"The United States has allied with Britain and Australia to form a new anti-China grouping.

A new world is beginning to take shape, even if it remains disguised in the clothes of the old.

The United States, Britain, and Australia have announced what is in effect a new “Anglo” military alliance. The basics are these: In 2016, Australia struck a deal with France to buy a fleet of diesel-powered submarines, rejecting an Anglo-American alternative for nuclear-powered vessels. In March this year, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison (or, “that fellow down under,” as Joe Biden referred to him), began talking with Washington about reversing its decision. Then, last night, in a live three-way public announcement, Biden, Morrison, and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson revealed that the Australians would scrap their agreement with France to team up with Britain and the U.S. instead, forming a new “AUKUS” military alliance in the process.

The French response has been apoplectic. The country’s minister of European and foreign affairs, Jean-Yves Le Drian, called the decision a “knife in the back.” Benjamin Haddad, from the Atlantic Council, in Washington, said it had set relations between the U.S. and France back to their lowest point since the Iraq War. Bruno Tertrais, of France’s Foundation for Strategic Research think tank went even further, calling it a “Trafalgar strike.”

Yet behind the soap opera of French anger and the quiet crowing of les perfides anglo-saxons, sits something much more important: the faint outlines of a new world order, or at least an attempt to start drawing one.

As Karl Marx observed, leaders who try to create something new “conjure up the spirits of the past to their service.” Old language, slogans, and costumes are deployed to present the new scene in time-honored disguise. As such, President Biden went out of his way to praise France and to claim that it remained a “key partner” in the Indo-Pacific. He was also at pains to point out that the submarines that would eventually patrol Australia’s coastline were not nuclear-armed, but nuclear-powered. The U.S., Biden stressed, was not breaking its nonproliferation commitments, but simply strengthening existing alliances.
....
But to view the emergence of AUKUS as a sign of continuity—as its architects have presented it—is to miss the point. Although Biden twice name-checked France in his remarks last night, the country on his mind was the one not mentioned at all: China.

The senior administration official said the alliance was designed to strengthen capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region by anchoring Britain “more closely with our strategic pursuits in the region as a whole.” But what is Biden’s strategic pursuit?

In his statement last night, Biden, while far from being particularly eloquent, set out a vision for a “free and open Indo-Pacific”—in other words, one free of Chinese domination.
....
Biden was keen to stress that AUKUS is an example of an alliance that projects American power, contrasting the development with Donald Trump’s rejection of such global compacts, which the former president saw as freeloading on the U.S."

Post WWII world orders:
1.0 America led world order (Cold War)
2.0 America led world order
3.0 AUKUS or ABA led world order (Given that America is the greatest of the three, ABA is better than AUKUS.)

New clothe hanger in the same sheep clothes. American sheep, British sheep,
and Australian sheep are

"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:dca95429-f362-45bf-b3fb-941060be03d7n@googlegroups.com...

"The United States has allied with Britain and Australia to form a new
anti-China grouping.

A new world is beginning to take shape, even if it remains disguised in the
clothes of the old.

The United States, Britain, and Australia have announced what is in effect a
new “Anglo” military alliance. The basics are these: In 2016, Australia
struck a deal with France to buy a fleet of diesel-powered submarines,
rejecting an Anglo-American alternative for nuclear-powered vessels. In
March this year, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison (or, “that fellow
down under,” as Joe Biden referred to him), began talking with Washington
about reversing its decision. Then, last night, in a live three-way public
announcement, Biden, Morrison, and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson
revealed that the Australians would scrap their agreement with France to
team up with Britain and the U.S. instead, forming a new “AUKUS” military
alliance in the process.

The French response has been apoplectic. The country’s minister of European
and foreign affairs, Jean-Yves Le Drian, called the decision a “knife in the
back.” Benjamin Haddad, from the Atlantic Council, in Washington, said it
had set relations between the U.S. and France back to their lowest point
since the Iraq War. Bruno Tertrais, of France’s Foundation for Strategic
Research think tank went even further, calling it a “Trafalgar strike.”

Yet behind the soap opera of French anger and the quiet crowing of les
perfides anglo-saxons, sits something much more important: the faint
outlines of a new world order, or at least an attempt to start drawing one.

