for such a good system to change, and it must be maintained for a long time” (see: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/01/1109272990/xi-defends-vision-of-hong-kong-while-marking-25-year-anniversary-of-handover). He also observed how, “Hong Kong has withstood severe tests again and again, overcoming challenges one by one” (see: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-61991980).

Hong Kong’s political-economic journey since 1997 has plainly not been smooth. The SAR would be in a better place today had this experience been less tempestuous. Nevertheless, it is clear that coping with and recovering from all of these challenges has, despite what a range of Western critics may assert, durably strengthened the OCTS framework. This is an outcome which is conspicuously beneficial for both Hong Kong and China as a whole, especially bearing in mind how it is now expected that this framework may apply beyond 2047.

Introduction

The State Library of Victoria (SLV) in Melbourne was established in 1853. It is Australia’s oldest and busiest public library. It was one of the first free public libraries worldwide. It attracts over 2 million visitors each year (see: https://www.slv.vic.gov.au/interact-with-us/media-centre/state-library-victoria-now-third-busiest-public-library-world).

The massive Victorian Gold Rush began in 1851 prompting an extraordinary population and building boom. In the 1850s, the colony of Victoria was producing around one-third of all global gold. This helped support the establishment of the Melbourne Public Library (which later became the SLV) in the same year the University of Melbourne was founded (see https://resources.vic.gov.au/geology-and-data/minerals/metals/gold/gold-mining-in-victoria).

Location

The SLV has retained its original location, on the corner of Swanston and La Trobe Streets, in the Central Business District (CBD). Ten different tram routes pass close to its main entrance and it now has its own new Metro Station.

Facilities

Apart from four major public holidays, the SLV is open to the public, free of charge, every day of the year from 10 am to 6 pm. The facilities for visitors are excellent and those for readers are outstanding. The range of reading, study and hobby areas make it user friendly.

The La Trobe Reading Room (opened in 1913) - once known as the Domed Reading Room – is superb. It retains traditional, large individual wooden-desk reading spaces, with oak chairs, housed under a huge central skylight located in a six-storey concrete dome. It can accommodate up to 320 readers at a time in a room holding over 30,000 books (see: https://www.slv.vic.gov.au/visit/our-magnificent-spaces/la-trobe-reading-room).

Visitors

The nature of visitors and readers was strikingly evident on a recent Sunday visit. My rough estimate was that over 70% were East Asian. Less than 10% of the population in Melbourne identify as having Chinese ancestry.

The SLV is close to Melbourne’s large Chinatown and many at the SLV were tourists. But there were still very few true-blues attracted to taking social-media-snaps featuring a huge book collection in the background.

The SLV - and its surrounds - are marvellously maintained. It is credit to all those looking after its operation. Those in charge must be particularly pleased that new waves of immigrants over the last several decades have discovered the SLV’s exceptional bookish charm and how it is an easily accessible, first-rate place to study.

Given its location in the CBD, it is very handy for bookworms who also love shopping.

A Man Who Believed in Libraries

Ray Bradbury, the noted American science-fiction writer, died in 2012, aged 91. His best-known work (made into a 1960s) film, was, Fahrenheit 451.

The book was first published as a novel in 1953 and the film, starring Julie Christie and Oskar Werner, was released in 1966 (see: https://mubi.com/en/films/fahrenheit-451/trailer).

The title refers to the temperature at which paper ignites. This futuristic dystopian novel presented a world which featured organized hostility to books and reading.

Bradbury was a passionate believer in and supporter of public libraries. He explained that, coming from an impoverished family, he had essentially self-educated himself during the Depression, after finishing High School, by spending an immense amount of time in public libraries. He wrote sections of Fahrenheit 451 in the UCLA Library basement (see: https://www.facebook.com/GoodwillLibrarian/posts/ray-bradbury-loved-libraries-so-much-he-credited-them-with-his-educationhe-spent/1515702509949857/).

Bradbury was investigated by the FBI during the 1950s for alleged “communist sympathies” (see: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/aug/30/ray-bradbury-investigated-fbi). He worked tirelessly to support the cause of public libraries and he was, for a time, robustly opposed to the growth of the Internet, which he perceived as threatening the best sort of reading habits (see: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/jun/22/ray-bradbury-defends-libraries).

Bradbury would surely applaud the remarkable, contemporary public support for the SLV.

Keeping an open mind

Sir Redmond Barry was an Anglo-Irish lawyer who migrated to Melbourne in the late 1830s. He subsequently became a Victorian Supreme Court judge. He was instrumental in helping found both the SLV and Melbourne University (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redmond_Barry) .

An imposing statue of Redmond Barry stands directly outside the SLV, where his critical contribution to its creation is noted.

Barry’s reputation has been continuously intertwined with that of Australia’s best-known bushranger (outlaw) Ned Kelly. Barry sentenced Kelly to death. As one writer observed: “This is the stuff of myth-making: the pompous Supreme Court judge cursed by the fearless bushranger - I will see you there when I go - (or words to that effect), only [for Barry] to die 12 days later of ‘congestion of the lungs and a carbuncle in the neck’” (see: https://residentjudge.com/2009/02/04/redmond-barry-an-anglo-irish-australian-by-ann-galbally/).

One of the reasons for Kelly’s lasting fame is that he created a suit of armour for himself to wear when he confronted the Victoria Police at Glenrowan in 1880. One of the SLV’s prized exhibits is that celebrated armour.

It is on display in the SLV’s Redmond Barry Reading Room (see: https://www.slv.vic.gov.au/whats-on/ned-kellys-armour).

A Global Challenge

According to the World Meteorological Institute, Western Europe recently experienced its hottest ever June-July period, as similar record-breaking hot weather advanced across North America and Asia (see: https://wmo.int/media/news/record-breaking-heat-and-extreme-weather-continue).

These extreme weather figures build on an alarming trend evident for some years, widely attributed to climate change.

A conspicuous consequence of these grim weather-pattern changes, according to NASA, has been the growth in the recorded frequency and intensity of significant wildfires globally. This report stressed that, “extreme wildfire activity has more than doubled worldwide over a 21-year span” (see: https://science.nasa.gov/earth/explore/wildfires-and-climate-change/).

Further Significant Consequences

Intense urban-area fires have also been evident this year in Spain, France, Greece and Britain, for example, forcing massive evacuations of residents and tourists (see: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/14/arrested-suspicion-starting-wildfires-europe-france).

In January, 2025, significant areas of Los Angeles were severely affected by wildfires spilling over into metropolitan districts. These fires, “claimed at least 29 lives, forced over 200,000 evacuations, and destroyed more than 18,000 structures” according to NASA (see: https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/dashboard/stories/la-fires).

In August, 2023, over 100 people perished amid intense urban destruction caused by a wildfire that swept into the town of Lahaina on Maui Island in Hawaii. This was the deadliest blaze in modern American history according to one detailed assessment (see: https://www.wired.com/story/cities-arent-supposed-to-burn-like-this-anymore-especially-lahaina/).

Organized firefighting is immensely demanding and the burden placed on firefighting services, globally, now looks set to be amplified significantly. It is crucial for fire-fighters to have access to a generous supply of high-quality, firefighting hardware – especially fire trucks - in order to contain fires and secure least harmful outcomes.

CBS reported, when the devastating Los Angeles fires broke out in early January, 2025, that the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) had 252 mobile fire appliances and 217 ambulances available for use. At the same time, more than 100 LAFD trucks, engines and ambulances were out of service and in need of repair. Lack of trained mechanics and spare parts help explain this grim position (see: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/investgation-lafd-data-out-of-service-vehicles-palisades-fire/).

An American Answer

Meanwhile, according to the New York Times, three Wall Street private equity firms now largely control “Fire engine manufacturing [and] around the country, prices have soared, and orders can take years to fulfil” (see: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/17/us/fire-engines-shortage-private-equity.html).

In July this year, a bi-partisan congressional group summarized the position in this way: “Rampant consolidation in the fire truck manufacturing industry is undermining public safety, squeezing fire departments’ budgets, and forcing taxpayers to bear the consequences.” They also said that: fire truck prices have doubled over the last decade, dominant fire truck manufacturers have restricted supply by closing their own manufacturing facilities, fire departments are now facing delivery delays of up to five years, and higher prices and longer delivery times for fire trucks have prevented fire departments from replacing aging trucks, depriving fire fighters of the essential equipment required to work safely and effectively (see: https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-banks-file-bipartisan-bicameral-resolution-directing-the-ftc-to-investigate-corporate-roll-ups-of-firetruck-manufacturers/).

For a penetrating analysis of this grim reality see: Chinese factories build fire trucks for $400,000 in six weeks. In the US it’s $2 million in 4 years:

https://www.reddit.com/r/mealtimevideos/comments/1k36vtu/chinese_factories_build_fire_trucks_for_400000_in/

This awful problem, where the provision of vital public emergency vehicles is being milked to maximize private profits unsurprisingly, appears to be most severe in the US. But around the world, the challenge of delivering such vehicles cost-effectively is plain, especially in the Global West, where maximum prices for the most sophisticated units exceed a million pounds in the UK and a million dollars in Australia, for example.

And these acute delivery delays and inflated cost problems are set to grow more serious over coming years.

An Alternative Answer

However, a significant remedy is already evident. It is not a perfect solution (nothing ever is). But a robustly competitive, alternative source of supply now exists.

Rapidly modernizing and urbanizing China, with its 1.4 billion population, has more need than almost any country of seriously enlarged access to modern fire fighting equipment, including all sorts of fire trucks, to cover rural and urban areas and airports, for example.

China currently produces over 5,000 fire trucks annually (some estimates are significantly higher). These, as in the US, are produced by specialist builders including, Chengli Special Automobile and Sichuan Chuanxiao. China also still imports some specialized fire fighting vehicles (see: https://www.chinaspv.com/statistics/5333.html).

Fortune Insights recently confirmed that Europe and the US remain the leading global builders of mobile firefighting equipment. This global market, which is currently around US$12 billion per annum, is set to rise to over US$17 billion by 2034 (see: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/fire-trucks-market-104087).

Last year Reuters reported that the most expensive US built fire trucks cost more than US$2 million with very long delivery times of up to four years (see: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/fire-truck-prices-hit-2-million-us-firefighters-demand-an-antitrust-probe-2025-05-13/) According to a separate investigation, Chinese built equivalent fire trucks are now around 75% cheaper with much more rapid delivery times. In China, a regular fire truck it can be built within 6 weeks (see:

).

This is highly specialized equipment, of course, that requires highly specialized maintenance. But certain Chinese builders are already providing this. You can purchase “off the peg” or they can build on a foreign (European or Japanese) heavy-truck chassis if you wish and long-term after sales service, including global onsite service, is also offered (see: https://www.csctrucks.com/info/csctruck-fire-truck-your-ideal-chinese-fire-t-102866951.html)

Moreover, comprehensive, online guides comparing features and prices are now available for those considering the purchase of a Chinese fire truck (see:

).

Apart from the tariff barriers which regularly apply, the importation of fire trucks into the EU and across the Global West is subject to enduring, complex regulatory regimes governing technical and safety standards and related matters. Long-term (especially EU and British) global suppliers are very well established.

Nevertheless, manufacturers of Chinese firefighting equipment have now begun serious collective marketing in the EU, with around 300 Chinese companies recently exhibiting at the Interschutz trade fair in Germany (see: https://asia.nikkei.com/economy/trade/chinese-firefighting-equipment-makers-target-untapped-eu-market).

In fact, Chinese manufacturers have an impressive record of adapting to varied compliance frameworks to secure and maintain foreign market access (see: https://www.scmp.com/economy/article/3354060/chinese-companies-hungary-scramble-adjust-post-orban-era). This is just one factor that helps explain how China has so swiftly risen to become the world’s top car exporter (see: https://www.automotivemanufacturingsolutions.com/strategy/china-overtakes-japan-as-global-vehicle-export-leader/2621926)

Meanwhile, in the substantial, growing Global South markets Chinese fire trucks (and a wide range of firefighting equipment) are more readily considered. Buyers in these markets are far less burdened by “West-is-best” doctrines. They are focused on performance and value for money. These are early days, but Kazakhstan and Pakistan have already imported several hundred Chinese fire trucks while other export markets include Papua New Guinea and the Dominican Republic (see: https://m.chinatrucks.org/news/10365.html).

As it happens, Nikkei, Japan’s primary financial media outlet, recently noted how China is already a significant supplier of dependable parts and components to leading manufacturers of firefighting vehicles and related equipment in the EU, Britain and the US. Certain Chinese fire trucks also use joint-venture, European engines built in China and other imported components.

Looking Forward

China is a relative newcomer to the task of manufacturing complete fire trucks for global export. Emergency vehicles, especially, need to be thoroughly tested in the field under high-stress conditions, to establish confidence in their essential build quality. But China has been producing these vital vehicles for local use over an extended period. They have accordingly, been extensively tested within the world’s largest single, relevant market. And they are now increasingly being tested in certain export markets.

Next, electric-powered fire trucks are now being delivered. And China is well-placed to lead this development significantly. Ravi Gadepelli, an Indian transportation specialist, recently argued that: “It is very likely that the Chinse e-truck manufacturers will disrupt the global freight truck market” (see: https://restofworld.org/2025/china-electric-freight-trucks/).

We can expect a global escalation in the demand for fairly priced, robustly tested fire fighting vehicles and equipment in the future. America has provided a profit obsessed example of the worst sort of way to meet that demand. China may well be poised to provide a substantial level of viably priced, high-quality firefighting vehicles to meet this crucial, world-wide demand over the next several decades.

The rail advantage

The dictionary definition of a tram is “a passenger vehicle that runs on rails laid along public streets” (see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tram).

The first trams were horse-drawn, originally introduced in New York City in 1832. Vehicles using metal wheels rolling on fixed rails provided a far better ride than horse drawn buses operating over unpaved or roughly paved streets. Moreover, pulling these early tram cars, a given team of usually two horses could pull far heavier loads, due to lower rolling-resistance compared to a horse-drawn wagon.

Horses, however, can only work for so long. Many were required to maintain a regular daily service. Plus, horses need to be carefully looked after on a daily basis.

Meanwhile, installers of these early tramway systems realized that exposed, regular rail-tracks - with their tripping and obstruction problems - were a bad idea where streets were shared with people, horses and carts. Thus, the embedding of (light) rails within the roadway became the norm.

The search for alternative power sources continued. Steam-powered trams and even trams with internal combustion engines emerged but problems with configuration, refuelling, noise, pollution – and frightened horses - also emerged (see: https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/cleveland-newburgh-dummy-railroad). .

Two primary solutions

Cable Trams

Cable-pulled trams relied on gripping a continuously moving endless cable buried under – and accessible through – the road surface. Power came from a stationary steam engine located in a terminus base station.

This system delivered smooth, reliable power that was especially suited to operating trams on hilly terrains. Which helps explain how hilly San Francisco came to install the world’s first effective cable tram system in 1873.

About a decade later, Melbourne began installing cable trams on a grand scale. Melbourne was mainly flat rather than hilly. But it had well-planned, uncommonly wide streets, well suited to building a cable tram network. The cable-trams were very popular and by the early 20^th century, Melbourne had the largest cable tram network in the world with around 600 cable trams in operation providing a remarkably frequent service (see: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-10/140-years-since-first-cable-tram-melbourne/105988072).

Cable tram systems require extensive, regular and awkward maintenance, however, far more so than electric trams. Melbourne’s last cable tram ran in 1940 (see below). Meanwhile, despite those maintenance challenges, hilly San Franscisco retained its cable trams.

As it happens, both San Francisco and Melbourne were booming cities in the second half of the 19^th century as result of exceptional, proximate Gold Rushes (see: https://sovereignhilledblog.com/tag/california-gold-rush/).

Electric Trams

Once the challenge of delivering electric power reliably and safely to trams had been resolved, the performance superiority of electric trams compared to cable trams was confirmed.

The first regular electric tram services emerged in Europe and Japan in the 1890s. Extensive tramway systems were subsequently installed across many European cities (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram).

