Maybe more than the US but that isn’t saying much. The Murdoch press has its fucking talons in that country and I don’t think a population deserves the repercussions of sanctions because they’ve been brainwashed.
As I said before, that isn't China's problem. This is a conflict between nation states. China can only choose to inflict repercussions on Australia as another nation state. How those repercussions are distributed internally within Australia isn't up to China, it's up the Australia and the Australian state.
I’m talking about assigning responsibility or deservedness for the sanctions within our discussion
Australian voters weren't forced to choose the neoliberal who were going to antagonize China. You had the option of other parties that weren't going to do that.
I understand what you are saying. You are talking about this in moralistic terms. I am not. Australian voters collectively made a choice to elect a government hostile to your largest trading partner. You undertook an action, and you are now experiencing the equal and opposite reaction. The argument you are making is like saying that you didn't deserve to get burned when you decided to touch the stove, but that's what happens when you touch the stove, and no one made you do it. You had the choice not to touch the stove.
They all voted, it is the voice of the populace as far as attitudes to China go. Australians had the option of parties that were friendly to their largest trading partner. They chose the ones that were hostile. This isn't like saying the choice was neoliberal vs neoliberal. Being cordial to the Chinese is well within the spectrum of Western neoliberal politics that is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. You can find "We should be nice to the Chinese" opinion pieces in Bloomberg, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal.
You are an absolute moron if you think "be cordial with your largest trading partner, even the Chinese" isn't within the spectrum of acceptable neoliberal politics put before voters.
As I said before, that isn't China's problem. This is a conflict between nation states. China can only choose to inflict repercussions on Australia as another nation state. How those repercussions are distributed internally within Australia isn't up to China, it's up the Australia and the Australian state.
Australian voters weren't forced to choose the neoliberal who were going to antagonize China. You had the option of other parties that weren't going to do that.
deleted by creator
I understand what you are saying. You are talking about this in moralistic terms. I am not. Australian voters collectively made a choice to elect a government hostile to your largest trading partner. You undertook an action, and you are now experiencing the equal and opposite reaction. The argument you are making is like saying that you didn't deserve to get burned when you decided to touch the stove, but that's what happens when you touch the stove, and no one made you do it. You had the choice not to touch the stove.
deleted by creator
They all voted, it is the voice of the populace as far as attitudes to China go. Australians had the option of parties that were friendly to their largest trading partner. They chose the ones that were hostile. This isn't like saying the choice was neoliberal vs neoliberal. Being cordial to the Chinese is well within the spectrum of Western neoliberal politics that is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. You can find "We should be nice to the Chinese" opinion pieces in Bloomberg, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal.
This is lowbrow. This suggests a very limited understanding of bourgeois power
You are an absolute moron if you think "be cordial with your largest trading partner, even the Chinese" isn't within the spectrum of acceptable neoliberal politics put before voters.