Demolition of businesses begins at popular Bali surf spot Bingin Beach, voiding bookings of Australian travellers
More than 40 businesses along the popular surf spot Bingin Beach, in the Pecatu Village in the south of Bali by Indonesian authorities began being demolished on Monday morning.
These include villas, homestays, restaurants and other tourist facilities.
The government-mandated demolitions began after negotiations between business owners and the Badung Regency Government failed.
The demolitions had been ordered as a result of an investigation by Bali's civil police unit, which found more than 40 buildings in the area had been violating spatial planning laws and building regulations.
Australian travellers who planned to stay at the destination have reportedly had their bookings voided according to News.com.au.
Head of the Badung PP Police, I Gusti Agung Ketut Suryanegara, said police had received a warrant "for the demolition of the violating building at Bingin Beach", the Bali Sun reported.
Several businesses had been issued demolition notices in the last two months, giving them time to make adjustments to adhere with building regulations.
Regent of Badung Adi Arnawa said despite widespread public outcry, the government actions would still go ahead.
'Our community in Pecatu is very aware that they carry out activities on the land. So I hope no one comes to say this and that, pretending to be a saviour, to be a hero. People are aware when building on land that does not belong to them, so it is natural for them to leave the land,' Regent Arnawa stated.
Bingin Beach has been a top spot for surfers for decades including Aussies, while American surfing champion Kelly Slater has voiced his displeasure about the future of the hotspot.
'Awful to hear and see that the beachfront at Bingin in Bali has been bought up and all the local (eateries) and other businesses will be demolished to make room for some kind of beach club and not sure what else?' he said.
'Bali has been completely mishandled and ruined by foreign interests in recent years.
'I hope something can be done to retain the culture and beauty of what attracted everyone there in the first place.'
A local business owner also voiced their concerns over the developments.
"In the past, this place was only a place for fishermen's activities. When tourists start to come, we slowly expand. Building at Bingin Beach is certainly not an easy thing. In addition to extra effort, the cost is not small," he said.
'If we are considered wrong because we occupy the country's land, then where is the country when everything has been running for over 30 years? Why is it done? Why is it that only the public is required to obey the rules? Why is the government itself negligent? We hope the government will provide a solution.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Trump has put USA back on top. Australia should follow his lead
Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent. Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent. Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent. Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
A China shock 2.0 is emerging to rock America
Yet instead of pursuing the policies needed to meet this threat head-on, the MAGA agenda is heavily focused on fighting the last war – on bringing manufacturing jobs lost to China and elsewhere back to the US. The challenge, Autor and Hanson argue, is not that of attempting to resuscitate the industrial might of a bygone age, but ensuring that the US is front and centre of the new technologies and able to convincingly harness them to its own ends. This endeavour is not obviously helped by Trump's scattergun approach to tariffs, punishing friend and foe alike, his propensity to alienate rather than co-operate with allies, the stupefying attacks on scientific research and the repudiation of foreign talent – once the very lifeblood of American advancement. Nor is it helped by the administration's casual disregard for the great asset of dollar hegemony which, bizarrely, Stephen Miran, Trump's chief economic adviser, seems to regard as in some way partly responsible for America's de-industrialisation. An administration seemingly hell-bent on fiscal ruin, and on weakening the dollar for the purposes of making US goods more competitive, doesn't exactly inspire international confidence in the dollar as a reserve currency asset. Loading China, by contrast, is investing heavily in the digital yuan as a way of internationalising its own currency, of offering an alternative to the fool's gold of cryptocurrency and of usurping the dollar for cross-border payments. Already, it is making steady progress. Why any longer should Brazil use the dollar for selling soybeans to China when Trump threatens the country with punitive tariffs for the sin of prosecuting his friend, Jair Bolsonaro, the former Brazilian president? Why indeed should it employ the dollar at all when the US regularly uses its power for extraterritorial purposes? In the developing world, Western influence is waning fast; China has been quick and single-minded at moving into its place. China has many problems and challenges, from the demographic to the still-deflating credit and property bubbles. But its catch-up and overtake approach to the technologies of the future is already paying big dividends. As, too, is the aggressive expansion of China's universities sector, originally begun under Jiang Zemin's presidency in the late 1990s, and heavily focused on Stem (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects. According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), the US-led China in 60 of 64 frontier technologies as recently as 2007, judged by share of the world's most-cited research, while China led the US in three. However, by 2023, these rankings were reversed, with China leading in 57 of 64 key technologies, and the US in seven. 'China has built the foundations to position itself as the world's leading science and technology superpower, by establishing a sometimes stunning lead in high-impact research across the majority of critical and emerging technology domains,' the ASPI says. All of the world's top 10 research institutions in some technologies are based in China, and are already collectively generating nine times more high-impact research papers than the second-ranked country (most often the US). The potential threat from Chinese AI is too great to ignore. Now, globally recognised companies at the forefront of their industries – such as Huawei in telecommunications, BYD in electric vehicles and Longi in solar wafers – have come from nowhere in less than 30 years to achieve world-leading positions. Industrial policy in China has, moreover, deliberately targeted key choke points in the supply chain, such that the US was this week forced to abandon its ban on the export of H20 Nvidia chips to China in return for China lifting similar export restrictions on the rare earth minerals vital to many hi-tech