Tramway (or streetcar) systems were widely adopted, at the same time, in the US and Canada and in Latin America. Tram services were also adopted more widely including in certain African cities, in India and in Asia (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tram_and_light_rail_transit_systems_by_country).

The remarkable resilience of the Melbourne tram network

Establishing the network

Although an experimental electricity-powered tramline had been tried in Melbourne by 1889, due to the dominance of its cable tram network, Melbourne was slower than other cities to develop its electric tram network. Initially, new electric tramlines were built to connect to the cable tram network.

By 1919, the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board (MMTB), a public utility, was established. It soon took over the running of all tram-systems in Melbourne - cable and electric – and it initiated the steady conversion of the extensive cable tram network to electric traction. The last cable tram line was closed in 1940 (see: https://www.railtram.com.au/melbourne-tramway-history)

The MMTB was led, from the outset by men who were single-minded about:

· The value of the system they ran;

· The need to maintain it in good condition; and

· The need to protect it from all those who might undermine its continuity.

Protecting the network

The first chairman, Alexander Cameron (1919-1935) was followed by Hector Hercules Bell (1936 – 1949). They were followed by Major General Sir Robert Risson (1949 – 1970) (see: https://www.trammuseum.org.au/papers/heritage.htm).

Around the globe, many tramway systems fell badly out of fashion after World War II and, outside of Eastern Europe, most were removed in North America, Europe and Australia. Trams were seen as a menace by the rapidly increasing number of private car owners and buses were argued (not least by bus-makers) to be far more flexible, efficient and less obstructive (see: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-12/sydneys-original-tram-network-what-happened-curious-sydney/9610328).

Sir Robert Risson was unyielding in his fiercely-reasoned hostility to this exceptional anti-tram movement. Unlike other tram networks, that run by the MMTB had been well maintained, even during the depression-era. The network was also blessed with a large fleet of proven, durable W2-class trams. Risson proved to be particularly effective in seeing off the political-economic challenge that the network faced in the 1950s and 1960s (see: https://www.trammuseum.org.au/papers/heritage.htm).

This achievement was recognized in one nick-name for those W2 trams: Major Risson’s Juggernauts.

One of Australia’s pivotal industrial disagreements unfolded within the Melbourne tram-experience, also. This resulted in the last jailing in Australia, in 1969, of a trade union official, Clarrie O’Shea, for taking industrial action (refusing to pay fines imposed on the Australian Tramway and Motor Omnibus Employees’ Association in the course of an intense industrial dispute). This jailing, by Judge, Sir John Kerr (who later sacked Prime Minister Whitlam, as Governor-General, in 1975) triggered Australia’s largest postwar national strike (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarrie_O%27Shea).

Ultimately, Robert Risson helped Melbourne dodge a bullet. Prior to the war, the Sydney tram network was measurably larger than the Melbourne tram system but it had been, comparatively, poorly maintained. By 1961, the entire, huge Sydney network no longer existed. Hundreds of trams were stripped and burned (see: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-12/sydneys-original-tram-network-what-happened-curious-sydney/9610328).

Over 30 years later, Sydney began rebuilding a tram system – now called a light-rail network – with the first new line opened in 1997. There are now four lines (with a total track length of almost 50 kilometres) and more are planned (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail_in_Sydney).

Network influence

The impact of the network on daily life in Melbourne has been profound.

Two significant examples confirm this.

Prior to the emergence of shopping malls, one-stop, suburban strip-shopping dominated and the most extensive strip-shopping zones emerged along major tram routes. The longest of these, extending for around 8 kilometres, followed the Sydney Road tram route, which, passes through several inner suburbs,. It is the longest shopping strip in Australia (see: https://www.commercialrealestate.com.au/news/one-stop-shop-why-melbournes-iconic-sydney-road-strip-stays-in-front-1373148/).

The network expanded as Melbourne grew. At the same time, Australian Rules Football developed rapidly. This local, fast-paced, football code was mainly played on large, cricket ovals (which removed the need for an offside rule). The introduction of the “8-hour day” work-regime enhanced the intense following of local teams on Saturdays. The tram network helped provide good access to many inner suburban grounds for thousands of deeply committed fans (see: https://www.trammuseum.org.au/papers/heritage.htm).

The largest tram system in the world

The operation of the Melbourne tram network was controversially privatized in 1999 (see: https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/apo-nid309595.pdf).

Notwithstanding the contentious nature of this policy change, the network has been continuously upgraded since then, with the addition of many multi-car, European-style trams and widely improved tram-stops throughout the network.

With a track length of around 260 kilometres, it is now the largest tram / light-rail -system in the world (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_tram_and_light_rail_transit_systems).

There is a free city-circle tram plus all tram travel within the CBD (and nearby) is free (see: https://www.visitmelbourne.com/regions/melbourne/practical-information/getting-here-and-around/public-transport/city-circle-tram). .

Substantial further extensions are planned (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Melbourne_tram_extensions).

Epilogue

The tram network - now over 140 years old - is emblematically important to Melbourne in a similar manner to the way the Tube System remains a primary signifier of the character of modern London.

Nadia Tass, a child of Greek immigrants to Melbourne, understood this particularly well. Her debut film as a director, in 1986, was the imaginative comedy-crime film “Malcolm,” where the tram network features as both: an essential element in the canvas of the film; and in plot development. It is where we also learned how to get two-for-the-price-of-one with an early Honda Z micro-car:

Colin Friels plays Malcolm, the splendidly tram obsessed, tramways employee - see:

As it happens, the West European city that I have visited most often, Vienna, has retained a marvellous tram network.

Coincidentally, the cities where I have lived longest, outside of Melbourne - Hong Kong and Toronto - have both retained their long-lived tram networks.

A slightly shorter version of this article was recently published in the China Daily (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/637801).

In the Beginning

Conspicuously grim experiences dominated Chinese history during the 19^th century and much of the 20^th century. The British-led Opium Wars (1839-1842 and 1856 – 1860) resulted in humiliating defeat for the Qing Dynasty. More predatory foreign incursions followed. Then Japan defeated China in the first Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) and took Taiwan from China.

After the 1911 Chinese Revolution and the fall of the Qing Dynasty, weak government and warlordism - leading to Civil War - was accompanied by an exceptionally brutal Japanese invasion of China. After Japan was defeated in 1945, the Civil War resumed. The Communist Party of China (CPC) finally defeated the Kuomintang (KMT) and proclaimed the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on October 1, 1949.

Led by the US, many Western nations were very slow to recognize the PRC. During those early PRC decades, Mao Zedong presided during the terrible famine arising from the Great Leap Forward (1958 – 1962) and, soon after, the immensely violent and disruptive Cultural Revolution (1966 – 1976).

In December 1978, the new paramount leader Deng Xiaoping, announced China’s modern Open-Door policy and the extraordinary, continuing transformation of China began.

The Nature and Impact of Soft Power

The BBC recently advised that: “More people around the world now favour China over the US”. This headlined story explained the results of a global study by the US-based, Pew Research Center, where 42,000 people were polled across 36 countries between February and May this year. This is the first time the Pew organization has recorded such an outcome (see: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd959q11g54o).

I first wrote in the China Daily about the steady rise of Chinese soft power almost three years ago after a well-known US Congressman, Raja Krishnamoorthi, warned in the journal Foreign Policy, that: “The US cannot afford to lose a soft power race with China” (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/356728).

I noted that almost all geopolitical “soft power” explanations draw on the seminal analysis by the (late) Harvard political scientist, Joseph Nye, who promoted the term in his 1990 book Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. At that time, Nye wrote, ‘When one country gets other countries to want what it wants (this) might be called co-optive or soft power in contrast with the hard or command power of ordering others to do what it wants.”

About a year later, in the China Daily, I outlined why a continuing rise in Chinese soft power was evident. This article drew on a report in the journal Foreign Affairs about a Yale university survey conducted across a range of developing countries. That university investigation confirmed how a majority of those surveyed – after being given access to increased basic information about China – concluded that the Chinese system was: “more responsive [than the US political model] and better at delivering growth, and, remarkably, more democratic in character” (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/595383).

Contemporary Developments

Since then, Chinese innovative manufacturing has intensified its pioneering role in so many areas that are both directly and indirectly positive for consumers around the world. Examples include: a pivotal contribution advancing every aspect of green energy infrastructure, remarkable logistics and shipping improvements, affordable EV and regular motor vehicles, and open-source / open-weight, low-cost AI agents - labelled “AI communism” by some, out-paced, sulky Western critics (see: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/20/china-google-ai-race).

China is also still providing a vast range of value-for-money, high-demand consumer goods, including: clothing, toys, hardware, building materials, computers and mobile phones, as well as, at the macro-level, massive tunnel-boring machines (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/636683).

China has, thus, continued to deliver products and services globally that are steadily and affordably improving the daily lives of millions around the world on a remarkable scale.

And not just in the Global South. UCLA professor, Chris Tang, vividly captured one aspect of this soft power growth in a recent China Daily article entitled: “The power of practical tech: how China is winning global AI race.” Tang’s airport ride after arriving in Paris was in a Chinese EV. The multi-lingual, Romanian immigrant driver said he had recently sold his Mercedes and purchased a BYD Seal because the Chinese EV was cheaper, superior in quality, and far more economical to operate adding that he felt China was doing something that could benefit common people like him (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/636823).

Benchmark Erosion

When Professor Nye wrote his book on soft power in 1990, the US was the exemplar, in his view, of how to develop and wield such power, and he was surely right about this. The US had a remarkable story to tell about itself, which was linked to exceptional marketing prowess evident in America’s global dominance of every English language media sector.

The basis of America’s soft power ascendency claim has severely deteriorated since then, however. Moreover, no amount of Western political marketing can, today, smother frightful, US-led war-mongering realities in ways that remained possible in the 1990s.

In March this year, I wrote about America’s dismal decade, since 2016, when Donald Trump was first elected as president. I also argued how the foundations for this accelerated adulteration of the American brand were laid by President Obama after 2009 and observed how President Biden had gravely amplified this relapse during his tenure in the White House, exemplified by Biden flying to Israel to hug Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in public as Israel unleashed an unbridled, genocidal attack on Gaza following the fearful Hamas attack on Israel in October, 2023. With that single embrace Biden mortally debased America’s global political credibility (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/630683).

In May this year, Professor Stephen Walt, from Harvard University, published an article in Foreign Policy arguing how President Trump had impelled “The End of America’s Soft Power,” concluding that “The United States has given up on one of its core international strengths” (see: https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/05/04/trump-soft-power-usa/). Sasha Mudd, writing for Prospect Magazine in the UK, shortly before this, said that “Trump has destroyed American soft power” (see: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/united-states/72128/trump-has-destroyed-american-soft-power).

More recently, Professor Robert Pape, from the University of Chicago, described President Trump’s Israeli-guided decision to wage war - yet again - on Iran, in this way: “What a stupid, stupid war,” he said. “Unbelievable, what a dumb, stupid war” (see: https://www.newsmax.com/us/robert-pape-u-s-strikes/2026/08/03/id/1264945/).

Concurrently, writing in the Guardian, Peter Beinart highlighted: “The staggering corruption of Trump’s presidency, and the obscene wealth gap that his policies have helped create” (see: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/05/abdul-el-sayed-democrats-trump).

Soft Power Assessment

Unsurprisingly, most coverage of the growth of China’s soft power discusses how this rise compares with the US soft power benchmark. The present, critical collapse of American soft power observed by a growing number of commentators accordingly works to China’s advantage, today, as the soft power ledger is being squared.

However, as significant as this factor is, the recurrent appreciation of Chinese soft power is far more grounded in China’s exceptional, long-term performance legitimacy, apparent in China and globally.

Here is a fundamental explanation of this remarkable achievement.

America, with its Gothic military budget greater than the next nine (at least) nations combined and with close to 800 worldwide military bases, has been repeatedly involved in global warfare throughout its history according to President Carter (see: https://www.blackagendareport.com/jimmy-carter-us-most-warlike-nation-history) and more than ever since the end of World War II, especially, horrifically, in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, for decade after decade, the continuous mantra for China has been, “let’s go to work” rather than “let’s go to war.” China has not dropped a single hostile bomb anywhere for decades, as it has lifted over 800 million people out of abject poverty. It has grown to dominate global manufacturing in a manner never seen before seen in world history, covering, for example, shipbuilding, all kinds of vehicles, all aspects of green technology, the widest range of household and recreational items, plus medical necessities and innovations (see: https://michaelwest.com.au/china-or-america-who-is-the-warmonger/).

Then there is the BRI-effect.

Sir Douglas Flint, former HSBC Chairman declared that China’s Belt and Road Initiative was “one of the biggest, if not the biggest, facilitator” of the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, adding that it had had an “incredibly positive” impact on regional and world development (see: https://fridayeveryday.com/untold-tale-how-the-chinese-diaspora-paved-the-way-for-bri/).

Leading Singaporean commentator, Kishore Mahbubani explained how: “The BRI is bringing real benefits to the Global South. It is striking that the fast train between Jakarta and Bandung (with speeds of up to 350 kilometers per hour) was launched in the very week that Britain (a member of the G7) announced it did not have funds to proceed with the fast train between Birmingham and Manchester. Future historians will mark this as a clear indicator of how times have changed in our world” (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/595383).

Conclusion

The significant, comparative rise in Chinese soft power looks set to continue. Professor Tang has lucidly explained why: “Ultimately, technological supremacy is not measured by how many raw language models a nation can produce in a laboratory. It is measured by how effectively those innovations improve human life in the real world. By aggressively focusing on technology for good, whether through accessible EVs, practical AI, or labor-saving humanoids, China is building a brand that wins the hearts and minds of the world.”

Exceptional Trade and Alarmist Warnings

Almost 20 years ago, China overtook Japan as Australia’s top trading partner. This Sino-focused trading relationship underpinned Australia’s record-breaking run of recession-free growth from 1991 to 2020.

However, an intensifying China Threat narrative began to emerge in Australia around a decade ago. By 2018, the Turnbull government in Canberra had unwisely banned Huawei (the then best global provider) from participating in the build-out of Australia’s 5G network. Hostile political accusations directed at Beijing from Canberra were subsequently amplified by the Morrison government as the COVID19 pandemic spread.

Next came the “Red Alert” series of orchestrated, willfully alarming media reports in 2023. These claimed that Australia had to be ready to fight China within three years! (See: https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/china/102090318)

Former Prime Minister, Paul Keating said, at the time, that the primary author involved had been allowed “to concoct a China-threat story aided by a group of handpicked anti-China accomplices, to produce the most egregious and provocative news presentation I have witnessed in over fifty years of active public life”. In 2026, as Australia predictably discovered it was not at war with China, Keating dryly noted, on the three- year anniversary of the original story, that: “None of the claims have materialised” (see: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/mar/06/paul-keating-nine-2023-australia-china-war-prediction-red-alert).

Notwithstanding all this mainstream media, anti-China scheming, Australia has continued to run very healthy annual trade surpluses with China, year after year. According to Statista, despite the shrinking value of certain commodity exports, Australia still has the fourth largest trade surplus with China behind Taiwan, South Korea and Brazil (see: https://www.statista.com/chart/35596/countries-regional-economies-with-the-biggest-trade-surpluses-deficits-with-china/?srsltid=AfmBOorx39WrEZYWHXmGRTKE_eUxLA8qmu2uLiQGPtBrDWYj6pdZgJ17).

A Contemporary Synopsis

When you consider the overall report card today on the relationship, Australia’s semi-bi-polar posturing with respect to China continues - almost comically at times.

Recently, the test-firing of a Chinese ICBM into the South Pacific on July 6 - with a dummy warhead - from a Chinese nuclear submarine made headlines across Australia.

Several things are worth noting about this coverage.

Most reports confirmed that advance warning of the test was provided by Beijing and that this notice conformed with established international protocols. But they also stressed flustered follow-on criticism. Thus, the Australian Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, after acknowledging the prior notification, was widely quoted as she claimed that the launch, “lacked the transparency and reassurance that Pacific neighbors expect” adding that she was concerned about “destabilizing acts” (see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/07/06/china-test-fires-long-range-missile-into-pacific-rattling-us-allies/).