As Karl Marx observed, leaders who try to create something new “conjure up
the spirits of the past to their service.” Old language, slogans, and
costumes are deployed to present the new scene in time-honored disguise. As
such, President Biden went out of his way to praise France and to claim that
it remained a “key partner” in the Indo-Pacific. He was also at pains to
point out that the submarines that would eventually patrol Australia’s
coastline were not nuclear-armed, but nuclear-powered. The U.S., Biden
stressed, was not breaking its nonproliferation commitments, but simply
strengthening existing alliances.
....
But to view the emergence of AUKUS as a sign of continuity—as its architects
have presented it—is to miss the point. Although Biden twice name-checked
France in his remarks last night, the country on his mind was the one not
mentioned at all: China.

The senior administration official said the alliance was designed to
strengthen capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region by anchoring Britain
“more closely with our strategic pursuits in the region as a whole.” But
what is Biden’s strategic pursuit?

In his statement last night, Biden, while far from being particularly
eloquent, set out a vision for a “free and open Indo-Pacific”—in other
words, one free of Chinese domination.
....
Biden was keen to stress that AUKUS is an example of an alliance that
projects American power, contrasting the development with Donald Trump’s
rejection of such global compacts, which the former president saw as
freeloading on the U.S."

Post WWII world orders:
1.0 America led world order (Cold War)
2.0 America led world order
3.0 AUKUS or ABA led world order (Given that America is the greatest of the
three, ABA is better than AUKUS.)

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 7:53:28 AM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
> "The United States has allied with Britain and Australia to form a new anti-China grouping.
>
> A new world is beginning to take shape, even if it remains disguised in the clothes of the old.
>
> The United States, Britain, and Australia have announced what is in effect a new “Anglo” military alliance. The basics are these: In 2016, Australia struck a deal with France to buy a fleet of diesel-powered submarines, rejecting an Anglo-American alternative for nuclear-powered vessels. In March this year, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison (or, “that fellow down under,” as Joe Biden referred to him), began talking with Washington about reversing its decision. Then, last night, in a live three-way public announcement, Biden, Morrison, and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson revealed that the Australians would scrap their agreement with France to team up with Britain and the U.S. instead, forming a new “AUKUS” military alliance in the process.
>
> The French response has been apoplectic. The country’s minister of European and foreign affairs, Jean-Yves Le Drian, called the decision a “knife in the back.” Benjamin Haddad, from the Atlantic Council, in Washington, said it had set relations between the U.S. and France back to their lowest point since the Iraq War. Bruno Tertrais, of France’s Foundation for Strategic Research think tank went even further, calling it a “Trafalgar strike.”
>
> Yet behind the soap opera of French anger and the quiet crowing of les perfides anglo-saxons, sits something much more important: the faint outlines of a new world order, or at least an attempt to start drawing one.
>
> As Karl Marx observed, leaders who try to create something new “conjure up the spirits of the past to their service.” Old language, slogans, and costumes are deployed to present the new scene in time-honored disguise. As such, President Biden went out of his way to praise France and to claim that it remained a “key partner” in the Indo-Pacific. He was also at pains to point out that the submarines that would eventually patrol Australia’s coastline were not nuclear-armed, but nuclear-powered. The U.S., Biden stressed, was not breaking its nonproliferation commitments, but simply strengthening existing alliances.
> ...
> But to view the emergence of AUKUS as a sign of continuity—as its architects have presented it—is to miss the point. Although Biden twice name-checked France in his remarks last night, the country on his mind was the one not mentioned at all: China.
>
> The senior administration official said the alliance was designed to strengthen capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region by anchoring Britain “more closely with our strategic pursuits in the region as a whole.” But what is Biden’s strategic pursuit?
>
> In his statement last night, Biden, while far from being particularly eloquent, set out a vision for a “free and open Indo-Pacific”—in other words, one free of Chinese domination.
> ...
> Biden was keen to stress that AUKUS is an example of an alliance that projects American power, contrasting the development with Donald Trump’s rejection of such global compacts, which the former president saw as freeloading on the U.S."
>
> Post WWII world orders:
> 1.0 America led world order (Cold War)
> 2.0 America led world order
> 3.0 AUKUS or ABA led world order (Given that America is the greatest of the three, ABA is better than AUKUS.)