industries. The Nvidia ban was completely pointless in any case, serving only to turbocharge Chinese attempts to develop alternatives. Autor and Hanson suggest that the correct response to the China 2.0 shock is for the US to act in unison with commercial allies such as the EU, Japan, Canada, the UK, Australia and South Korea. Loading Counter-intuitively, Chinese companies should also be encouraged to set up production facilities in the US and elsewhere, rather similarly to the way that China once enticed Western companies to do the same in China as a way of speeding up technology transfer. Replicating Chinese industrial policy by aggressively promoting innovation in new fields, as happened in America and Europe during the Second World War, could also help narrow China's lead. It scarcely needs saying that Trump's America is at present doing the opposite of all these things. But just because Trump has got his head buried in the sand doesn't mean other nations should do the same. The potential threat from Chinese AI is too great to ignore. If China gets there first, it will reshape the world in its own image, and 'the end of history' will look very different from the one outlined by Francis Fukuyama back in 1992, when he declared the final triumph of liberal democracy.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Trump stumbled on Epstein, and Rupert Murdoch has pounced
Trump needs these viewers to help him stay in power – aided by the fawning Fox talent who are so attuned to his cause that many have been recruited to senior roles at the White House, including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. Murdoch also needs these viewers if he wants to remain such a rich and powerful political force in the US. It means Murdoch has had to draw careful battle lines between his own media fiefdoms. News Corp offered the full-throated defence of the WSJ story: 'We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit,' it said. The WSJ doubled down, reporting that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed President Donald Trump in May that his name appeared multiple times in the government's files on Epstein. The message from inside News Corp is Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch are determined not to cave in to Trump and will go to court if necessary. Loading The Washington Post quoted Rupert telling associates: 'I'm 94 years old, and I will not be intimidated.' Meanwhile at Fox, the lawsuit and allegations have warranted a tepid mention at best. Australian columnist Miranda Divine, now at News Corp's Republican mouthpiece, the New York Post, described the WSJ reports as a 'nothingburger'. And if this delicate dance can be maintained, it will be lucrative for Murdoch. Both News Corp and Fox shares hit record highs in February, just weeks after Trump's inauguration. And there was no hiding Trump's role in the success of Fox News – the most profitable Fox Corp business – when Lachlan presented its most recent quarterly results in May. 'Nowhere is Fox's leadership more evident than Fox News,' he told analysts and investors. Ratings were up 30 per cent for the network in April, and it clinched top spot on prime-time ratings last week over mainstream networks such as CBS and ABC. This is a feat unheard of for a cable news network. 'The momentum that we're seeing within Fox News, obviously driven first by really sort of record-setting audience and share, that's flown through nicely to the revenue line,' Lachlan said. The problem for Rupert is that pandering to his Fox audience means pandering to Trump, and he has never been a fan of Trump's political aspirations. Murdoch publicly supported other candidates during the 2016 campaign before embracing Trump when his candidacy became inevitable. He has tolerated Trump's White House, and maintained close ties, but quickly tried to move the Republican base on to fresh leadership after the 2020 election loss. Murdoch said at the time: 'We want to make Trump a non-person.' That manoeuvre ended badly when Fox's acceptance of the result led to viewers defecting in droves to channels more loyal to Trump's claims that the election was stolen. It promised to be a financial disaster and Fox scrambled back into favour with an about-face supporting the stolen election theory. It is still counting the cost. In 2023, Fox paid Dominion Voting Systems $US787 million to settle claims the network promoted lies about the 2020 presidential election. It still faces a multibillion-dollar lawsuit from another voting systems provider, Smartmatic, which will go to court next year if Fox does not make an offer to settle. For Murdoch, the Epstein scandal serves as another opportunity to test Trump's hold on the Republican Party, and it should not prove as costly as the $US10 billion Trump headline suggests. A quick look at the details of his case reveals problems, starting with the fact that it appears to fall over at the first hurdle of failing to notify the WSJ of the lawsuit at least five days before filing it. Loading But that is the least of Trump's issues. 'The complaint is full of sound and fury but lacks legal merit,' Leonard M. Niehoff, a University of Michigan law professor who specialises in media law, told The Washington Post. 'It shouldn't intimidate a news organisation with good lawyers. The Wall Street Journal has those.' The high hurdles for Trump include having to meet the 'actual malice' standard which means proving the WSJ knew the information they published was false. Ironically, this is what Fox was accused of doing in promoting Trump's stolen election claim in 2020. That legal battle taught Murdoch a lesson on the damage that can be done by the legal discovery process, which produced embarrassing and costly revelations – including the contempt both Murdoch and Fox held for Trump's stolen election claims and the man himself. A text surfaced from Tucker Carlson – a Fox network star at that time – referring to Trump saying, 'I hate him passionately'. If Trump continues to pursue this case, the legal discovery process on his relationship with Epstein could further inflame his support base. A clear opportunity to fatally damage Trump's political standing with the Epstein scandal could be the avenue Murdoch is looking to exploit. And if it doesn't damage Trump? Both men are ruthlessly transactional and have made up before. 'We don't want to antagonise Trump further,' Murdoch said in a memo uncovered by the Dominion case. Murdoch explained in a later deposition relating to that matter: 'He had a very large following, and they were probably mostly viewers of Fox, so it would have been stupid.' And we know Trump's proven ability to chicken out and distract. Loading As he posted to Truth Social followers this week, survival comes first. 'Winning is important, but survival is even more important. If you don't survive, you don't get to fight the next battle.' Wise words for both sides as his latest battle with Murdoch gathers a head of steam.