Long-time anti-war activist, Pip Hinman, writing shortly after the Chinese test firing, stressed Australia’s selective concern about “destabilizing acts,” noting how: “Wong was not asked about the scores of nuclear capable missiles the US has fired into the Pacific just over the last decade,” adding that the most recent US test may have been in March this year. Hinman also highlighted the (biennial) 2026 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) maritime war exercises – the world largest - led by the US, involving many countries including Australia and Israel (see: https://www.greenleft.org.au/2026/1458/analysis/australias-selective-outrage-about-missile-tests-pacific).

All of this relevant context is, unsurprisingly, almost completely absent in mainstream Australian reporting of the recent Chinese ICBM test-firing. And forget about finding any reflection on the constant US – and regular Australian – military transits through the Taiwan Strait every year (see: https://www.jpost.com/international/article-887426) .

But it gets better.

Angus Taylor was elected as leader of the Australian Liberal Party -and thus leader of the official opposition - in February, 2026. This means he is set to become Prime Minister of Australia if he achieves success in the next Australian Federal Election, expected by May, 2028.

Two days after the Chinese ICBM test firing, Telstra, Australia’s largest telecommunications company, suffered a massive lapse in service provision, that disrupted, mobile services, data systems, payments systems, a rail network and emergency services. The problem was triggered by a software defect and certain synchronization failures, according to Telstra (see: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-10/telstra-warned-about-vulnerability-before-national-outage/106896906).

However, at a press conference soon after, the new opposition leader, Mr Taylor, questioned whether there might be any connection between the Chinese missile test on July 6 and that major Telstra outage two days later, according to The Guardian (see: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/jul/08/anika-wells-ridicules-angus-taylor-and-barnaby-joyce-for-linking-telstra-outages-with-china).

Taylor presented zero evidence to support this speculation. Here was Australia’s potential next Prime Minister weirdly wondering aloud about this possibility - like a mischief-making adolescent - presumably hoping to score points by ramping up a fresh aspect of the China Threat narrative. This was an extraordinary intervention. One that provides a frank indication of the acumen of a new, key political leader in Australia once it is time to discuss China.

Pragmatic Engagement

Fortunately, when you move beyond this zone of media amplified, reckless political maneuvering, Australian decision-making related to China is measurably more positive.

Drive.com, one of Australia’s leading automative commentary Websites, lately reported that: “Japanese cars have dominated Australian sales for decades, but now Chinese-built cars have outsold Japanese for five consecutive months.” Drive observed that Japan’s Toyota remained Australia’s leading brand - but only just, “with BYD selling a mere 243 fewer vehicles than Toyota in June.” Popular Chinese brands, apart from BYD, include, MG, Chery and GWM, while nominally Japanese and American EV models selling in Australia (from Mazda and Tesla) are also sourced from China (see: https://www.drive.com.au/news/the-era-of-japanese-cars-might-be-over-in-australia-as-china-surges/). .

In June this year, the very large, BYD Zhengzhou RORO (Roll-On-Roll-Off) delivery vessel arrived in Melbourne with a cargo of around 5,000 vehicles, with further deliveries planned.

Once we move beyond this retail level to the macro-level, intelligent, local Australian interaction with China is also evident (see:

).

CREG, (China Railway Engineering Equipment Group) is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of huge Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs). TBMs from CREG have played a crucial role in creating Sydney’s new Western Harbour Tunnel. Meanwhile, four Chinese TBMs are currently working on 26 kilometres of tunnels needed for Melbourne’s major Suburban Rail Loop project (see: https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/more-tbms-coming-china-build-suburban-rail-loop).

The Snowy 2.0 project has been described as Australia’s largest renewable energy project, functioning as a “colossal water battery.” The primary German TBM manufacturer, Herrenknecht, has a key factory in Guangzhou. Herrenknecht and CREG have together delivered a series of giant TBMs to undertake the massive tunnel boring aspects of this monumental venture (see: https://tunnelbuilder.com/News/The-fourth-Snowy-20-TBM-shipped-to-Snowy-Mountains.aspx).

Conclusion

As we reflect on the last 40-plus years, it is clear that the rise of China has been exceptionally good for Australia, while Australia has played a continuing role that has been conspicuously positive for China. Political posturing, especially from Canberra (often at the urging of Washington) has initiated some wobbling in this vital relationship from time to time. But the pragmatic common sense driving the broader relationship has coped well with recurring spasms of negative political choreography.

Fortunately, China has, over an extended period, consistently embraced what Mohamed Sabreen recently described as “a positive vision [of the future] based on cooperation, development and mutual partnership” (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/636249).

Australia’s actions strongly suggest a similarly shaped, affirmative outlook on what might be achieved, globally, during this new century.

As it happens, Professor Jeffrey Sachs lately reminded us that the founding principles of the US embodied a very similar ethos stressing: “a coherent vision of how a nation should conduct itself in the world: with reason, with restraint and with the awareness that the reasoned opinions of mankind are the proper measure of legitimacy” (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/636240)

Richard Cullen was previously a professor of law at The University of Hong Kong and Monash University in Australia.

Books and the Sea

Almost 100 years ago, Evelyn Waugh explained that:

“It has always seemed odd to me that anyone, for any reason, should choose to travel by land when he can go by water.”

He said this in his first travel book, Labels, published in 1930. Waugh was in his late 20s at the time and still married to his first wife, also called Evelyn. The book shares, with customary engagement, distinctive reflections on the places they visited during an extended Mediterranean cruise, arranged in 1929.

Coincidentally, as I read this collection of Waugh’s travel-writing, I completed reading The Cat’s Table, an evocative sea-linked novel by Michael Ondaatje, published in 2011.

This is a very good book. It steadily leads the reader into a series of penetrating reflections on human relationships. Some are seriously dark but their unfolding is resourcefully managed.

At the heart of the novel is a sea voyage, from Colombo to London, on an ocean liner - named the Oronsay in the book. The (mainly) first-person narrator is Michael, moving to England around 1953, at age 11, to reunite with his mother at Tilbury in several weeks. Michael is travelling Third Class. He is assigned seating in the dining room at the cat’s table, located farthest away from the captain’s table.

At this table he makes close friends with two other young boys travelling alone, adventurous Cassius and observant Ramadhin.

The book uses many short, focused chapters. These initially reveal how the three curious boys swiftly discover an entire, remarkable onboard world open to combined discovery. You know that is a grown-up, serious book but these early chapters bring to mind Richmal Crompton’s terrific “Just William” boys-adventure books published between 1922 and 1970. William is also (always) 11 as it happens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_William_(book_series).

The darker themes in The Cat’s Table emerge gradually. Their impact is underpinned by the boys’ early, comparatively innocent, intense on-board experiences. The initial, extended scene-setting is singularly effective in helping the reader feel what it must have been like travelling by ocean liner from the Far East to London around 1953.

The Significance of the Sea

This evocative impact is appreciably explained by the shared human understanding about the sea.

The outstanding British writer, Iris Murdoch, was awarded the Booker Prize for her 1978 novel, The Sea, The Sea. Murdoch stressed that her “imagination lives near the sea and under the sea” (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Murdoch).

Subsequently, Miles Leeson, director of the Iris Murdoch Research Centre at the University of Chichester, said:

“Having lived all my life near to the sea I’m in the same mind as Murdoch; the importance of the sea to mental health and wellbeing, and to freeing the creative part of the mind. Iris Murdoch always wishes in her letters to friends that she could have a cottage by the sea and one wonders why she didn’t as she could have afforded one” (see: https://www.elsewhere-journal.com/blog/tag/The+Sea+The+Sea).

Those who participate in and love yachting understand this outlook (see: https://classic-sailing.com/article/why-we-love-traditional-sailing/).

As do the several million merchant sailors most of whom, despite the adversities, would not opt to switch to onshore employment (see: https://imumate.in/blog/merchant-navy-life/).

A Sea Voyage

I confirmed some decades ago that my yachting abilities are unhelpfully meagre. And, regrettably, my sea-travelling experience has been altogether limited.

However, I discovered that I loved the sea from the moment I initially walked onto a sandy beach during the first ever seaside holiday I can recall, in the 1950s.

Then, in 1994, I completed a memorable trip by sea from Hong Kong to Shanghai. This voyage typically took around four days, depending on the weather. We encountered a serious storm one evening, which extended the duration.

In the 1990s, the SS Shanghai (about 14,000 GRT (Gross Registered Tonnage)) was still running from Hong Kong to Shanghai. It was originally built, in Belgium, in 1957 and named the Baudouinville. It was renamed the Cathay after P&O acquired it, before being sold to China in 1975. It was very well proportioned. The ship was moored in Victoria Harbour, prior to departure, rather than dockside. Immediately you stepped from the tender through the entry door in the lower hull, you felt like you were entering another world (see:

).

Once at sea, you were surrounded by the same, far off horizon view in every direction. You felt connected to a special, wider world yet remarkably separated from your day-to-day world. There was a ship to explore and passengers to meet - quite a lot of watchable card-playing happened. The food was simple but fresh and ample including a splendid abundance of freshly steamed small white buns.

I still cannot think of a better place to settle back with a good book. Even a mediocre book enjoyed a lift when being read in such circumstances. You could wander around feeling very relaxed, lazy even, yet at the same time you were actually doing something – going somewhere.

This is a personal impression, of course. Many, I know, find sea travel rather less enjoyable.

Conclusion

As a result of years of looking plus some planning combined with some good luck, I found a home – an apartment - with striking sea views about two decades ago. Those views make its modest size seem more expansive:

You need to pay for such views, of course, but they have, each day since, confirmed how this was money well spent.

Evelyn Waugh argued in Labels, that, during their commercial ascendency (dating back to 11^th century), the Venetians “learned the laws of human life and toil from the ocean itself.” It is conceivable he was right.

The Remarkable Story

The British practice of naming certain military projects, “operations” dates back to World War I. The term was chosen to stress military priorities, including security, a clear tactical focus, resource planning and coordination. And to provide a distinctive, shorthand title.

According to the Imperial War Museum (see: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/second-world-war/intelligence/the-war-on-paper-operation-mincemeat):

Operation Mincemeat was a deception conceived by British Intelligence to fool the Germans regarding the true target for the Allied invasion of Sicily. A dead body would be ‘planted’ off the coast of Spain carrying secret documents which purported to reveal that the targets for the forthcoming invasion would be Greece and Sardinia, with Sicily only intended as a feint. To ensure that the Germans swallowed the deception, it was necessary to create a detailed false identity for the body, which was that of a homeless labourer who had died after swallowing rat poison.

Portrait photo of Captain Ewen Montagu (Royal Naval Reserve). Montagu was a naval intelligence officer who played a leading role in devising Operation Mincemeat, together with Squadron Leader Charles Cholmondeley (Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve).

The secret operation involved dressing this corpse as a Major in the Royal Marines and giving it the false identity of ‘William Martin’. Appropriate identification documents and other papers would give the body a personality and background. These included a photograph of Major Martin’s fiancée, a receipt for an engagement ring, a theatre ticket stub and other evidence.

Early on 30 April 1943, the body of ‘Major Martin’ was launched into the sea from the British submarine HMS Seraph and left to drift just over a mile off the southern Spanish coast. Once recovered by the Spanish authorities, the ‘secret’ documents carried on the body were covertly opened, photographed and passed via Nazi sympathizers to German intelligence officers in Spain.

Also, according to the Imperial War Museum:

The Germans acted swiftly on the false information by doubling the number of troops sent to Sardinia, while many additional German divisions were also transferred to Greece and the Balkans. The Allied Invasion of Sicily was launched on 9 July 1943 and, as intended, proved a huge surprise to the German defenders. In just over a month the island was fully captured by the Allies, and the lack of enemy reinforcements had proven to be a deciding factor in the success. ‘Mincemeat’ had been well and truly swallowed.

Some have questioned whether the British deception was this convincing. One writer has argued that the Abwehr (German Military Intelligence) knew that Major Martin’s confidential papers were not authentic but played a critical role in convincing Hitler that they were:

The Abwehr officer in Berlin who was the ultimate authority on the authenticity of the documents and was Hitler’s favourite intelligence analyst was easily able to detect the phoniness of “Martin’s” papers. But he chose to reassure Hitler because he was a dedicated anti-Nazi. He was prepared to do anything to help the Allies win the war. In fact, many in the Abwehr were anti-Nazi. The boss, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, was later executed in the wake of the failed von Stauffenberg assassination plot (see: https://malwarwickonbooks.com/truth-about-operation-mincemeat/).

Even if this assertion is correct, without the deceptive transit of Major Martin to that Spanish beach, there would have been nothing for the Abwehr to work with.

A Singular Book

Less than 10 years after the invasion of Sicily, a former British cabinet minister Duff Cooper, wrote a spy novel in 1950 which knowingly drew on facts evident in Operation Mincemeat. The British intelligence services decided it would be sensible to put the record straight, as they saw it, and, with their sanction, Ewen Montagu wrote, within a two-week period, his own telling of the relevant events in his novel: “The Man Who Never Was.” It was published in 1953 and went on to sell 2 million copies. It was made into film with the same name in 1956 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Never_Was_(book).

The First Film

Clifton Webb starred as Ewen Montagu. Gloria Grahame was Lucy Sherwood, who shared a flat with Montagu’s assistant, Pam (Josephine Griffin). Lucy, without being privy to the project, becomes, at the planning unfolds, the “girlfriend” of Major Martin. In a contrived plot-twist, Stephen Boyd plays an Irish spy working for the Nazis sent to test the authenticity of Martin (after the secret papers have been reviewed in Berlin) by visiting Lucy.

The film, which runs for about 100 minutes, is very good. It remains fundamentally attentive to the development and execution of the deception. The film does an estimable job of retelling the essence of Operation Mincemeat in a measured, absorbing way.

The screenplay won the BAFTA award for 1956. One fictional character who plays a significant role in the film is Lt. George Ayres. This person appears to be based on Charles Cholmondeley. Cholmondeley’s identity remained a secret at the time the film was made (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Never_Was).

The Second Film

“Operation Mincemeat” was released in 2021, 65 years after the first film. It is based on a book from 2010 by Ben Macintyre using the same title. Macintyre, trained as an historian, has written a number of well-regarded books and novels with espionage themes.

This film provides another robust narration of the same remarkable story.

The running time is almost half an hour longer. The more modern feel of the later film is evident. Significantly more time is devoted to examining stresses arising from (speculated) interpersonal, romantic and professional relationships, each shaped by involvement with Operation Mincemeat. This time Charles Cholmondeley is featured (under his own name) as a key participant.

The required approval from Churchill for this exceptional project is explained along with the role of Ian Fleming in shaping the development of Operation Mincemeat at that time. Fleming, the creator of James Bond, worked for British Naval Intelligence during the war. The first Bond novel, “Casino Royale” was published in 1953 (see: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/3758.Casino_Royale).

Which is the Better Film

It is now possible to compare the films without difficulty: both are available on DVD, for example.

Opinions will differ. Some may find the 1956 version somewhat stiff – and insufficiently blessed with engaging dramatic sequences designed to lift the level of emotional authenticity.

I found both films highly watchable.

But I preferred the crisply dominant focus, in the first film, on the complex, innovative development and execution of the deception exemplified in Operation Mincemeat.

And there are other aspects which helped make it a better film.

First, timing and the immediacy. The film was completed a little over a decade after the events depicted. All the leading actors had lived through the war as the real events unfolded. Plus, the book on which it was based had been written by the primary character in the actual narrative. Montagu’s choice of book title was exceptionally good and the film made the most of this and its first-mover advantage.

Next, the casting was first rate. Clifton Webb slipped into the Montagu role with customary, understated ease. If you are looking for someone, on screen, with near perfect diction and a continuously calm, emphatic presence, it is hard to think of anyone who could better Webb. Gloria Grahame also had a distinctive voice and striking presence. Her breathy phrasing was accompanied by a slight lisp.

And then there was Stephen Boyd. His substantial bearing and studied mannerisms projected exceptional creepiness as soon as he moved on screen as the (confected) Irish-Nazi spy. In 1956, there was, of course, no option to resort to foul language in a script to convey sinisterness but Boyd was in zero need of such assistance.