May be one could add World Order version 2.5 before 3.0. It is geopolitics re-imagined.
Strong China had historically made SE Asia peaceful. China's rise was and will continue to make SE Asia
peaceful again. In order to make the US indispensable everywhere in the world, it needs a re-imagined world
of instability everywhere, including SE Asia. Viola! The concept of Indo-Pacific is born.

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:11:17 PM UTC-4, borax wrote:
> New clothe hanger in the same sheep clothes. American sheep, British sheep,
> and Australian sheep are
>
>
>
> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:dca95429-f362-45bf...@googlegroups.com...
> "The United States has allied with Britain and Australia to form a new
> anti-China grouping.
>
> A new world is beginning to take shape, even if it remains disguised in the
> clothes of the old.
>
> The United States, Britain, and Australia have announced what is in effect a
> new “Anglo” military alliance. The basics are these: In 2016, Australia
> struck a deal with France to buy a fleet of diesel-powered submarines,
> rejecting an Anglo-American alternative for nuclear-powered vessels. In
> March this year, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison (or, “that fellow
> down under,” as Joe Biden referred to him), began talking with Washington
> about reversing its decision. Then, last night, in a live three-way public
> announcement, Biden, Morrison, and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson
> revealed that the Australians would scrap their agreement with France to
> team up with Britain and the U.S. instead, forming a new “AUKUS” military
> alliance in the process.
>
> The French response has been apoplectic. The country’s minister of European
> and foreign affairs, Jean-Yves Le Drian, called the decision a “knife in the
> back.” Benjamin Haddad, from the Atlantic Council, in Washington, said it
> had set relations between the U.S. and France back to their lowest point
> since the Iraq War. Bruno Tertrais, of France’s Foundation for Strategic
> Research think tank went even further, calling it a “Trafalgar strike.”
>
> Yet behind the soap opera of French anger and the quiet crowing of les
> perfides anglo-saxons, sits something much more important: the faint
> outlines of a new world order, or at least an attempt to start drawing one.
>
> As Karl Marx observed, leaders who try to create something new “conjure up
> the spirits of the past to their service.” Old language, slogans, and
> costumes are deployed to present the new scene in time-honored disguise. As
> such, President Biden went out of his way to praise France and to claim that
> it remained a “key partner” in the Indo-Pacific. He was also at pains to
> point out that the submarines that would eventually patrol Australia’s
> coastline were not nuclear-armed, but nuclear-powered. The U.S., Biden
> stressed, was not breaking its nonproliferation commitments, but simply
> strengthening existing alliances.
> ...
> But to view the emergence of AUKUS as a sign of continuity—as its architects
> have presented it—is to miss the point. Although Biden twice name-checked
> France in his remarks last night, the country on his mind was the one not
> mentioned at all: China.
>
> The senior administration official said the alliance was designed to
> strengthen capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region by anchoring Britain
> “more closely with our strategic pursuits in the region as a whole.” But
> what is Biden’s strategic pursuit?
>
> In his statement last night, Biden, while far from being particularly
> eloquent, set out a vision for a “free and open Indo-Pacific”—in other
> words, one free of Chinese domination.
> ...
> Biden was keen to stress that AUKUS is an example of an alliance that
> projects American power, contrasting the development with Donald Trump’s
> rejection of such global compacts, which the former president saw as
> freeloading on the U.S."
>
> Post WWII world orders:
> 1.0 America led world order (Cold War)
> 2.0 America led world order
> 3.0 AUKUS or ABA led world order (Given that America is the greatest of the
> three, ABA is better than AUKUS.)

Implicit in the NEW world is that SE Asia badly need the help of the US and its Allies.
But it also clarifies which nations are the revisionist powers.

