Comments on: Australia between the US and China http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2008/08/14/australia-between-the-us-and-china/ Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:50:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: More comments on the ‘great balancing act’ « East Asia Forumhttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2008/08/14/australia-between-the-us-and-china/comment-page-1/#comment-318 More comments on the ‘great balancing act’ « East Asia Forum Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:57:43 +0000 http://eastasiaforum.wordpress.com/?p=734#comment-318 [...] further depth to Jane Golley’s piece on China’s “great balancing act” and Hugh White’s comments. They write: As my former HOM would have said, the argument is “completely [...] [...] further depth to Jane Golley’s piece on China’s “great balancing act” and Hugh White’s comments. They write: As my former HOM would have said, the argument is “completely [...]

]]> By: Yusuke Ishiharahttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2008/08/14/australia-between-the-us-and-china/comment-page-1/#comment-317 Yusuke Ishihara Fri, 15 Aug 2008 05:25:52 +0000 http://eastasiaforum.wordpress.com/?p=734#comment-317 I personally think what Hugh talks about in the above entry is the most important strategic decision that Australia has to make in this century. But before going to my response, just a few qucik questions about some of the things Hugh mentioned. I think that in order to answer the strategic question Hugh is asking about the choice between supporting the U.S. "supremacy" and giving China more "space," we need to clarify what "supremacy" and "space" here mean. If the U.S. supremacy simply means the largest material power the U.S. is currentlying enjoying, there is little Australia can do about it except to control natural resource exports to China (though it is not easy to implement, given pressures from Australian business community). If the supremacy here means the U.S. forward deployed presence and its hub-and-spokes alliance network, Hugh's question can be interpreted the following way: Should Australia keep the alliance relationship with U.S.? How far should Australia need to support U.S. in their diplomatic and military actions around the world? About the space for the rise of China, does it mean oversears military presence of China? reunification of Tawian? or about a number of export-control sanctions that most of the western countries are currently imposing on China? I think, withiout thinking things "concretely" the way I showed above, Hugh's great question can hardly lead anywhere but to practically meaningless answers. It is because this question is not only about U.S.-China relations but more importantly about the choice and decision that Australia has to make. So hope we can hear more from Hugh soon. I personally think what Hugh talks about in the above entry is the most important strategic decision that Australia has to make in this century.
But before going to my response, just a few qucik questions about some of the things Hugh mentioned.

I think that in order to answer the strategic question Hugh is asking about the choice between supporting the U.S. “supremacy” and giving China more “space,”
we need to clarify what “supremacy” and “space” here mean.

If the U.S. supremacy simply means the largest material power the U.S. is currentlying enjoying, there is little Australia can do about it except to control natural resource exports to China (though it is not easy to implement, given pressures from Australian business community).

If the supremacy here means the U.S. forward deployed presence and its hub-and-spokes alliance network, Hugh’s question can be interpreted the following way: Should Australia keep the alliance relationship with U.S.? How far should Australia need to support U.S. in their diplomatic and military actions around the world?

About the space for the rise of China, does it mean oversears military presence of China? reunification of Tawian? or about a number of export-control sanctions that most of the western countries are currently imposing on China?

I think, withiout thinking things “concretely” the way I showed above, Hugh’s great question can hardly lead anywhere but to practically meaningless answers. It is because this question is not only about U.S.-China relations but more importantly about the choice and decision that Australia has to make.

So hope we can hear more from Hugh soon.

]]>