As I reflect on the two films, certain imagery arising from the 1956 film remains vividly clear in my mind. This is not the case with the later film.

China’s massive level of accumulated wealth is a primary reason why the lack of an inheritance tax in China is back in the news. The Economist recently investigated this prominent flaw in China’s tax regime in an article entitled: “China is wrestling with a novel phenomenon: inherited wealth.” Draft regimes were proposed several times in the past but never applied (see: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2026/03/12/china-is-wrestling-with-a-novel-phenomenon-inherited-wealth).

China’s Real Estate Wealth

The nominal GDP of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was approximately US$216 billion in 1978. By 2025 was it around US $18.7 trillion. These figures indicate a raw, 86-fold expansion of China’s economy over this period. According to CSIS, a leading US think tank, China has become the world’s largest economy measured by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) (see: https://chinapower.csis.org/tracker/china-gdp/).

One remarkable consequence is the prodigious growth in individually-held assets in China over the last several decades. A great deal of this privately held wealth comprises urban and regional real estate, where residential premises dominate.

According to the 2026 world population review, there are over 520 million households in China accommodating 1.4 billion people (see: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/number-of-households-by-country). CNN recently confirmed that around 90% of these households are privately owned (see: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/05/17/china/china-homeownership-rate-tested-intl-hnk).

By 2016, Savills said the Chinese real estate market, valued at US$42.7 trillion, was the largest globally, ahead of the US (see: https://www.savills.com/blog/article/219340/international-property/the-10-most-valuable-real-estate-markets-in-the-world.aspx). This figure has since increased (see: https://www.nextmsc.com/report/china-real-estate-market).

Real Estate Ownership

A widely established, basic ownership distinction is drawn between freehold title and leasehold title to land. Briefly, freehold title grants a right of complete, indefinite ownership of land and any building thereon, while leasehold title is time limited, for example to 50, 90 or even 999 years (see: https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/homes/buying-a-home/leasehold-vs-freehold-whats-the-difference). (Short term accommodation rentals are also often termed leasehold). Behind each leasehold title sits an ultimate landlord, either a private owner or a public entity.

This formulation (under various names) is typically found in Common Law jurisdictions, across Western Europe and well beyond (see: https://www.dlapiperrealworld.com/law/index.html?t=sale-and-purchase).

Primary, limited-term (leasehold) real estate ownership systems are more prevalent than most people realize. It is common to list Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba, for example, as jurisdictions where the freehold ownership of land is prohibited, but two of the most active real estate markets in Asia, Singapore and Hong Kong, rely on essentially similar systems, as does Australia’s capital city, Canberra and most flats or apartments in England and Wales are still owned under a leasehold system (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10309/).

Real Estate Ownership in China

China, is by far the most significant jurisdiction where term-limited ownership of land applies. The state is the ultimate owner of all urban land, while collective – not individual - ownership systems regimes apply across rural areas in China.

The term leasehold ownership is not used. Urban home owners (and commercial property owners) enjoy ownership of the relevant buildings and they secure land-use rights for a fixed period - normally 70 years for residential accommodation and 40 years for commercial premises (see: https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/2005/bangkok_2005_comm7/papers/9_1_guo.pdf).

The development of this distinctive Chinese ownership model has been shaped by referencing the strikingly similar systems which apply in Hong Kong and Singapore (see: https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/gia/article/winners-and-losers-in-china-s-urban-transformation-land-use-reforms-and-their-implications-for-other-developing-countries).

In Hong Kong, the government retains an ultimate proprietary interest in virtually all land. It collects modest, annual rent from millions of leaseholders and it imposes sometimes massive lease variation premiums on anyone redeveloping a particular site. Expiring leases are typically renewed without any significant costs being applied (where the usage remains unchanged). In Singapore, the 99-year leases granted to the clear majority of home owners are expressly non-renewable, giving rise to increasing owner concerns as time passes (see: https://johnmenadue.com/post/2021/04/hong-kongs-housing-crisis-an-underlying-factor-in-the-2019-riots/).

Putting aside some piecemeal experimentation, the related questions of when and for how long land-use rights may be renewed, and what renewal fees may be payable, remain conspicuously unresolved in China (see: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol50/iss3/3/).

How Does China Tax Substantial Wealth Transfers

Certain substantial gifts and the later sale of inherited assets might (subject to intra-family and other exemptions) trigger income tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty or deed tax impositions. These duties, if applied, are (compared to most Western jurisdictions) rarely onerous (see: https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/does-china-have-inheritance-tax-2)

Meanwhile, China still does not have a regime for imposing inheritance taxation or gift duties despite significant policy discussions related to this topic dating back over three decades (see: http://www.bjreview.com.cn/special/2013-11/11/content_577156.htm).

Bearing in mind the extraordinary, rapid accumulation of widely held private wealth detailed above, this tax policy omission is striking and concerning.

Fixing the Policy Logjam

Beijing’s multi-decade hesitancy with respect to specific inheritance taxation relates to significant concerns about social stability, anxiety about creating a centralized asset registration system and, in particular, the risk of triggering capital flight (see: https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=82320).

The arguments in favour of developing a dedicated mechanism for taxing tax substantial wealth transfers in China in a fair and effective way at the time death – and by way of gifts - are becoming increasingly cogent, however. Equitable contributions from all in China are needed to advance the long-term implementation of the important common prosperity doctrine.

According to Liu Zuo, deputy director of a State Administration of Taxation (SAT) research unit, an inheritance tax is badly needed “to maintain social stability and stimulate consumption” adding – after noting how very wealthy the most wealthy in China are -that, ultimately, “only the richest one to three percent of the population would be subject to the tax” (see: https://en.people.cn/english/200004/22/print20000422_39494.html).

In fact, the review above makes clear that there is a fresh way to expediate widespread acceptance of a new regime to tax substantial inter-generational wealth transfers and break the policy logjam.

A right to a minimal cost, renewal of present residential land-use-rights for a further 70 years (a further 40 years for commercial rights) could and should be stipulated within a broad reform package introducing China’s first modern inheritance and gift tax system.

This would deliver significantly enhanced security of tenure for several hundred million property owners. And the direct cost to the government, at the time of implementation would be virtually zero. Moreover, there is little risk of any long-term cost as there is a clear likelihood the government would eventually find itself obliged to make a similar low-cost renewal decision in the future.

China does need a modern inheritance tax system and its huge land-use-rights regime is plainly in need of pivotal clarification. The introduction of a new comprehensive, equitable inheritance tax regime could be linked, very effectively, to substantial positive reform of China’s current system for granting land-use-rights.

This article may be reproduced in full or in part with appropriate attribution.

The Nature of Optimism

A former senior state politician in Victoria, Australia, Victor Perton, now runs the Centre for Optimism in Melbourne. This is an interesting, constructive project. The center’s Website explains that it helps leaders, teams, and organizations unlock optimism, strengthen culture, and build better futures.

A significant philosophical debate about the essential nature of optimism unfolded during the 18th century. Voltaire took exception to Leibnitz’s view that contemporary humanity existed in “the best of all possible worlds”. Voltaire satirized this view using his literary creation, Professor Pangloss, who featured in the novella, Candide. Professor Pangloss radiated gushing optimism no matter how bleak the visible, immediate reality.

Voltaire maintained that insistent Panglossian sunniness was delusional, distracting and thus significantly dangerous. One had to accept life with all it manifest challenges and calamities and then focus on continuous, productive practical action: “we must cultivate our garden”.

Chinese Problems

It is now almost 50 years since China’s reform and opening up policy was implemented by Deng Xiaoping. The nominal GDP of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was approximately US$216 billion in 1978. By 2025 was it around US $18.7 trillion USD. These figures indicate a raw, 86-fold expansion of China’s economy over this period. According to CSIS, a leading US think tank, China has risen to become the world’s second largest economy in nominal GDP terms today and the largest global economy measured by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) (see: https://chinapower.csis.org/tracker/china-gdp/).

So far so good. But the challenges confronting China remain immense.

Beijing faces an increasing level of intense geopolitical pushback against China’s rise, especially from much of the Global West, led by Washington. China remains a vast country of 1.4 billion people where unequal development and continuing impoverishment are clear even though abject poverty has been essentially eliminated: the ongoing governance challenges are huge.

China, dominated ethnically by Han Chinese, continues to be home to over 50 ethnic minorities, the most prominent being the Tibetan minority and the Uygur minority. Moreover, China’s population is now measurably shrinking and ageing. Internal economic problems related to a major, deflated housing bubble, increased debt and youth unemployment - and the thorny lying flat syndrome (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60353916) - significantly augment this adverse profile.

Chinese Optimism

Benjamin Cain argued, in 2021, that:

China is arguably the most pragmatic civilization in history – one that eschews fantasies that foster false optimism. Alternatively, a realistic society might hew more closely to the natural truth, putting a premium on accepting and working with the harsh facts. While the cynical leaders of many polytheistic and monotheistic societies likely chose the former path, China chose the latter (see: https://medium.com/discourse/why-chinas-pragmatism-should-haunt-the-west-3f835bfd0801).

Several Polish scholars, writing in 2008, explained that:

The Western tradition glorified war and conquest and warriors constituted their ruling elite, whereas the Confucian tradition that shaped Chinese civilization detested violence and raised scholar-officials to the rank of the ruling elite (see: https://instytutkonfucjusza.uj.edu.pl/aktualnosci/-/journal_content/56_INSTANCE_8W44ecVLz8ym/30304575/31098435).

Unsurprisingly, the dominant version of Chinese optimism is not Panglossian. Neither is it remotely like the fervently marketed American optimism presently found on the White House website which tells us each day how the US has: “surged into a new era of record-setting growth” (see:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/

).

Instead, contemporary, primary Chinese optimism is actively based on observed, ongoing performance improvements – especially those seen over the last half-century.

Some Performance Improvements

Over this period, the PRC has continued to elevate itself scientifically and economically:

• The Economist confirmed in 2024 that China is now a scientific superpower.

• Quoting an extended study by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the Guardian argued in March, 2023 that, “China is leading the US in the technology race in all but a few fields”

• In 2022, the World Bank confirmed that China had lifted almost 800 million people out of poverty, contributing close to three-quarters of the total global reduction in the number of people living in extreme poverty (see: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience).

China’s domination of global manufacturing includes: ship-building, vehicles, batteries, solar panels, rare earth elements, green-technology generally, the widest range of household and recreational items plus medical necessities. Its building of all forms of transport and information infrastructure now eclipses comparable work currently being done across all of the Global West.

Even in Australia, where the China Threat drumbeat is tediously persistent, massive Chinese TBMs (Tunnel Boring Machines) dominate primary infrastructure projects in Melbourne, Sydney and the Snowy Mountains (see: https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/world-largest-manufacturer-tunnel-boring-machines) .

This can-do-prowess, in turn, underpins the prominent global achievements of China’s trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It has not all been plain sailing for the BRI - but it is still far ahead, in terms of achievements, compared to its pallid Western imitators according to a detailed report from Griffith University in Australia (see: https://blogs.griffith.edu.au/asiainsights/regional-outlook-ten-years-of-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-bri-evolution-and-the-road-ahead/)

China has also become a ground-breaking leader in space exploration, according to CNN.

Examples like these sustain China’s durable, pragmatic optimism. Chinese people feel this optimism. The PRC government, however, largely avoids brash, mass-marketing thereof. An increasing number of convincing Chinese TV documentaries do tell the world about these developments – but they largely let the facts speak for themselves.

Summary

The challenges facing China remain immense – see above. But they are measurably less intractable than those facing the intensely polarized US and much of the Global West (see: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2015/05/how-political-polarisation-is-crippling-western-democracies/). .

Internal political tensions persist but China’s phenomenal capacity to lift productivity constantly by investing, most of all, in its greatest natural resource, its people, has enabled it to manage these anxieties – never perfectly – but progressively and effectively. Meanwhile, the CPC still plainly sets the pivotal governing and confining rules for societal operation and stipulates and enforces the redlines.

But the prodigious lift in available resources has been substantially applied to improve the general livelihood experience across the entire country. The Lancet reported in 2023 that:

China has made tremendous progress in improving health over the past few decades. Increases in life expectancy might be associated with declines in fertility and reductions in infant mortality, and recent increases might be associated with declines in mortality from cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, and tumours, although they remain the leading causes of death in China. These declines in mortality might be linked to recent public health developments, such as increased public funding for health, improved access to health care and decreased health inequality, increased education level, and improvements in nutritional status (see: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(22)00338-3/fulltext).

These longevity improvements are most pronounced in China’s major coastal cities but they are also evident across all of China, not least in Tibet and Xinjiang where life expectancy has more than doubled (to over 70) since the establishment of the PRC in 1949 (see: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202509/1343976.shtml).

In 2020, Harvard’s Ash Centre, which has been polling the popularity of the CPC government in Beijing since 2003, found basic satisfaction levels remained close to 90% across all these surveys (see: https://ash.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/final_policy_brief_7.6.2020.pdf).

Other American academics have questioned the validity of these Ash Centre findings – based, however, on a single alternative survey, compared to the Ash Centre’s multi-decade surveys (see: https://eastasiaforum.org/2024/10/29/data-shows-the-chinese-government-is-less-popular-than-state-media-makes-it-seem/).

Why Chinese Optimism Matters

For over four decades, China has witnessed how so many primary challenges, across the entire country, have been effectively addressed, applying an unrelenting, lets go to work ethos – in stark contrast to America’s let’s go to war default, problem-solving mode (see: https://johnmenadue.com/post/2024/08/shocking-news-china-is-kicking-more-global-goals/).

The resulting, widespread pragmatic optimism underpins the long-term, adaptive development of essential national planning. It also undergirds the uncommon level of impulse control Beijing has typically demonstrated in the post-Mao era.

Without under-estimating intense local, regional and geopolitical challenges, China maintains a lucid understanding that the future can be made better than the past by applying immense, collective intelligent effort. The priority is, of course, to create a better future for China but Beijing understands in a way Washington does not, that the more the world collectively improves, the better this is for China.

Reunification with Taiwan is, of course, a central long-term mission for Beijing. But once again, restraint is a fundamental to Beijing’s approach with respect to this fraught project. In June, 2025, Sherry Chen put it this way:

In contrast, Carl von Clausewitz’s On War frames conflict as a raw, violent extension of politics. He famously called war “the continuation of politics by other means,” arguing that when talks fail, force takes over. Clausewitz saw war as a tool to break the enemy’s will, with no real limit to how far violence might escalate. It’s this hard-edged worldview that many Western analysts use to interpret Xi Jinping’s calls for “national rejuvenation” and “reunification” — reading them as possible signs that Beijing is laying the groundwork for military action against Taiwan.

However, Xi Jinping leans toward a Sun Tzu–style strategy of restraint and environmental shaping. While he has not ruled out using force to take Taiwan, he consistently stops short of pulling the trigger. It is not because he lacks the capability, but because preemptive action goes against his deeper goal of winning without fighting. Rather than launching an invasion, Xi is playing the long game. He is shifting the regional balance of power, applying psychological pressure, and building economic ties that leave Taiwan increasingly isolated and dependent. His hope is that the island will eventually choose unification on Beijing’s terms, with no bullets required (see: https://southchinaseanewswire.com/why-doesnt-xi-jinping-launch-a-hot-war-over-taiwan/).

Ultimately, the reason Chinese optimism is so fundamentally good for the world, is because of the way it has played a primary role in the creation of a new superpower:

· That is distinctly averse to enforcing its will by going to war; while

· Steadily leading by example in this regard (https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/626357)

This deep appreciation of the exceptional value of peace draws on lessons offered by: the extraordinary rise of China; the horrors of violent conflict evident in in the Chinese Civil War and the terrible Japanese invasion; and the turmoil of the Cultural Revolution. It is also embedded in a continuing understanding of the profound lessons offered, over 2000 years ago, by China’s gravely damaging Warring States Period (see: https://thediplomat.com/2013/12/why-chinese-study-the-warring-states-period/).