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:11:17 PM UTC-4, borax wrote:
> New clothe hanger in the same sheep clothes. American sheep, British sheep,
> and Australian sheep are
>
>
>
> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:dca95429-f362-45bf...@googlegroups.com...
> "The United States has allied with Britain and Australia to form a new
> anti-China grouping.
>
> A new world is beginning to take shape, even if it remains disguised in the
> clothes of the old.
>
> The United States, Britain, and Australia have announced what is in effect a
> new “Anglo” military alliance. The basics are these: In 2016, Australia
> struck a deal with France to buy a fleet of diesel-powered submarines,
> rejecting an Anglo-American alternative for nuclear-powered vessels. In
> March this year, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison (or, “that fellow
> down under,” as Joe Biden referred to him), began talking with Washington
> about reversing its decision. Then, last night, in a live three-way public
> announcement, Biden, Morrison, and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson
> revealed that the Australians would scrap their agreement with France to
> team up with Britain and the U.S. instead, forming a new “AUKUS” military
> alliance in the process.
>
> The French response has been apoplectic. The country’s minister of European
> and foreign affairs, Jean-Yves Le Drian, called the decision a “knife in the
> back.” Benjamin Haddad, from the Atlantic Council, in Washington, said it
> had set relations between the U.S. and France back to their lowest point
> since the Iraq War. Bruno Tertrais, of France’s Foundation for Strategic
> Research think tank went even further, calling it a “Trafalgar strike.”
>
> Yet behind the soap opera of French anger and the quiet crowing of les
> perfides anglo-saxons, sits something much more important: the faint
> outlines of a new world order, or at least an attempt to start drawing one.
>
> As Karl Marx observed, leaders who try to create something new “conjure up
> the spirits of the past to their service.” Old language, slogans, and
> costumes are deployed to present the new scene in time-honored disguise. As
> such, President Biden went out of his way to praise France and to claim that
> it remained a “key partner” in the Indo-Pacific. He was also at pains to
> point out that the submarines that would eventually patrol Australia’s
> coastline were not nuclear-armed, but nuclear-powered. The U.S., Biden
> stressed, was not breaking its nonproliferation commitments, but simply
> strengthening existing alliances.
> ...
> But to view the emergence of AUKUS as a sign of continuity—as its architects
> have presented it—is to miss the point. Although Biden twice name-checked
> France in his remarks last night, the country on his mind was the one not
> mentioned at all: China.
>
> The senior administration official said the alliance was designed to
> strengthen capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region by anchoring Britain
> “more closely with our strategic pursuits in the region as a whole.” But
> what is Biden’s strategic pursuit?
>
> In his statement last night, Biden, while far from being particularly
> eloquent, set out a vision for a “free and open Indo-Pacific”—in other
> words, one free of Chinese domination.
> ...
> Biden was keen to stress that AUKUS is an example of an alliance that
> projects American power, contrasting the development with Donald Trump’s
> rejection of such global compacts, which the former president saw as
> freeloading on the U.S."
>
> Post WWII world orders:
> 1.0 America led world order (Cold War)
> 2.0 America led world order
> 3.0 AUKUS or ABA led world order (Given that America is the greatest of the
> three, ABA is better than AUKUS.)

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 5:25:24 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> Implicit in the NEW world is that SE Asia badly need the help of the US and its Allies.

Oh!! yes!! That's why we had the Vietnam War!! to let America kill to their heart's contend!!!
To bomb Vietnam back to the stone age!!!! to show the world how powerful America is!!!!
The problem is: after 8 years of war, we couldn't beat them. We had to negotiate our way out of Vietnam!!!

