Peer reviewed analysis from world leading experts

Australia’s Chinese reality

Reading Time: 5 mins
Australia's Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull waves with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang to members of the public as they walk along the Sydney Harbour foreshore in Australia, 25 March 2017. (Photo: Reuters/David Gray).

In Brief

Donald Trump is not the cause of the United States’ problems with China, but he makes them worse. His failings as President make it a lot less likely that over the next few years the United States will reach some kind of stable accommodation with the plain reality of Beijing’s power and ambition.

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Instead, the United States will likely stumble thoughtlessly into a war with China or ignominiously retreat from the region — or both.

This has big implications for how Australia and others in Asia think about future relations with China. Even if the United States does manage to reach the kind of arrangement necessary for it to stay constructively engaged as a major power in Asia, China will loom much larger — exercising more power and asserting more influence than any Asian power has ever done before.

It is increasingly likely that US influence will dwindle and China will take its place as the region’s primary power — at least in East Asia. So how should Australia respond to China’s growing capacity to interfere in its affairs and curtail its sovereign independence?

Part of the answer is to get closer to China. Some influential voices have argued that Australia needs to ‘get real’ about China’s growing power — if Australia can deepen and strengthen its relationship with China, it will be able to influence China’s policies on Australia and limit their impact on its independence and interests. These voices accept — reluctantly — that this might mean stepping back somewhat from its relationship with the United States.

Australia must get more engaged with China as Chinese power and influence grow. That means Australia must learn a lot more about how decisions are made in China, and how to shape them to its advantage. Canberra’s priority ought to be shaping policies to maximise its leverage in Beijing.

But to be coldly realistic, history tells us plainly how hard it has been for Australia to do more than simply nudge the policies of its allies. Moreover, Australia will never have the kind access in Beijing that it has enjoyed with its allies.

No matter how well it does, Australia’s capacity to shield itself from Beijing’s power by better diplomacy is going to be very limited. China will be able to shape Australia’s actions and decisions with carrots and sticks to a degree that no country has ever been able to do before, except the United States and Britain. And China will likely be less generous with the carrots and more ruthless with the sticks.

Indeed, China can already shape Australia’s policies. It is sometimes argued that Beijing cannot pressure Australia by threatening its export markets because it depends on Australia’s exports to fuel its own economy. That is true for trade now, but that is not China’s best means of exerting economic pressure. Australia’s real vulnerability is its expectation that future trade with China is the key to its economic prospects.

China can play on that very easily. Consider the consequences for Canberra of a Chinese threat to direct future investments and trade opportunities — in minerals, energy, education, tourism or agriculture — away from Australia. That would cost China nothing, but send the Australian share market crashing.

Nor should Australia underestimate the political costs that Beijing can already impose on an Australian government. A Chinese threat to suspend high-level meetings would freeze the blood of any Australian prime minister and induce all kinds of accommodations.

It was, after all, just this kind of pressure that nudged former Australian prime minister John Howard to reach his understanding with Beijing, and that was in 1996 when China’s wealth and power had hardly begun to take off. Though Australia is mercifully far from China, it should not entirely dismiss the weight of China’s military power as a factor in its future influence on Australia. Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam can all attest to China’s willingness to use carefully calibrated military threats to amplify its influence. It would be delusional to assume that this is necessarily counterproductive for China.

Moreover, Japan and the Philippines are US allies. Australia needs to recognise that its alliance won’t necessarily shield it completely — even if the United States preserves a strong role in Asia. As China’s power grows, it becomes both a more important partner and a more dangerous adversary for the United States, so the threshold for US intervention to deflect Chinese military pressure on its allies must go up.

All of this is very disconcerting. Australia takes great pride in its sovereign independence of policy and action. This feeling is particularly strong in Australia because it has no experience of making its way in the world without the support and protection of great and powerful friends. It feels that something must be going very badly wrong if it finds itself subject to pressure by others.

But this is the way the world always works, because that is what powerful states do. Might does not equal right, but it does determine how much you have to pay to maintain your view of what is right in the face of superior power. Weaker countries must get used to calculating such things. Australia’s task is to recognise this reality, and recognise that it is going to be its reality over the coming decades. Only then can Australia work out how best to deal with it.

Hugh White is Professor of Strategic Studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University.

This piece is an extract from this year’s China in the World Lecture at the Australian National University, delivered on 11 April and titled China’s Power and the Future of Australia.

3 responses to “Australia’s Chinese reality”

  1. I just don’t understand this hysteria about China from Australia. While the influence and power of China will grow, it has not asked much from Australia except as to an extradition treaty. It does not interfere in its politics. It trades on what Australia allows. Its Australia who demands this and that from China. Human rights, influence over North Korea, improved democracy, freedom of navigation and the list goes on. Is Australia anticipating such moves from the learning from another great power?

  2. Prof White is right to say that “Might does not equal right, but it does determine how much you have to pay to maintain your view of what is right in the face of superior power. Weaker countries must get used to calculating such things. Australia’s task is to recognise this reality, and recognise that it is going to be its reality over the coming decades. Only then can Australia work out how best to deal with it.”

    And according to Australian-based Barrister at Law, James O’Neill, quote:

    “The Australian government’s selective view of history and capacity for self-delusion in its foreign policy was on full display when Foreign Minister Julie Bishop delivered the Fullerton Lecture to the International Institute of Strategic Studies in Singapore on Monday 13 March 2017.

    She called on the United States to “play an even greater role as the indispensable strategic power in the Indo-Pacific.” “It” (the US) “is the pre-eminent global strategic power in Asia and the world by some margin.”

    The region was in what she called a “strategic holding pattern and waiting to see whether the US and its security allies and partners can continue to play the robust and constructive role they have for many decades in preserving the peace.”

    Ms Bishop is being reported (SMH 14.3.17; ABC 14.3.17) as sending a “clear message to China” saying that “domestic democratic habits of negotiating and compromise are essential to powerful countries resolving their disagreements according to international law and rules.”

    One seriously questions what parallel universe Ms Bishop and her government are occupying.

    According to research carried out by William Blum since the end of World War 2 the United States has:

    •Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of them democratically elected.

    •Dropped bombs on more than 30 countries.

    •Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.

    •Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in more than 20 countries.

    •Grossly interfered in democratic elections in more than 30 countries.

    China might not meet Ms Bishop’s standard of ‘democracy’, but its role in such massive and peaceful developments as the One Belt, One Road projects; the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation makes it more truly the ‘indispensable power’ than Ms Bishop’s American centred fantasies.

    The time has long since arrived when Australia’s foreign policy reflected the world we actually inhabit and Australia’s national security interests within that real world.

    Building a foreign policy on the basis of a world that never was is infinitely more dangerous and not in Australia’s national interest.” Unquote.

    More below:

    http://journal-neo.org/2017/03/17/more-delusional-thinking-in-australian-foreign-policy/

  3. In many ways India shares the same concerns as Australia over China, and India has hedged its bets with US. I don’t think there is any getting away for Australia except to tie itself to the US,India and Japan.

Support Quality Analysis

Donate
The East Asia Forum office is based in Australia and EAF acknowledges the First Peoples of this land — in Canberra the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people — and recognises their continuous connection to culture, community and Country.

Article printed from East Asia Forum (https://www.eastasiaforum.org)

Copyright ©2024 East Asia Forum. All rights reserved.