Watching, today, how the Global West has once more sunk back into the immensely destructive warfare habits (dating back many centuries) it brought to a peak in the first half of the 20^th century, confirms, for Beijing, the wisdom of China’s dominant commitment to peaceful development – and conflict resolution (see: https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/02/the-lawless-west/). .

The world can be genuinely thankful that no nation in history has ever confirmed, so swiftly and on such a scale, Voltaire’s penetrating maxim that we must, above all, cultivate our own garden.

Postscript

Unsurprisingly, the extraordinary rise of China hasn’t deterred Western doomsayers from trying to pillory this elevation by repeatedly emphasizing their China Threat narrative. But when you look at the unfolding reality. it transpires they are also pushing back against Winston Churchill who said, in 1925:

“You must look at facts because they look at you”, adding, some years later, that “Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is.”

This article may be freely republished with appropriate attribution

Introduction

Present awful circumstances emphasize the need to ask a serious question: how unhinged is America today?

In fact, this central query has been posed by a range of leading commentators for several years. Today it is being asked more urgently. While Israel and the US apply the finishing touches to their Gaza genocide, the world is watching after America and Israel unleashed fresh spasms of massively destructive warfare in the Middle East.

The unhinged narrative

Three years ago, in March 2023, Fareed Zakaria was already urging the Biden administration, in The Washington Post, to step firmly away from a foreign policy, “forged out of paranoia, hysteria and above all fears of being branded as soft”. Zakaria also compared this prevailing deranged mood to the America’s notorious, 1950s, witch-hunting McCarthy era (see: https://johnmenadue.com/post/2023/03/the-return-of-the-paranoid-american-foreign-policy/).

At about the same time, The Guardian argued how QAnon and Donald Trump, together, had “unhinged America.” More recently, Bridget Delaney, in the same newspaper, identified President Trump, alone, as being responsible for the unbalanced aura surrounding the US, when she argued how, “The world is gripped by 3am dread thanks to an unhinged US president”(see: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/13/the-world-is-gripped-by-dread-trump-unhinged).

A large and growing number of similar estimates of deluded America behaviour- often stressing malign Israeli influence – can now be found across a wide range of media outlets in the Global West and well beyond (see:

).

What if China had not soared economically

These arguments are fundamentally right. But they also prompted me to wonder what the geopolitical impact on America might have been had China failed to rise as remarkably as it has.

Forget for a moment the fact that prominent commentator, Gordon G Chang, has locked in a remarkable record for wrongly predicting the collapse of China. Suppose, instead, that Chang had been right in 2001, when he published “The Coming Collapse of China” predicting a pivotal political-economic downfall by 2011.

What if China had buckled in the drastic way Chang foretold and the US had not faced such a formidable, advancing peer competitor, over whom it lacked the sort of controls previously used to manage such challenges (like those applied to Japan in the 1980s). Might the world have been spared the spectacle, today, of seeing the US transform itself into a brazen, globally menacing hoodlum democracy, doing Israel’s bidding? (see: https://fridayeveryday.com/saving-whats-left-of-western-liberalism/).

My considered view is that, had China failed to rise so conspicuously, America may have been somewhat less anxiety-ridden, and it may have been marginally less obsessed with the need to resort to constant war mongering in order to reassert its perceived, fading virility.

However, it would still have been exceptionally menacing to all nations that failed to demonstrate sufficient obedience, and it most likely would have been even more globally threatening. Moreover, America itself has supplied compelling evidence confirming the cogency of this perspective.

America’s appalling response following the end of the Cold War

In November 1989, the Berlin Wall came down. By the end of 1991, America’s paramount Cold War foe, the USSR had collapsed. The following year, The New York Times revealed a crucial, new detailed American proposal to secure indefinite American global supremacy. This secret, Washington incubated 1992 plan, promising “full-spectrum global dominance,” was designed to ensure that no other nation could ever challenge American hegemony again (see: https://fridayeveryday.com/the-shameless-new-washington-consensus-is-drenched-in-blood/).

At about the same time, the influential US political scientist, Francis Fukuyama, argued how the remarkable historical process (outlined above) demonstrated that American-led, Western liberal democracy had evolved as the final form of government for all nations around the globe. Soon after he published a book entitled: The End of History and the Last Man.

Bad consequences soon followed.

Professor John Mearsheimer, in 2014, confirmed how the EU, by the mid-1990s, cemented the existence of a highly aggressive, new Washington Consensus, after recklessly signing up to a drastic US-led, geopolitical thrust into Eastern Europe to bring Russia to its knees. He argued that:

According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire.

But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president—which he rightly labeled a “coup”—was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base.

This grim catalogue has grown apace ever since. In early January, in “New war and peace,” I detailed America’s enduring, war-mongering pedigree and explained how it stood behind the wanton use of concentrated, homicidal America military force in Latin America, adding that America appears locked inside a 200 year time-warp, where it cannot move beyond a default habit of imposing its will on other nations by military force or other profoundly coercive means in order to secure a menacing American version of peace (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/626357?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email).

Most recently we have witnessed the on-off-on-again horror story of vindictive US-Israeli wars-of-choice against Iran. These have ultimately played havoc with the entire global economy. The first huge joint attack on Iran in July 2025 was preceded by audacious America treachery, where agreed negotiations were used to put Iran of guard (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/616797). The latest major brutal onslaught began with America killing over 100 Iranian primary school students coupled with a mass Iranian leadership assassination project, which the two war-makers cast as a form of advanced statecraft (see https://responsiblestatecraft.org/larijani-killed-israel/) .

Around a year ago, China, alone amongst major trading nations, went toe-to-toe with the US after the White House delivered what The Economist called “Donald Trump’s tariff tantrum” (see: https://www.economist.com/business/2025/04/16/the-trade-war-may-reverse-hong-kongs-commercial-decline). All the world noticed how China subsequently secured a tariff truce with Washington.

The Washington Post recently confirmed America’s contempt for long-term, close allies, when it reported how Thailand had openly expressed significant disappointment with the US failure to offer direct help to Bangkok as it struggled with “severe fallout from the ongoing Iran war.” Thailand subsequently turned to China and Russia seeking assistance (see: https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/thailand-turns-russia-china-after-us-offers-no-help-on-iran-war-fallout-2902918-2026-04-28).

Conclusion

It is evident that:

· The Rise of China has amplified American hegemonic-paranoia – as argued by Zakaria and others.

· What has been unleashed under President Trump (elected through voting shaped by that paranoia) is a terrible, fresh willingness to attack and bomb and destroy and kill anyone selected as a primary US foe.

· Israel’s influence has been exceptionally powerful in the US – and caustically unconcerned – in supporting this intensifying, hoodlum form of statecraft.

Over 30 years ago, China was only the 11^th largest economy in the world with a GDP of around $500 billion (compared to around $18 trillion today). China was then regarded by the massively larger US economy as a hopefully converging, but relatively small-scale promising economic opportunity (see: https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/11/australian-universities-and-china/).

Thus, America’s readiness to abuse its huge imperial power was confirmed (by Washington’s 1992, post-Cold War, full-spectrum global dominance plan) at a time when China posed no visible “rising-peer threat” to the US.

Fortunately for the world, the extraordinary, peaceful rise of China has since provided a massive, stabilizing counterweight as America has become more destructively unhinged. For almost half a century China has maintained an exceptionally positive, let’s go to work focus on the future. This has been immensely beneficial for China – and that is certainly Beijing’s priority. But it has also been singularly good for the entire world (see: https://michaelwest.com.au/china-or-america-who-is-the-warmonger/).

The prominent American commentator, Ray Dalio, lately observed how China’s future global, superpower profile looks set to be pivotally shaped by what might be termed geopolitical Confucianism. Dalio believes China’s continued, commanding rise will be anchored within its historically embedded worldview: other smaller states are expected to show respect but, equally, China is obliged to behave well when dealing with less-powerful countries. This perspective fundamentally shuns the idea that such interaction needs to rely on the creation and maintenance of several hundred highly-armed, worldwide military bases (see:

).

Remarkable endorsement of this more positive, Western view of China was evident in a fresh Francis Fukuyama, interview where he confirmed, implicitly, that history had re-started and explicitly, that China’s system works – and appears to be working better in certain respects than that in the US (see:

) .

Finally, during this extremely disruptive period, the great majority of nations (in the Global South and well beyond) are increasingly emphatic when they say thank goodness for China. Even across the Global West – outside of the US - most are now quietly but firmly expressing the same view.

This significant change also set me thinking about those turning points in life one encounters. What follows are some reflections on several of these.

Australia

Well over 50 years ago, early in my working life in Melbourne, I joined CSIRO, Australia’s then primary scientific research organization.

I had zero qualifications to join as any sort of a scientist. I began work at CSIRO as a lower grade, clerical assistant. But I did eventually get to work, as part of the administrative support staff, within the Division of Forest Products (DFP), at that time one of CSIRO’s major research institutes, located in South Melbourne - on the site where Melbourne’s Crown Casino now stands.

John Andrew Pattison - always known as Jack Pattison - was the Divisional Administrative Officer (DAO). Our first meeting was brief and to the point, as he explained my junior duties. But it was also engaging. I did not understand, then, that this was a turning point moment. But I did sense, after that short discussion, that he was a different sort of workplace boss.

DFP turned out to be a marvellous place to work. It was diverse, lively and inspiring. When DFP merged with the Division of Building Research, located in South-East Melbourne, this was even more evident.

Jack became the new DAO of this enlarged scientific division. Within a year or so, I began to think that I may never find another boss to equal Jack Pattison. Five decades later, that judgment still stands.

Jack Pattison (right) and Richard Cullen in Melbourne in 2014

Jack Pattison became the most important workplace mentor in my life and, over time, an exceptionally good friend. In me, he saw evidence of some intelligence - and laziness. His strong encouragement to begin part-time tertiary studies was instrumental in getting me back to school at the Caulfield Institute of Technology. Without his firm persuasive input, I would never have begun these studies.

I never completed that course, but I later I applied to sit a mature age entry exam run by the Faculty of Law at Melbourne University. I was successful and, after wondering what I had got myself into, I discovered that I enjoyed working hard while studying law.

After I completed my LLB in 1982, I entered legal practice prior to beginning post-graduate studies in Canada followed by an academic career in Australia and Hong Kong (see further below)

Throughout this period, I maintained continuous contact with Jack Pattison. I regularly found myself reflecting, moreover, on how this long-term mentoring friendship underpinned my career path from clerical assistant to Professor of Law.

Whenever I returned to visit Melbourne from Hong Kong we would meet, often with Yvonne, Jack’s wife of over 60 years. I remember these meetings vividly. His warmth, interest, intellect and generosity formed an unequalled combination.

Jack Pattison died in 2023, aged 95. I am most fortunate to have known him for over 50 years. He changed my life conspicuously and positively. Unsurprisingly, I loved him deeply.

Canada

After I finished my LLB and began working as a junior solicitor, I recognised a developing interest in advanced legal studies. I began applying for post-graduate courses overseas.

As some positive responses began to arrive, I found myself wondering if this offshore-adventuring was such a good idea after all. Not for the first time, I experienced apprehension about making a major change in my life.

One very good offer came from Osgoode Hall Law School based in Toronto in Canada. I wrote back saying that I was reviewing my offshore study plans.

Professor Harry Glasbeek, was the associate dean in charge of post-graduate studies at Osgoode, at that time. Providentially, he took a special interest in my case, after reading that response.

One Saturday morning in 1984, the phone rang where I lived in Melbourne, and Harry Glasbeek introduced himself. I had never before received an international phone call like this.

Harry patiently and persuasively explained that Osgoode would be pleased to have me as a post-graduate student in law and that it was fine to delay my arrival by a few months, if needs be. He added that my supervisor would be Professor Peter Hogg, the most respected Constitutional Law academic in Canada, at that time.

After flying from Melbourne, I travelled by mid-winter sleeper train from Vancouver to Toronto in late 1984. Unforgettable.

Peter Hogg proved to be a marvellous supervisor.

Following the completion of my PhD, I returned to take up an academic position in the Faculty of Law at Monash University in Melbourne.

I still particularly remember that remarkable phone call from over 40 years ago - and the gratifying impact it had on my career development. Harry Glasbeek subsequently became a close friend and generous mentor. He remains so today.

Hong Kong

In late 1991, I accepted a position in the new Law School at the City Polytechnic of Hong Kong - now the City University of Hong Kong.

Within a month I felt at home. Working at CityU and living in Hong Kong proved to be exhilarating from the outset.

Later I returned to Monash University as the Professor and Head of the law department in the Monash Business School.

In 2006, Professor Johannes Chan, Dean of the Faculty of Law at HKU, offered me an appointment as a Visiting Professor. I took early retirement from the Monash Business School and returned to Hong Kong.

I have enjoyed virtually all the work I have undertaken since I left school. The longest continuously located, working period I have spent over that time is the last 20 years with HKU. It is the best job I have ever had.

Conclusion

As I look back, I can see how fortunate I have been with the many remarkable friends I have made, the teachers I have had and the outstanding family support I have enjoyed. I can also see how certain people have manifestly shaped my life. These include my mother and father, Jack Pattison, Harry Glasbeek and my wife.

Hong Kong, meanwhile, has proved to be a conspicuously good place to establish the best sort of enduring friendships.

The contrast between joyful, buzzy Hong Kong, and its absurdly grim image overseas is startling – especially in the light of the brutal restrictions on free speech emerging in numerous western countries. Richard Cullen reports.

THE RUGBY SEVENS, a combined sports tournament and a huge international party, was underway in front of massive crowds at the new Kai Tak Arena in Hong Kong as I began to write this.

[New Zealand versus Japan at the 2026 Hong Kong Rugby Sevens]

Meanwhile, governments in Australia, Canada, the US and UK, for example, are still posting amber Travel Advisories related to Hong Kong, stressing the need to exercise a “high degree of caution due to the risk of arbitrary enforcement of local laws“.

These warnings are less stark than they were several years ago, when they hinted innocent Western visitors to the now grim, communist-shaped SAR might be swiftly whisked away to face a Beijing court prior to being relocated to some sinister Sino-Gulag in the west of China.

[The Hong Kong Sevens is not just a sports event — it is one of the world’s best parties, with the public dressing up as wildly as the performers.]

A constant and rapidly growing stream of Western visitors to both China and Hong Kong put the sword to that over-cooked, spooky narrative by coming, enjoying, and delivering a multiplying stream of positive, personal You-tube rebuttals (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/598656).

It is plain that old Sevens visitors to this year’s event and fresh international visitors are singularly delighted to be back. The new Kai Tak stadium is exceptionally good, the food and hospitality are as marvelous as ever, the public transport continuously exceeds expectations and the Weather Gods have been kind. Even following the event on TV, you can feel the splendid positive energy.

Then there is so much to see, generally. Hong Kong’s exceptional, tropical location where countless skyscrapers, extensive mountainous green areas surrounded by harbours, inlets and the South China Sea all work together in this amazing city to deliver vistas found in no other major global metropolis.

[Hong Kong waterfront: Image by Discover Hong Kong]

Moreover, you can even find ways to enjoy very civilized, high density, urban living minus the super-bustling crowds and those Hong Kong drivers who normally consider all pedestrians a baffling menace forever impeding their progress.

[South Horizons, a residential estate on a small island off Hong Kong island. By Wing1990hk – Own work, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42551563]

The huge South Horizons residential suburb on Ap Lei Chau is a treat to walk around at any time of the year (apart from mid-typhoon). The footpaths are wide and the sea breezes and views are impressive as are the gardens. Miraculously, it is also one place in Hong Kong where virtually all drivers stop at pedestrian crossings – and drive without rushing. Plus, it now has its own MTR line.

COMPARE WITH ANGLO-JURISDICTIONS

Finally, it is useful to mention how some of the Anglo-jurisdictions noted above naturally avoid stressing to inward visitors to their countries that they need to be far more careful today about speaking out politically due to new sweeping restrictions on what is acceptable expression. And please be very cautious, visitors, about the greatly enlarged scope to proscribe demonstrations, where participation is made illegal.