> But it also clarifies which nations are the revisionist powers.
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:11:17 PM UTC-4, borax wrote:
> > New clothe hanger in the same sheep clothes. American sheep, British sheep,
> > and Australian sheep are
> >
> >
> >
> > "ltlee1" wrote in message
> > news:dca95429-f362-45bf...@googlegroups.com...
> > "The United States has allied with Britain and Australia to form a new
> > anti-China grouping.
> >
> > A new world is beginning to take shape, even if it remains disguised in the
> > clothes of the old.
> >
> > The United States, Britain, and Australia have announced what is in effect a
> > new “Anglo” military alliance. The basics are these: In 2016, Australia
> > struck a deal with France to buy a fleet of diesel-powered submarines,
> > rejecting an Anglo-American alternative for nuclear-powered vessels. In
> > March this year, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison (or, “that fellow
> > down under,” as Joe Biden referred to him), began talking with Washington
> > about reversing its decision. Then, last night, in a live three-way public
> > announcement, Biden, Morrison, and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson
> > revealed that the Australians would scrap their agreement with France to
> > team up with Britain and the U.S. instead, forming a new “AUKUS” military
> > alliance in the process.
> >
> > The French response has been apoplectic. The country’s minister of European
> > and foreign affairs, Jean-Yves Le Drian, called the decision a “knife in the
> > back.” Benjamin Haddad, from the Atlantic Council, in Washington, said it
> > had set relations between the U.S. and France back to their lowest point
> > since the Iraq War. Bruno Tertrais, of France’s Foundation for Strategic
> > Research think tank went even further, calling it a “Trafalgar strike.”
> >
> > Yet behind the soap opera of French anger and the quiet crowing of les
> > perfides anglo-saxons, sits something much more important: the faint
> > outlines of a new world order, or at least an attempt to start drawing one.
> >
> > As Karl Marx observed, leaders who try to create something new “conjure up
> > the spirits of the past to their service.” Old language, slogans, and
> > costumes are deployed to present the new scene in time-honored disguise.. As
> > such, President Biden went out of his way to praise France and to claim that
> > it remained a “key partner” in the Indo-Pacific. He was also at pains to
> > point out that the submarines that would eventually patrol Australia’s
> > coastline were not nuclear-armed, but nuclear-powered. The U.S., Biden
> > stressed, was not breaking its nonproliferation commitments, but simply
> > strengthening existing alliances.
> > ...
> > But to view the emergence of AUKUS as a sign of continuity—as its architects
> > have presented it—is to miss the point. Although Biden twice name-checked
> > France in his remarks last night, the country on his mind was the one not
> > mentioned at all: China.
> >
> > The senior administration official said the alliance was designed to
> > strengthen capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region by anchoring Britain
> > “more closely with our strategic pursuits in the region as a whole.” But
> > what is Biden’s strategic pursuit?
> >
> > In his statement last night, Biden, while far from being particularly
> > eloquent, set out a vision for a “free and open Indo-Pacific”—in other
> > words, one free of Chinese domination.
> > ...
> > Biden was keen to stress that AUKUS is an example of an alliance that
> > projects American power, contrasting the development with Donald Trump’s
> > rejection of such global compacts, which the former president saw as
> > freeloading on the U.S."
> >
> > Post WWII world orders:
> > 1.0 America led world order (Cold War)
> > 2.0 America led world order
> > 3.0 AUKUS or ABA led world order (Given that America is the greatest of the
> > three, ABA is better than AUKUS.)

India which is part of the Indo-Pacific Group is now angry with US for not
sharing their nuclear submarine technology to them. Some time ago, India
wants to build their own nuclear submarine.

They asked US to sell the nuclear submarine technology to them. But US
declined as nuclear submarine technology as it is not for sharing or sale.
Now, because of the AUKUS Pact, India is going to get mad with US on their
nuclear submarine with Australia.

US is going to build 8 nuclear submarine for Australia and not France. India
should be angry by now knowing their status in the Indo-Pacific is just
digital tiger only.

However, India should know that the building of nuclear submarine for
Australia is for the engine drive and not the building of nuclear missile in
the submarine.

A nuclear submarine is able to run very long distance, such as distance from
Australia to Asia. Diesel submarine produces noise, but nuclear submarine
has no noise.

If it runs on diesel fuels, the submarine will not able to run long
distance. India should know their submarine does not need nuclear powered as
their job is within their Indian's territorial waters. They do not have to
travel so far to Southeast Asia as it is not part of their business at all.

Moreover, they do not have navy money to pay for regular long journey
submarine expenditure to Southeast Asia. Also, India should know they are
not part of the trio in the AUKUS pact and hence should not be concerned
with Southeast Asia at all.

