The heading, ‘Why America’s top trading partners are shifting their gaze toward China,’ for an article published in The Australian (29/1), is a rhetorical question that subtly indicates it will offer an explanation for the implicit question posed. It is a classic case of journalistic ‘bait-and-switch,’ in which The Australian uses a high-level geopolitical headline to draw readers in, only to pivot toward a specific, perhaps unrelated, human rights narrative about Jimmy Lai.
It is absolute rubbish—a complete exercise in futility, inconsequential, and not worth a tinker’s damn. Pivoting to Jimmy Lai’s case with a demand for his release is analytically unsound, primarily because Keir Starmer cannot unilaterally make that decision. Consequently, the demand is a non-starter in any serious diplomatic discussion. Framing Starmer’s visit around Lai’s release is futile; he simply lacks the power to force it.
The Lai article appears designed to cast doubt on the West’s pivot toward China. Yet, The Australian lacks that same “critical spirit” regarding the US; it conveniently ignores the hypocrisy of hounding Julian Assange in a London cell while simultaneously praising “shining” trade deals with Washington. The publication maintains a glaring double standard, never placing a story about Assange’s treatment by the US alongside a glowing piece on our lucrative American trade alliance.
Jimmy Lai was convicted of conspiracy to collude with Western entities and publish seditious materials to topple the Hong Kong Government and promote hatred of mainland China. Prosecutors successfully argued he used Apple Daily to solicit foreign sanctions against Hong Kong and China, inciting public resentment. What can Starmer do? Nothing.
The headline ‘Why America’s top trading partners are shifting their gaze toward China’ promises a clear-eyed explanation for a seismic shift in global trade. However, the subsequent analysis falls into the tired trap of characterizing Beijing’s stance as “support” for the war in Ukraine.
One cannot ignore that China has advocated for a peaceful settlement since February 2023. While Western critics dismiss the Chinese peace plan for failing to demand a full Russian withdrawal, any diplomatic framework that ignores underlying security concerns regarding NATO expansion is effectively a non-starter. The West is incapable of learning this truth and urges for war to destroy Russia.
Critics from the United States, EU, and NATO argue that the China plan fails because it does not demand a full withdrawal of Russian troops. However, any plan making such a demand without addressing Russia’s genuine security concerns is destined for failure. Ultimately, it seems only an EU-NATO-aligned outcome is acceptable to the West, implying the war must continue and millions more must die.
A NOTE: The highlighting is the imprint of The Editor, Thuppahi — an imposition
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&