Ruinous government reactions to the horrific Gaza Genocide most explain this grimly, elevated level of expression suppression. That genocide generated massive levels of protest across these jurisdictions. This particularly infuriated highly influential supporters of Israel. – and Global West governments responded around the world to curtail demonstration rights.

In the UK, the High Court recently ruled that the government’s most extreme ban, classifying the campaign group Palestine Action as a “terror group”, was unlawful and disproportionate. However, the government immediately advised that it would appeal this decision (see: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/13/uk-decision-to-ban-palestine-action-as-terror-group-unlawful-court-says).

[There are things you can say around the world, including in Hong Kong and Mexico (below) that can no longer be said in the UK. By ProtoplasmaKid – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=172927415]

In NSW, in Australia, the State Government became determined to act to clamp down on demonstrations after a huge pro-Palestinian march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge (see: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clydnvw1dg5o).

More recently, not one but two oppressive new legal restrictions applied to political expression have been struck down by the courts. The Premier of NSW said, directly afterwards, that, regardless of the result: “He still planned to outlaw the contested phrase globalise the intifada but was looking to how a ban in Queensland played out” (see: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/apr/16/nsws-highest-court-strikes-down-anti-protest-law-introduced-in-wake-of-bondi-beach-terror-attack-ntwnfb).

In the US, the crushing of free expression related to Gaza protests was well underway during Biden Administration, but this rush to suppress has been brutally widened and accelerated since President Trump began his second term in office in January 2025 (see: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/30/trump-crackdown-free-speech).

JUST LOOK AT THE FACTS

So, is Hong Kong, today, more measurably spooky than fundamentally engaging – especially compared to certain locations long habituated to advising Hong Kong about political morality?

The outstanding philosopher, Bertrand Russell offers some guidance on how one might respond to this enquiry:

When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only: what are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts.

Winston Churchill, more briefly, emphasized that one should:

Look at the facts, because they look at you.

Liz Truss was dumped as leader of the UK Government in 2022 after less than 50 days in office, following her introduction of a widely condemned mini-budget. Donald Trump’s continuous appalling abuses as a world leader are dramatically more egregious than those attributed to Truss. Yet his tenure as US president remains astonishingly secure. History best explains this dismal difference.

In September 2022, Britain’s latest Prime Minister, Liz Truss, set sail brandishing a reckless economic agenda, which swiftly sent stock and bond markets into a tailspin. Before the end of October, 49 days later, she was prime minister no more.

In mid-October, 2022, The Daily Star in London began live-streaming a 60p Tesco iceberg lettuce in the expectation that the lettuce would prove to have a longer shelf-life than the new prime minister. On October 20, 2022, when Truss resigned, the newspaper declared victory for the lettuce. The livestream has now been archived by the British Film Institute (see: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/daily-stars-famous-lettuce-liz-36094044).

By every possibly measure, President Trump actions, from the outset of his second term, brutally eclipse the reckless behaviour of Liz Truss.

In early 2025, serious commentators around the globe were castigating the rash, new American tariff regime. In April last year, The Economist called Trump the world’s “trade-warmonger in chief” and blamed him for destroying “trillions of dollars in shareholder value” (see: https://www.economist.com/business/2025/04/16/the-trade-war-may-reverse-hong-kongs-commercial-decline).

President Trump’s weird, dangerous, impulsive and repugnant behaviour continues to power ahead on multiple fronts. His passionate, real-life war-mongering has swept homicidally around the globe from Latin America to the Middle East. He has convinced the majority of the global population that he now leads the world’s paramount hoodlum democracy (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/630683).

And then, on February 28, this year, Trump launched a grotesquely destructive war-of-choice on Iran – in conjunction with and influenced by Israel (see: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html). On day one, the US bombed an Iranian primary school killing over 100 young girls, according to Amnesty International (see: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/03/usa-iran-those-responsible-for-deadly-and-unlawful-us-strike-on-school-that-killed-over-100-children-must-be-held-accountable/) .

Professor Robert Pape from the University of Chicago, a prominent political scientist who studies international security affairs, recently argued that Trump has “doomed” the US with his war in Iran - see:

And yet, his White House tenure remains conspicuously durable. How can this be?

In 1763, Britain won the Seven Years’ War but at considerable financial cost. Britain began imposing new taxes, including in its North American colonies, triggering the American Revolutionary War. The British were defeated and the Treaty of Paris in 1783 confirmed the independence of what was to become the United States of America.

The new US Constitution was ratified in 1788. Although this was in many ways a radical constitution it is also a notably derivative constitution because its written structure replicates fundamental provisions of the unwritten British constitution that applied in 1788 during the reign of King George III.

That unwritten British constitution embodied a paramount executive government, ultimately led by the king. The bicameral parliament in Westminster retained its primary, separate function of enacting the laws. Combined with these two fundamental bases of political power was Britain’s judiciary.

This, then, was the pivotal blueprint for the system of separate powers embodied in the US Constitution of 1788 that applies to this day. No new monarchy was created, of course, but the constitution did create a distinct executive government, outside of the legislature, headed by the president. The bicameral US Congress, was established as a separate lawmaking body and the new US Supreme Court headed the separate American judicial system.

Most importantly, the presidential term of office was stipulated in the constitution: Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 states that the executive power shall be vested in a president, who “shall hold his office during the term of four years”. And the US Constitution is extremely difficult to amend.

Following the death of King George III - and bearing in mind Britain’s loss in the American Revolutionary War – the project to transfer all substantial political power from the British Monarchy to the parliament at Westminster intensified. By the time Queen Victoria came to the throne in 1837, this transfer was largely complete.

The now radically revised — but still unwritten — British constitution stipulated, using powerful “constitutional conventions” that, first, the seat of Britain’s executive government would henceforth be within the British parliament. Second, that the government would be headed by the prime minister, who along with all other ministers, must be members of the British parliament. Third, only a prime minister who could command consistent majority support in the lower house, the House of Commons, could retain government.

This fundamental mechanism explains why Liz Truss fell so precipitously from power. Within less than 50 days she had lost the confidence of the parliament, the public and, most significantly, her own Conservative Party. She was swiftly forced to resign as prime minister (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/613659).

It is unthinkable that a primary UK leader replicating Trump’s level of continuous damaging and outrageous behavior could survive and thrive, as President Trump does in America.

President Trump’s assured tenure until early 2029 is, thus, sourced in America’s antique constitution, drafted many decades before parliamentary government was fully developed in the UK.

Meanwhile, we have seen an intensifying stream of medical and media commentary that President Trump is mentally unfit for office. The New York Times lately reported how former Trump allies and advisors are now saying he is “insane” (see: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/13/us/politics/trump-mental-fitness-25th-amendment.html?unlocked_article_code=1.alA.lzaX.Df4usxZ1EhHK&smid=url-share)

This has led to calls to invoke the 25^th Amendment to the US Constitution. This provision allows, inter alia, for the replacement of the president if he is unable to discharge his duties. The central problem is that, in essence, it cannot be applied so long as Donald Trump believes he remains able (see: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/unworkable-amendment).

In other words (drawing on some vivid British imagery) no matter how delusional a presidential lettuce may be, a four-year shelf life is locked in by the constitution. America and the world are presently living with the consequences.

I remember learning in school about China’s two iconic rivers, the Yellow River and the Yangtze River. They both flow from west to east and have a source in the mountain ranges of Qinghai Province, on the Tibetan plateau. The (northern) Yellow River extends over 5,400 kilometers before emptying into the Bohai Sea, while the (southern) Yangtze River flows for 6,300 kilometers before entering the East China Sea.

Later I learned about China’s two major, international, south-flowing rivers, which also each have a glacier-fed source within the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. The Lancang River becomes the Mekong River (South-East Asia’s most famous river) before flowing into the South China Sea. The Yarlung Tsangpo River, the highest river in the world, eventually becomes the Brahmaputra River (one of India’s primary rivers) before emptying into the Bay of Bengal.

Much more recently, I learned about China’s major north-flowing river which eventually empties into the Arctic Ocean. This discovery is, at a fundamental level, a product of the exceptional amateur exploring skills of Mr Hou Zhili (see further below). I am equally indebted to the excellent CGTN (China Global Television Network) English documentary channel, which retold much of Mr Hou’s remarkable story.

Before we review that intrepid journey, it is useful to look at the unique geography underpinning this adventure.

North-West China is a home to or adjacent to a spectacular collection of the foremost mountain ranges on earth. The major mountain systems of central Asia which extend into or border China include: the Himalayas plus the Karakorum, Hindu Kush and Pamir Ranges.

The Tianshan Mountains and the Kunlun Mountains stand, respectively, to the north and south of China’s immense Taklamakan Desert. Further north, also located within the extensive Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, is another major elevated range. The Altai Mountains straddle the important border intersection of China, Mongolia, Russia and Kazakhstan.

The Irtysh River (also known as the Ertix River) has its source in northern Xinjiang in the Altai Mountains. Mr Hou’s home, in Fuyun County, is close to the source. For many years he was fascinated by the river – and where it went. The Irtysh, after it flows southwards, out of the Altai Mountains, does something few major rivers in China do: it flows westwards. After around 500 kilometres it enters Kazakhstan.

Meanwhile, on the north side of the Altai Mountains, in Russia, we find the source of another major river, the Ob. The Ob is one of the three immense waterways that traverse the vast area of Siberia from south to north before reaching the Arctic Ocean. The other two rivers are the Yenisei and the Lena. The Ob crosses western Siberia, the Lena negotiates eastern Siberia and the Yenisei separates eastern from western Siberia.

The Irtysh has a total length of over 4,200-kilometers from its source in China until where it joins the Ob (on its left bank) near the Siberian city of Khanty-Mansiysk. It is the longest tributary river in the world.

Khanty-Mansiysk

The Ob River eventually empties into the Gulf of Ob, which connects directly to the Arctic Ocean. This 800 kilometer, narrow gulf is the world longest estuary. The total length of the combined Irtysh-Ob river-system from the source of the Irtysh to the mouth of the Ob is around 5,400 kilometers. After the Yangtze, it ties with the Yellow River as the second longest river system in Asia.

This entire system thus provides direct river access to the Arctic Ocean from China. However, due to the extreme Siberian climate, the Ob is only fully navigable between May and October. This means that any sort of self-powered, continuous journey from source to mouth is inconceivable.

According to a 2018 Xinhua-Net report, Mr Hou first enjoyed journeying with friends, as child, on the Irtysh River, in China, aboard self-made rafts. These experiences ultimately inspired him to conceive of a remarkable venture: kayaking from near his hometown in China to the Arctic mouth of this spectacularly long, north flowing river system (see: https://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-11/23/c_137627200.htm).

The China Daily reported, in 2017, how Mr. Hou, now in his forties, closed his graphic design business in 2012 and applied his exceptional determination, courage, skills and savings to implement this never-before attempted project. He knew, due to that Siberian climatic reality, that he would have to complete this journey in stages (see: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2017-11/13/content_34463483.htm).

In 2014, he paddled 50 kilometers per day to cover the 520-kilometer distance from near the source of the Irtysh to the China-Kazakhstan border. In 2016, Kazakhstan relaxed its visa rules for Chinese visitors and in August of that year, Mr. Hou began the second stage of his epic journey, where he kayaked another 1,500 kilometers, before winter closed in.

In September 2018, Hou completed the third leg of his journey, after rowing for 54 days as he crossed Western Siberia, enduring intense cold, rain and high winds. During this stage, he covered more than 2,000 kilometers and reached the confluence of the Irtysh and Ob Rivers near the far-north, Russian city of Khanty-Mansiysk.

The China Adventure Association confirmed, in 2020, that Mr. Hou completed his extraordinary, marathon journey, successfully reaching the Arctic Circle in the summer of 2019 (see: https://caa1993.org.cn/content/20/831.shtml).

The four stages of this solo trip were, thus, spread over five years. Mr. Hou spent almost 120 days rowing and drifting as he covered the entire length of this extraordinary river system.

He faced and dealt with recurring emergencies, extreme weather conditions - including intense cold - and regular loneliness. He also encountered, as he travelled: exceptional friendship, conspicuous hospitality, outstanding help when badly needed, and a 2 am visit from a curious wild animal.

This is the first time that any solo-person has completed this exacting journey. There were no indicative “earlier footsteps” to follow. Mr Hou has certainly, as the China Adventure Association says, “created a new chapter in rafting history.”

Hou Zhili said he first became fascinated by long-distance rafting after watching a television program in 1986, when still a young boy. The deepest impact of this trip arose, he said, from experiencing: the exceptional warmth of strangers, the extraordinary changing landscape, and a penetrating sense of personal growth. He added that the joy he felt as he overcame extreme challenges: “Is not something to show off to others, but rather something that you are showing to your younger self.”

When this exemplary amateur explorer first crossed into East Kazakhstan from China, a local reporter asked Hou Zhili why had he come. “To meet you,” he replied, “to meet kind people like you.” In the course of completing this epic journey, Mr Hou clearly also proved himself to be an uncommonly effective, informal envoy for China.

Richard Cullen looks at a fascinating new book: Understanding China: Governance, Socio-Economics, Global Influence (by Chandran Nair and others, Routledge, Abingdon, 2026).

Strongly recommended: Richard’s Substack Newsletter: https://substack.com/@richardcullen376919

Routledge in the UK recently published an important new book, authored by Chandran Nair, Jorgen Randers, Jinfeng Zhou and Frederick Charles Dubee, entitled: “Understanding China: Governance, Socio-Economics, Global Influence.”

What the book argues

In the concise introduction, the experienced authors claim that: “There exists a void today in the understanding of China” adding that “almost all the discussions about China and its role in the 21^st century take place along deeply divided ideological lines.”

They are right.

The authors make a particular effort, throughout the book:

• To use robustly informed, fact-checkable, footnoted arguments; and

• To stress an equally open understanding of China’s continuing, challenges, faults and failings placed alongside the story of its exceptional positive achievements.

Thus, they contend that China has:

• Benefitted very greatly from embedding itself within the huge Western-shaped economic-globalization project;

• Relied heavily on learning from others;

• Continued to face serious problems with corruption, deep-rooted nationalism, adverse demographics and structural economic difficulties; and

• Applied significant internal civil and political liberty constraints.

They also note how:

• Chinese authorities are the first to agree that China is not flawless;

• China is neither an enemy nor an infallible paradise;

• China is still maturing as a new superpower;

• Nationalistic narratives are still projected by Beijing – but there is also much truth in their portrayal of China’s often immense struggles over the last two centuries;

• China is a vast, ancient civilization, presently re-establishing its international presence as a primary – non-hegemonic – global power;

• The Chinese government “is steered by a deeply rooted and historically grounded devotion towards its people”; and

• The ruling elite of China is exceptionally committed to maintaining the performance legitimacy of government at all levels (which detailed surveys by American institutes consistently show underpins significant mass popularity).

The understanding-deficit

One way to get a grip on the seriousness of the pivotal problem addressed in the book, is to consider a germane case study.

The Economist is arguably the most prominent, media-based, political-economic opinion leader in the Global West. This flagship outlet is especially well staffed by articulate, highly educated, often multi-lingual correspondents.

Three leading China-focused operatives from The Economist recently returned from a week of high-level discussions in Beijing. This team explained what they had drawn from this visit in an online interview soon after they returned to London (see:

).

See for yourself, but I found, based on the interview, that it was fair to conclude this trio left comfortably convinced that West is best and returned predictably and fluently re-convinced that this remained so.

The Deputy Editor, Ed Carr, argued that, “China is cautious, ageing and hidebound by party ideology,” concluding that we could see a future where America, with its “remarkable ability to reinvent itself” may “embrace upheaval” while “China shuts itself off.” The other three participants around the table nodded in convinced agreement.

Never mind, for now, the shredded cogency of that “remarkable America” perspective following Washington’s latest Iran calamity (see: Foreign Affairs: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/america-has-lost-arab-world).

But think about this.

China, with four times the American population, has, over the last 50 years, risen from having a GDP that was about 9% the size of the US economy to having an economy that is 67% of the size of the US economy and remains on track to exceed the size of the US economy within a decade (see: https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3347863/china-still-track-supplant-us-worlds-no-1-economy-10-years-academic).