"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:30cbfac9-7e15-42f3-80ac-4bb69351d580n@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 7:53:28 AM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
> "The United States has allied with Britain and Australia to form a new
> anti-China grouping.
>
> A new world is beginning to take shape, even if it remains disguised in
> the clothes of the old.
>
> The United States, Britain, and Australia have announced what is in effect
> a new “Anglo” military alliance. The basics are these: In 2016, Australia
> struck a deal with France to buy a fleet of diesel-powered submarines,
> rejecting an Anglo-American alternative for nuclear-powered vessels. In
> March this year, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison (or, “that
> fellow down under,” as Joe Biden referred to him), began talking with
> Washington about reversing its decision. Then, last night, in a live
> three-way public announcement, Biden, Morrison, and British Prime Minister
> Boris Johnson revealed that the Australians would scrap their agreement
> with France to team up with Britain and the U.S. instead, forming a new
> “AUKUS” military alliance in the process.
>
> The French response has been apoplectic. The country’s minister of
> European and foreign affairs, Jean-Yves Le Drian, called the decision a
> “knife in the back.” Benjamin Haddad, from the Atlantic Council, in
> Washington, said it had set relations between the U.S. and France back to
> their lowest point since the Iraq War. Bruno Tertrais, of France’s
> Foundation for Strategic Research think tank went even further, calling it
> a “Trafalgar strike.”
>
> Yet behind the soap opera of French anger and the quiet crowing of les
> perfides anglo-saxons, sits something much more important: the faint
> outlines of a new world order, or at least an attempt to start drawing
> one.
>
> As Karl Marx observed, leaders who try to create something new “conjure up
> the spirits of the past to their service.” Old language, slogans, and
> costumes are deployed to present the new scene in time-honored disguise.
> As such, President Biden went out of his way to praise France and to claim
> that it remained a “key partner” in the Indo-Pacific. He was also at pains
> to point out that the submarines that would eventually patrol Australia’s
> coastline were not nuclear-armed, but nuclear-powered. The U.S., Biden
> stressed, was not breaking its nonproliferation commitments, but simply
> strengthening existing alliances.
> ...
> But to view the emergence of AUKUS as a sign of continuity—as its
> architects have presented it—is to miss the point. Although Biden twice
> name-checked France in his remarks last night, the country on his mind was
> the one not mentioned at all: China.
>
> The senior administration official said the alliance was designed to
> strengthen capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region by anchoring Britain
> “more closely with our strategic pursuits in the region as a whole.” But
> what is Biden’s strategic pursuit?
>
> In his statement last night, Biden, while far from being particularly
> eloquent, set out a vision for a “free and open Indo-Pacific”—in other
> words, one free of Chinese domination.
> ...
> Biden was keen to stress that AUKUS is an example of an alliance that
> projects American power, contrasting the development with Donald Trump’s
> rejection of such global compacts, which the former president saw as
> freeloading on the U.S."
>
> Post WWII world orders:
> 1.0 America led world order (Cold War)
> 2.0 America led world order
> 3.0 AUKUS or ABA led world order (Given that America is the greatest of
> the three, ABA is better than AUKUS.)

May be one could add World Order version 2.5 before 3.0. It is geopolitics
re-imagined.
Strong China had historically made SE Asia peaceful. China's rise was and
will continue to make SE Asia
peaceful again. In order to make the US indispensable everywhere in the
world, it needs a re-imagined world
of instability everywhere, including SE Asia. Viola! The concept of
Indo-Pacific is born.

Which of the 10 Asean nations in Southeast Asia wants the help of US is none
other than only one ally there.

Malaysia and Indonesia were concerned of about the evils behind the pact.
Indonesia asked about the peaceful region.

Philippine foreign minister says it was good for the pact. But his call
seemed not the call by his president Duterte. He will get a slap soon.

Duterte does not like US to con and control them by the training pact.
Duterte had said after their training with the US on their soil, the US took
back all their weapons.

During training, US showed them new weapons. But after training, they took
back everything. This means nothing is learned as nothing is given to them.

Duterte had cancelled the training pact with them. Hence Duterte will not
want American on their soils at all. Duterte wants China.

He knows China has never in its history battled any Southeast countries.
Vietnam is neutral and is happy with millions of dozes of China's vaccine.

Hence Vietnam is not saying anything about the pact. Vietnam is also scared
of putting themselves back into the hot chamber of fire with US in their
Vietnam war with them.

Cambodia is pro-China and Myanmar is also pro. They have plenty of belt and
road project by China. Both countries also received millions dozes of
vaccines from China.

Brunei is neutral and is happy to have China, and not US.