Using a PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) measure China’s economy exceeded the size of the US economy more than a decade ago (see: https://insidestory.org.au/china-already-number-one-says-the-imf/).

Then there are those 800 million people that China has, according to the World Bank, lifted out of abject poverty. The influential historian, Adam Tooze, recently concluded that China has, since 1978, produced “the greatest success story in developmental history” (see: https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/09/08/adam-tooze-un-sustainable-development-goals-us-aid-finance-economy/).

Surely this globally unprecedented, massively uplifting national growth could not have been guided and achieved over the last 50 years by a government “hidebound by party ideology”. But the government in Beijing surely cannot have just recently slipped into this sharply identified state of grim “hideboundness.” Never mind, apparently China is just hidebound, and that’s that.

Intelligently applied understanding

Zenal Garcia is an Associate Professor of Security Studies at the US Army War College, who recently published a short, penetrating essay entitled: “Why the West keeps misreading China’s strategy” (see: https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/04/why-the-west-keeps-misreading-chinas-strategy/).

Professor Garcia begins by arguing that:

Western analysis often assumes China operates like the United States. That misreading obscures a more transactional, less entangled approach to global partnerships.

The January 2026 capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and the February 2026 decapitation of Iran’s leadership have been frequently framed as strategic losses for China, with Beijing having invested heavily in both regimes. But this framing rests on a flawed assumption – that Beijing approaches international partnerships the same way Washington does, through durable political alignment, reputational commitments and implicit security obligations.

Professor Garcia is a perceptive, unsentimental military analyst working to advance the best interests of the US Army. This introduction shows he is also someone who has applied himself, as one in his position should, to understanding China as it is – and not through a Western lens.

He completes the article in this way:

The events in Venezuela and Iran are not a blow to Chinese interests as Western analysts have framed. By toppling Maduro US President Donald Trump’s administration has arguably relieved Beijing of responsibility for Venezuela’s problems, allowing China to position itself as a more cautious actor in Latin America while Washington faces the aftermath.

Understanding China on its own terms – as a state with different theories of power, institutional preferences and tolerance levels for commitment costs – is the bare minimum of effective strategic competition. Until Washington understands that there is no sense in imputing US logic to China’s strategic worldview, it will keep misreading the board.

Conclusion

The case study above emphasizes:

• The continuing, high-level impact of the understanding-deficit stressed by this critical new book; and

• How it remains an acute problem in the Global West, conspicuously evident within the highly-educated, opinion-shaping leadership zone.

As this new book makes clear, misunderstanding arising out of a primary, widespread lack of knowledge about China shaped by now continual Western recourse to “us vs them” geopolitical narratives is a fundamental concern.

The challenge to better understanding presented by those who are very well educated and worldly-wise – evident above – is patently more serious.

The book’s lead author, Chandran Nair, put it, convincingly, this way in a recent related article:

Only through empirically informed analysis delving into the country’s institutions and people – drawing upon both culturalist and materialist lenses – can the world fully understand China today. China is not a threat.

However, given its size, scale, and vast potential, its rise will inevitably generate challenges. In tackling and resolving these challenges with China, the international community, as a collective, improves and grows. An inter-civilisational dialogue between China and the world is not only an imperative for academics, but critical for world leaders and thinkers striving towards a more peaceful world (see: https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/12/understanding-china-governance-socio-economics-global-influence/). .

This new book makes a compelling case supporting the need to understand China and it provides a cogent roadmap showing how to approach this crucial task. Unfortunately, too few are paying attention to this appeal.

But perhaps one day we may see an erudite team from the likes of The Economist return from a week’s research in Beijing and talk, in good part, about what (shock horror) the West might learn from China! This would be a measurable sign of progress.

_________________________________

Introduction

Wang, Xiangwei, a leading local commentator, posed a central question following the announcement that Hong Kong is set to formulate its first five-year plan:

“Can a city that has long prided itself on light-touch governance and market reflexes execute a whole-of-society planning process without the institutional muscle, the technical bench, or the political habit of doing so?” (see: https://amchamhk.online/can-hong-kong-adopt-a-five-year-plan/).

This is a fair question. We need to remember, however, that Hong Kong is well-placed to draw on many decades of successful forward planning experience, stretching back to the 1950s.

Moreover, China’s latest Five-Year Plan is being bedded down just as Beijing reconfirms a remarkable, nascent insight George Orwell offered in 1945, when he implicitly wondered if China might develop a rather different perspective on global interaction compared to that favored in the West.

British Hong Kong: A free-market economy underpinned by striking public intervention

The active embrace of free market principles in British Hong Kong after World War II, first celebrated by Professor Milton Friedman around 70 years ago, was eventually given the name “positive non-interventionism” in 1971, by the Hong Kong Financial Secretary, Philip Haddon-Cave (building on the work of his predecessor, John Cowperthwaite). Friedman regularly cited Hong Kong as his favorite economy. He marketed Hong Kong as a type of free market Shangri-La in his 1980 book and TV series, “Free to Choose.”

In fact, massive government intervention in the Hong Kong economy was well underway by the time Friedman first visited.

The initial decision to build high density public rental housing was impelled by a crisis created when a terrible fire devastated a large squatter settlement. This emergency response soon evolved into a well-planned, huge, exemplary public housing project that remains in place today.

Other vital, long-term, planned interventions included the development of Hong Kong’s world class public transit system and new airport, its remarkable educational expansion, its first-world health care infrastructure, and extensive mechanisms for coping with annual weather-crises.

Friedman paid limited heed to these fundamental, interventionist realities as they got in the way of his evangelical free market advocacy. Yet, all this heavily planned intervention crucially buttressed the substantial free-market story he told the world.

Also underpinning this conspicuous success is another factor (largely ignored by Friedman) which continues to ground so much successful planning in the SAR: the indefinite retention, by government, of a core proprietorial interest in all land. This mother of all forward planning initiatives was locked into place by the British in 1842! (see: https://johnmenadue.com/post/2021/04/hong-kongs-housing-crisis-an-underlying-factor-in-the-2019-riots/).

Orwell and the nature of superpowers

Next, let us consider, with the assistance of George Orwell, how China has evolved (over a very long period) into a different sort of superpower.

In a 1945 essay, shortly after the US dropped two atom bombs on Japan, Orwell argued that all super-states, including America, might well, in future, be “ruled, under one disguise or another, by a self-elected oligarchy” (see: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/you-and-the-atom-bomb/).

Orwell also envisaged, several years prior to the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, the creation of an East Asian super-state centred on China (which materialized in his most famous novel “!984” as Eastasia).

Orwell did not explicitly turn his mind to whether his visualised, dominant Chinese state might craft a primary growth pathway that broke away from the embedded, imperial Western model. He was, though, critical of the idea that, “politics is essentially the same in all ages”. Orwell remained open to the possibility that a ruling group in a future super-state could perceive that “it will probably stay in power longer if it behaves decently” (see: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/second-thoughts-on-james-burnham/).

China’s socio-political flight-path: then and now

Professor Jeffrey Sachs argues that the avoidance of far-off imperial wars has consistently dominated China’s exceptionally long history (see:

).

Another crucial feature of Chinese civilisation has been the ability — drawing on a vast, high-understanding culture — to work together for the common good. This has been conspicuously apparent over the last five decades, since the death of Mao Zedong and the end of the very grim Cultural Revolution. According to the influential historian, Adam Tooze, China has, since 1978, produced “the greatest success story in developmental history” (see: https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/09/08/adam-tooze-un-sustainable-development-goals-us-aid-finance-economy/).

China first Five-Year Plan (1953-1957) emphasized rapid “smokestack” industrialization, with a primary focus on steel, coal, cement, power generation, machinery production and infrastructure. It was directly modelled on the Soviet central planning approach.

The recently approved 15^th Five-Year Plan (2026-2030) exhibits a critical emphasis on advanced technological development and self-reliance. According to the World Economic Forum, it, “signals a new phase of strategic adaptation.” Yet one can still see how this new blueprint is underpinned by all the implemented plans that preceded it.

Moreover, this fresh plan is embedded within the framework created by the four pivotal global initiatives announced by China over the last several years: the Global Development Initiative (2021). The Global Security Initiative (2022), the Global Civilizational Initiative (2023), and the Global Governance Initiative (2025).

This set of broad interlocking proposals, with their unwavering, globally inclusive focus is unlike any framework previously generated during the long period of imperially-sourced, Western world leadership.

This comparative actuality was captured in an acute observation by the prominent commentator, Pankaj Mishra, about six months ago. After noting that “there is much that is imperfect about China,” Mishra argued how “China is a very different kind of late modernising power that is setting an example that there are other ways of being a powerful country in the world” (see:

).

Finally, it is helpful to consider some timely observations by Harvard’s Professor Stephen Walt. He recently argued that: “The second Trump administration has been far more disruptive, damaging, and dangerous than most observers – including me - expected, and the tragically inept war with Iran is driving that point home in spades.”

Walt then advised how the White House should remedy this dire focus: “A far-sighted great power will use its power with restraint, adhere to widely held norms whenever possible, recognize that even close allies will have their own agendas, and work to fashion arrangements with others from which all parties benefit” (see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ripple/2026/03/26/united-states-trump-rogue-state-iran/).

It is fair to wonder if Professor Walt may have had China in mind as he crafted this rectification formula as it essentially summarizes Beijing’s settled, distinctively globalized approach to managing China’s geopolitical interactions.

Conclusion

Looking forward, Beijing clearly expects that its best interests will be served – and mutual benefits will arise- when China positions itself as a fundamental anchoring nation operating within a fully interactive, multi-polar world. This is the promising – and challenging – context within which Hong Kong, Asia’s World City, will need to craft its first five-year plan. This plan will also have to be developed and applied bearing in mind the way it will lay down crucial foundations for five-years plans to follow.

Completing this demanding, multi-faceted task will test the SAR significantly. The positive opportunities are remarkable, however. And the exceptional success of so many past strategic development interventions confirm how adept Hong Kong is when it applies itself assiduously to long-term planning and execution tasks.

This is a mildly revised version of an article originally published in the China Daily on April 12, 2026 (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/631846).

This article was first published around two months prior to the latest grotesque outbreak of American-Israeli bombing, mass-slaughter and colossal destruction directed at Iran, in the China Daily, on New Year’s Day, 2026, and shortly before that, by Fridayeveryday (see: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/626357).

Some argue that, amidst the chaotic carnage President Trump has been orchestrating, with Israel, for months on end, we still need to pay attention to the good which Mr. Trump is achieving. Which reminds me how Adolph Hitler: loved dogs; loathed smoking and tried to stop it; and built the world’s best motorways.

New war and peace

By Richard Cullen

January 1, 2026

The surge in China’s military capacity, especially over the last decade, has been the focus of increasing Western commentary, some of it measured, much of it alarmist. Many alarmists believe it is a truth universally acknowledged that any large nation possessed of a significantly upgraded stockpile of advanced martial equipment will want to use it against others. Which surely confirms that the Global West is, above all, looking in a mirror. Richard Cullen reports.

Comparative bombs and bullets

The United States remains the world’s adamantly dominant military power. America’s massive nuclear, sea, air and personnel assets, some 800 worldwide military bases and annual martial spending (of around US$1 trillion) exceeding that of the next ten countries combined confirm why this is so (link).

Just the (treaty-limited) capacity of constantly cruising, submarine-based American nuclear weaponry is capable of exterminating a third of the total world population within about an hour (link).

However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has also been advancing the martial capacity of all land, sea, air and space components within the PLA (People’s Liberation Army).

According to a leading US think-tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the PLA has, over the last several decades, greatly modernized itself while transforming from a regional force into a global power. Although ground forces have shrunk from 1.5 million to 1 million since 2014, naval, air, general weaponry and space-based power have all seen striking technology and capacity improvements. China’s military spending, which stood at around 17 percent of US spending in 2012 doubled within 12 years, advancing to 33 percent of US spending in 2024, says the CSIS (link).

China’s current nuclear arsenal comprises 600 active nuclear warheads – compared to 3,700 active nuclear warheads in the US.

In terms of overall warship tonnage, the PLA Navy trails the US Navy significantly but it now has more active battle-force ships, primarily focused on patrolling Chinese coastal seas (link).

Moreover, commercial ship-building capacity typically plays a foundational role in supporting military ship-building.

The CSIS lately noted how China held more than 53 percent of the global market share in the commercial shipbuilding while the United States accounted for only 0.1 percent, adding that: “Just one Chinese firm, the state-owned juggernaut China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC), built more commercial vessels by tonnage in 2024 than the entire US shipbuilding industry has built since the end of World War II” (link).

Furthermore, the advanced effectiveness of late model Chinese combat aircraft may have been confirmed in a short clash in May 2025, between Pakistan (using modern Chinese-built aircraft) and India (using modern French-built aircraft), where Pakistan appeared to have a clear upper hand (link).

Two pivotal factors are regularly cited as the primary drivers of this extraordinary growth in PRC military power: never again enduring the century of humiliation suffered by China following its defeat in the First Opium War (1839–42); and completing China’s reunification with Taiwan. In 2023, a report from the American Rand Corporation entitled “Why is China Strengthening its Military? It’s Not All About War” stressed the importance of both these factors, among others (link).

The South China Sea and the Gulf of America

Over the last year, a new, striking Sino-American comparative case study has emerged. It highlights how martial force has been used in very different ways to emphasize particular foreign policy priorities.

Dealing with serious tensions in the South China Sea

Chinese maritime wrangles with its many littoral neighbors bordering the South China Sea (SCS) are often traced back to China’s “Nine Dash Line” asserting sovereignty over certain islands, reefs and shoals in the SCS combined with claims over waters adjacent thereto, natural resource claims and more vague security-jurisdictional (trade route) claims. In fact, this large U-shaped maritime zone is a reduced, PRC claim derived from the larger, “Eleven Dash Line” proclaimed by the ROC (Republic of China) in 1946. The authorities in Taiwan still maintain this wider claim (link).

The most intense, modern maritime confrontations in the SCS have arisen between China and the Philippines. In 2016, a controversial UN Arbitration Panel, at the request of the Philippines, found that there was no historical basis for China to claim rights over all the maritime area within the Nine Dash Line. Both Beijing and Taipei rejected this ruling (link).

Unfriendly, sometimes hostile Sino-Philippines maritime interactions near disputed areas in the SCS have ensued for over a decade. Germany’s DW News recently reported that the most aggressive display of overt force by China during these encounters has been the use of water-cannons (link).

Naturally, the US has swiftly condemned such responses against Filipino vessels in the SCS by China (link).

In 2024, a renowned expert in international law, Professor Tony Carty argued, with respect to encounters like this, that:

“There is absolutely no doubt that this whole dispute is entirely about the Americans trying to make life difficult for the Chinese. The aggression that is building up against China and the scapegoating of China by the whole of the so-called democratic community of the world is appalling” (link).

Bandits of the Caribbean

In early 2025, one of White House’s early, audacious executive acts was to rename the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of America (link).

As in the case of the South China Sea, it is helpful to consider some historical (Latin American) background before we look at more recent events.

The highly decorated US Marine Corps Major General, Smedley Butler, delivered a speech in 1933 entitled “War is a Racket” (followed by a book with the same title) where he argued that:

“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it” (link).

Next, consider what is happening today, over 90 years later, in America’s Caribbean backyard (link).

•The US military have already killed over 100 civilians at sea in the Gulf of America (and the Pacific) in 2025.

•This “Southern Spear” military operation is killing alleged “narco-terrorists.”

•Guilt by White House assertion has entirely replaced confirming guilt according to any form of basic due process.

•Interception, arrest and interrogation play no part in this operation.

•White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles revealed President Trump’s desire to pressure Venezuelan President Maduro by “blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle” suggested America’s stated goal of stopping drugs was a cover for regime change effort (link).

•The US military (with the understanding of self-styled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (link) deliberately murdered ship-wrecked survivors struggling for life after an initial attack, explicitly contrary to the US Defence Department’s Law of War Manual (link).

•The US military is now hijacking certain ships leaving Venezuela, complete with oil cargo, while enforcing brazen, coercive American sanctions (link).

•The US is now imposing an illegal naval blockade on Venezuela according to UN experts: A blockade is a prohibited use of military force against another country under the UN Charter (link).

•Backed by a crucial nomination from the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, America helped finagle the (now emphatically discredited) 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, for María Corina Machado, who has long urged unlawful US military intervention in Venezuela (link).

•Following an earlier, failed “gringo intervention” in 2019, reported by Time (link). Ms Machado clearly looks like a fresh, ear-marked candidate committed to enabling the US to govern Venezuela from Washington.

Meanwhile:

•Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, in October 2025, cheered on America’s unforgivable, grotesque complicity in the Gaza genocide boasting that “We are killing all the right people” (link).

•America has started bombing targets in Nigeria related to “Christian genocide” – though recent Islamist attacks on Christian farmers occurred in a different part of Nigeria (link).

•Regular American bombing attacks on Somalia have lately doubled (link).

•The White House has just ramped-up its Greenland-takeover project, never mind that this is a full-frontal political assault on a NATO ally, where the use of force is not ruled out.

•President Trump has announced the US Navy will initially build two new “Trump Class” battleships, falsely said to be “the largest battleships in the history of our country” (link).

•The Atlantic explained the US lacks the capacity, today, to build any such ships, while naming them “Trump’s Vanity Fleet” (link).

•Just after Christmas, flanked by grinning indicted war criminal, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump flagged yet another, potential major US-Israeli attack on Iran (link) as a follow-up to the earlier, treacherous US-Israeli attack on Iran in June, 2025 (link).

Intensifying Divergence

Smedley Butler’s striking advocacy from the 1930s confirms how the bare-faced use of raw military power against civilians, unproved-combatants and sovereign states malevolently black-hatted by the White House is not something that has just recently materialized.

This American behavior dates back over 200 years: The Munroe Doctrine from 1823 (today repurposed as the “Donroe Doctrine” (link) spelled out that Latin America is a militarily controlled, US sphere of influence off limits to all other powers.

Countless examples of American political intimidation, military incursions and violent regime change have flowed from the doctrine, for example in Guatemala in 1954 (link). And the world has been watching the endless American attempt to crush Cuba for over 60 years, a project that even American allies find inexcusably rotten (link).

Rather more recently, an article in The Harvard Political Review argued, in 2021, that Barack Obama is a war criminal. As President, he ordered 563 drone strikes which killed 3,797 people which included the murder of some 40 people attending a funeral in Pakistan. The article notes that he was not a pioneer in this endeavour but he was an exceptional expansionist. As he was beginning this homicidal project, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (link).

Meanwhile, ever since the extraordinary modern rise of China gained serious traction over 40 years ago, China has studiously avoided any level of warfare involvement remotely comparable to the level relished by the US.

President Jimmy Carter, when he identified the US as the most warlike nation in history, compared this record with that of China. “Since 1979, do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody?” Carter asked. “None!” was the response he gave to his own question, adding that he thought America had: “wasted $3 trillion on military spending, while China has not wasted a single penny on war, and that’s why they’re ahead of us in almost every way” (link).

When we move on to the Gulf of America – South China Sea case study the Sino-American contrast is shockingly clear:

•America’s blood-thirsty, war-mongering pedigree stands behind the wanton use of concentrated, homicidal America military force in Latin America today.

•China’s resort to water cannon usage (naturally condemned by the US) as a maximal response in the South China Sea, confirms Beijing’s desire to minimize violent conflict and avoid open warfare wherever possible.

Despite this startling disparity evident in daily global news bulletins, a recent remarkable article published by the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney argued that US actions were “the least likely potential cause of any conflict across the Taiwan Strait” (link).

Conclusion

Smedley Butler, were he alive today, would surely confirm how, more than ever, war remains a huge racket for the US. What, though, can help explain this dangerous, accelerating behaviour?

In fact, instructive indications are evident in some fresh commentary on contrasting American and Chinese approaches across a broad range of policy areas:

•Another article from the Atlantic Council stresses how, in contrast to the US, China’s Five Year Plans enhance long-term “policy consistency, continuity and predictability” (link).

•In an article entitled, “China Responds to Trump’s Revived Monroe Doctrine” the journal Foreign Policy noted how the: “sugar highs of bullying the region’s leaders could lead to adverse consequences, including countries banding together against the United States—and the possibility that China may emerge as a more attractive partner” (link).

•Alex Lo, writing in The South China Morning Post, recently explained, “How Elon Musk and his merry band of billionaires run the United States” while China’s increasing number of billionaires do not pose a similar problem (link).

•In a soon to be published article, Professor Christopher Tang from UCLA argues that: “China is not merely adapting to the existing order – it is reshaping the terms under which global economic power is exercised.”

Fundamentally evident is the contrast between Beijing’s strategically planned, collective, firmly positive, long-term view of the future and Washington’s often chaotic, regularly very violent, backward-gazing quest to reimpose the level of American global hegemony it enjoyed as the Cold War came to an end over 30 years ago.

Consider our case study once more:

•Whatever China’s regional differences may be, Beijing understands that geography is destiny and China and the Philippines, for example, will be living as separate neighbors for the next 100 years and well beyond, hopefully in peace.

•America appears locked within a 200 year time-warp, where it cannot move beyond a continuous, default habit of imposing its will on neighbors by military force or other profoundly coercive means in order to secure a menacing American version of peace.

Finally, there is no question that China’s huge military build-up potentially puts Beijing in a position to impose its will regionally relying on military means, in a manner never before seen in Chinese history.

There is also no question, however, that, unlike the US, the martial imposition of its will remains a measure of last resort for Beijing – including with respect to Taiwan. Its comparative behavior over many centuries and since the rise of China began over 40 years ago both confirm this, according to Professor Jeffrey Sachs (link).

This divergence is unsurprising. For over 40 years, as it has compared itself with the US, China has confirmed the immense benefits of building rather than bombing, on a daily basis (link). Most of the rest of the world comprehends this. It is appalling that the US and too many of its dismal allies have so far failed to do so.

Richard Cullen is an adjunct law professor at the University of Hong Kong and a popular writer on current affairs.

Republishing from FridayEveryday website at https://fridayeveryday.com/war-and-peace/

After watching the recent interview of Tucker Carlson by The Economist one observer argued that:

In the midst of this collective [Western media] moral collapse, Tucker Carlson has become the “conscience” of the media—simply because he possesses just a little more common sense, honesty, and humanity than these utterly hypocritical institutions.

This is a controversial claim about a widely recognized, remarkably informed and articulate, singularly controversial commentator.

In April 2023, the BBC reported, “How Tucker Carlson road a wave of populist outrage” in an extended article which documented his conspicuous, media-career assent, beginning in the 1990s. It was published just as Fox News announced that the network and its biggest star had agreed to part ways. Carlson’s “steady rise and sudden fall” were highlighted, along with, “accusations of racism and misogyny” (see: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65381815).

An article published by The Australian Institute of International Affairs about a year later, denounced a visit by Carlson to Australia as a “paranoid, divisive, and racist propaganda tour” adding that “Carlson and his allies represent the greatest threat global fascism has posed since World War II (see: https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/tucker-carlson-takes-putins-propaganda-on-tour-down-under-why-should-australians-be-concerned/).

Many more equally critical reviews can be found online.

Could this person ever be a conscience?

As it happens, in August, 2024, Tucker Carlson conducted an extended interview with Professor Jeffrey Sachs that ran for well over two hours. Amongst other things, it stressed the looming danger of a US war against Iran, acting primarily in the interests of Israel, see:

Soon after, I published a short assessment of this discussion in the Australian online journal Pearls and Irritations. Here is a lightly edited version of that review:

Tucker Carlson and Jeffrey Sachs confirm mainstream Western media mostly a shabby cabaret

Richard Cullen - September 5, 2024

A recent, comprehensive social-media interview has provided an acute reminder of how hard it now is to imagine certain flagship, Western current affairs programs drowning their cherished war-drums in a lead weighted bag and applying themselves to investigating pivotal geopolitical challenges with intelligent thoroughness

The Tucker Carlson Show has just uploaded a remarkable, extended interview where the eponymous host speaks with Professor Jeffrey Sachs. It is entitled: “Trump’s Plan to Stop WWIII, CIA Coups, and Warning of the Next Financial Crisis.”.

The show runs for well over two hours and covers: America’s succession of failed, multi-trillion-dollar wars; the gross, wilful provocations dating back 30 years which have led to the war in Ukraine; the compounding failure of American leadership; and much more.

The program is penetrating and highly watchable. If time is tight, scan-watching works well, too.

Unsurprisingly, the widespread criticism of Carlson as “a dangerous source of misinformation” who holds “extremist views” continues to be forcefully argued.

It is also clear, however, that Carlson has developed and applied a consistent, very powerful critique of:

· America’s embrace of chosen offshore warmongering, contrary to promises President Trump campaigned on; and

· The devastating influence of Israel on White House policy-making.

This, in turn, has energized his censure of the way so many Mainstream Western Media outlets have explicitly or implicitly endorsed these destructive developments.

Carlson’s stance has also confirmed the development of a primary fault line within the American right. He has maintained his position on these issues notwithstanding withering attacks from Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee, for example.

Time to return, in conclusion, to that interview with Zanny Minton Beddoes, the editor-in-chief of The Economist. Carlson clearly enjoyed the encounter. So much so that it was regularly hard to tell who was interviewing whom. Carlson was more sure-footed about where he stood and why. He regularly left the editor-in-chief looking like an equivocating apologist for the very powerful Israel-First faction now prominently embedded within so many Global West leadership structures.

How apt, though, is that conscience label? Watch the interview, when you have time, and judge for yourself (Google: carlson economist interview).

According to the Website, Geodata and Rankings, the US and Israel rank within the top five most disliked countries, worldwide, keeping company with China, Russia and North Korea (see: https://www.facebook.com/geodatarankings/posts/20-most-disliked-countries-in-the-world-this-ranking-reflects-global-public-opin/122164344266929913/).

This is despite America and Israel maintaining by far the strongest marketing-propaganda presence globally, insisting to the world that they are beacons of democratic righteousness.

Much more concerning is that fact that the continuous, Israeli-American love of, capacity for and indulgence in actual war-mongering comfortably exceeds that of the rest of the Top 20 most disliked countries combined.

The latest, monstrous embrace of mass homicide and destruction on an industrial scale in Iran – launched by Israel and the US - potently confirms what Professor Jeffrey Sachs has argued for some time, that the grotesque partnership of Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu, poses the gravest threat of nuclear war the world has faced in many decades (see:

) .

In October 2022, I published an article with the online journal, Pearls and Irritations, entitled, “On the Beach” a haunting evocation of nuclear war, which drew heavily on Nevil Shute’s remarkable 1957 novel about the unbending, terminal impact of nuclear war (see: https://publish.pearlsandirritations.com/on-the-beach-a-haunting-evocation-of-nuclear-war/).

The New York Times said, after the book’s release, that it created “the most haunting evocation we have of a world dying of radiation after an atomic war.” The Times observed that it was “the most evocative novel on the aftermath of a nuclear war.” More recently, The Economist noted that it was, “still incredibly moving after nearly half a century.”

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) lately advised that the current global stockpile of nuclear warheads exceeds 12,000 – down from 70,000 warheads at the height of the Cold War. The US and Russia retain the bulk of this arsenal. Israel is estimated to have 90 warheads. All users can deliver these warheads much more precisely than was the case 60 years ago.

Right now, unhappily, seems the right time to re-circulate the article below. Shute’s novel, better than anything else I have read, tells everyone what an unstoppable obliterating horror story is promised by nuclear war.

You can watch the movie-trailer for the film On the Beach here:

On The Beach” a haunting evocation of nuclear war

October, 2022

by

Richard Cullen

Professor Emeritus Richard Falk, from Princeton University, argues that, “nuclear dangers have become more salient than at any time at least in this century”. More than sixty years ago the outstanding novelist, Nevil Shute, accentuated the same profound hazard in his most considered work, “On the Beach”.

Nevil Shute was well established as a leading British Novelist before he migrated to Australia, after the war, in 1950. He settled, with his family, in Langwarrin, near the south-east Melbourne suburb of Frankston. He died, after a stroke, in Melbourne in 1960.

Shute was an aeronautical engineer by training and also an accomplished pilot. His novels regularly display an uncommon reliance on lucidly explained, relevant technical detail. This approach, which is engaging and informing yet rarely alienating, adds a remarkable, realistic grounding to much of his work

His first published novel, Marazan appeared in 1926. Shute subsequently published over 20 books. Their highly readable, creative narratives resulted in a number of them being adapted for the screen including A Town Like Alice and The Far Country.

Shute’s best-known work, On the Beach, which I have just finished reading for the first time, was originally published in 1957.

It became a major Hollywood film, directed by Stanley Kramer and starring Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner and Anthony Perkins, in 1959. The book – and the film – are set in Melbourne as it awaits the arrival of unstoppable clouds of deadly radiation migrating around the globe following a terrible, short, major nuclear war in the Northern Hemisphere. The apocalyptic tale is set, by Shute, about six years into the then future. The book was filmed again in 2000.

The first filming produced a memorable quotation attributed to the spirited Ava Gardner: “On the Beach is a story about the end of the world and Melbourne sure is the right place to film it”. There is a credible narrative that an Australian journalist, Neil Jillett, created the quote as he wrote up an imaginary interview with Ms Gardner.

Though much awaited, the film was not a great success. Despite the potent Hollywood treatment and publicity, viewers discovered that what was on the screen was a rationally examined, truly man-made horror story about the end of life on earth. This was not what most patrons were looking for.

The book has a much more British-Australian feel. It is significantly better than the film in depicting how relentlessly and comprehensively gruesome large scale nuclear war would be. The New York Times said that the book created “the most haunting evocation we have of a world dying of radiation after an atomic war.”. The Times observed that it was “the most evocative novel on the aftermath of a nuclear war”. More recently, The Economist noted that it was, “still incredibly moving after nearly half a century.”

Indeed, the novel stands up very well. And it will retain its relevance over the long-term, I expect, provided the current spasms of war-making madness do not precipitate an updated but similarly comprehensive elimination of life on earth.

One thing Shute managed particularly well was conveying the deep, steady collective change of mood that unfolded. That shared understanding of all essentially going-together is, eventually and overwhelmingly, simply there. And it is not there for macabre effect – but to touch on deep aspects of collective human understanding as Shute understood this.

The book is pivotally shrewd on the dangers of proliferation, the dismal aspects of media debate- even then – and the massively destructive failures of leadership. It is regularly and aptly poignant but never mawkish: lessons are attempted to indicate how to face the unfaceable with abiding humanity.

Tom Plate lucidly argued, very recently, in an article in the South China Morning Post, how the US not just Russia has helped bring the world closer to nuclear war. He notes, acutely, how, The unseemly primal lust with which Washington by proxy jumped into a regional crisis and made it into an increasingly global one stunned many.

Plate draws on the extensive, germane analysis of Richard Falk, now 91 and emeritus professor of international law at Princeton University. In doing so, Plate concludes that, while China and Russia are no saints when it comes to using simplistic binary images, it is the US “which has parleyed its international brand of American exceptionalism into a preposterous permanent innocence”.

The title of Shute’s book is based on a passage from The Hollow Men by T. S. Eliot:

In the last of meeting places

We grope together

And avoid speech

Gathered on this beach of the tumid river

As it happens, Anthony Daniels (penname, Theodore Dalrymple) a more recent skilled writer (of essays rather than novels) drew the title for a collection of his articles published in 2009, Not with a Bang but a Whimper, from the same source.

Shute’s novel was first published around 5 years before the Cuban Missile Crisis – and 65 years before the current, conspicuous bellicosity.

As I read On the Beach, I felt that I was in the hands of a fine writer who cared deeply about the dark narrative it presented. It leaves an imprint. I am very glad I read it. Falk recently argued, that, “We know what to do [to secure long-term sustainable life for all] but we do not know how to get it done.” This confirms perhaps the most powerful implicit message, from over sixty years ago, in Shute’s work.