All the countries in southeast Asia know China will never at war with them
since history. They know US is the culprit in South Vietnam to war on North
Vietnam.

They know US had used Sarin gas, Orange Agent, Napalm bomb, and B52
air-dropped bomblets to massively kill hundreds and thousands of civilians
in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos.

They destroyed the lives of families and relatives and children and old
people in Southeast Asia.

The lives of people in Southeast Asia were badly shattered and damaged
beyond their recovery for many more years after the long-drawn war by US on
Vietnam.

Therefore, only country in Southeast Asia is supporting it. That was why
Morrison was quick to phone up the country to tell them how their pact story
is for.

"ltlee1" wrote in message news:543d6258-5005-47bf-bf3a-cc35908758d9n@gnd
soaooglegroups.com...

Implicit in the NEW world is that SE Asia badly need the help of the US and
its Allies.
But it also clarifies which nations are the revisionist powers.

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:11:17 PM UTC-4, borax wrote:
> New clothe hanger in the same sheep clothes. American sheep, British
> sheep,
> and Australian sheep are
>
>
>
> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:dca95429-f362-45bf...@googlegroups.com...
> "The United States has allied with Britain and Australia to form a new
> anti-China grouping.
>
> A new world is beginning to take shape, even if it remains disguised in
> the
> clothes of the old.
>
> The United States, Britain, and Australia have announced what is in effect
> a
> new “Anglo” military alliance. The basics are these: In 2016, Australia
> struck a deal with France to buy a fleet of diesel-powered submarines,
> rejecting an Anglo-American alternative for nuclear-powered vessels. In
> March this year, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison (or, “that
> fellow
> down under,” as Joe Biden referred to him), began talking with Washington
> about reversing its decision. Then, last night, in a live three-way public
> announcement, Biden, Morrison, and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson
> revealed that the Australians would scrap their agreement with France to
> team up with Britain and the U.S. instead, forming a new “AUKUS” military
> alliance in the process.
>
> The French response has been apoplectic. The country’s minister of
> European
> and foreign affairs, Jean-Yves Le Drian, called the decision a “knife in
> the
> back.” Benjamin Haddad, from the Atlantic Council, in Washington, said it
> had set relations between the U.S. and France back to their lowest point
> since the Iraq War. Bruno Tertrais, of France’s Foundation for Strategic
> Research think tank went even further, calling it a “Trafalgar strike.”
>
> Yet behind the soap opera of French anger and the quiet crowing of les
> perfides anglo-saxons, sits something much more important: the faint
> outlines of a new world order, or at least an attempt to start drawing
> one.
>
> As Karl Marx observed, leaders who try to create something new “conjure up
> the spirits of the past to their service.” Old language, slogans, and
> costumes are deployed to present the new scene in time-honored disguise.
> As
> such, President Biden went out of his way to praise France and to claim
> that
> it remained a “key partner” in the Indo-Pacific. He was also at pains to
> point out that the submarines that would eventually patrol Australia’s
> coastline were not nuclear-armed, but nuclear-powered. The U.S., Biden
> stressed, was not breaking its nonproliferation commitments, but simply
> strengthening existing alliances.
> ...
> But to view the emergence of AUKUS as a sign of continuity—as its
> architects
> have presented it—is to miss the point. Although Biden twice name-checked
> France in his remarks last night, the country on his mind was the one not
> mentioned at all: China.
>
> The senior administration official said the alliance was designed to
> strengthen capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region by anchoring Britain
> “more closely with our strategic pursuits in the region as a whole.” But
> what is Biden’s strategic pursuit?
>
> In his statement last night, Biden, while far from being particularly
> eloquent, set out a vision for a “free and open Indo-Pacific”—in other
> words, one free of Chinese domination.
> ...
> Biden was keen to stress that AUKUS is an example of an alliance that
> projects American power, contrasting the development with Donald Trump’s
> rejection of such global compacts, which the former president saw as
> freeloading on the U.S."
>
> Post WWII world orders:
> 1.0 America led world order (Cold War)
> 2.0 America led world order
> 3.0 AUKUS or ABA led world order (Given that America is the greatest of
> the
> three, ABA is better than AUKUS.)