The thrust of Professor White’s argument is straightforward: China is re-emerging as an economic powerhouse and is likely to compete with the US for regional primacy over the next few decades. With China as its largest trading partner and the US as its security guarantor, Australia may be forced to choose between Beijing and Washington should the two superpowers compete for regional influence.
This is not a new argument; it has preoccupied Australian defence planners for the last few decades. What is new is the urgency contained within Professor White’s article. China’s growth continues unabated and, by some relatively conservative estimates, is predicted to surpass the US economy in 2030. This regional transition of relative economic power moving from the US to China underpins Professor White’s argument concerning the power shift across the Pacific.
This argument is well recognised by Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd. During the 70th Morrison Lecture, Rudd noted: ‘History is not overburdened with examples of how such transitions in geopolitical and geo-economic realities have been accommodated peacefully.’ And history teaches us, according to Donald Kagan, Professor of Classics at Yale University, that polities seek power and status commensurate with their wealth, even at the risk of conflict and direct economic costs to themselves.
Yet the US has welcomed China’s re-emergence, provided it becomes a ‘responsible stakeholder’ in the regional and international order. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton again enunciated this position at the Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations held in Australia last year, stating that ‘we support the peaceful rise of China but … expect China to be a responsible member of the community whose actions are in accordance with their size and stature and the international rules of the road.’
China’s accession to the WTO in 2001 was interpreted by many as an important step enmeshing China within existing international institutions. Moreover, China’s economic stimulus package, rolled out in conjunction with those of other G20 members, demonstrated cooperation with the international community in responding to the 2008 financial crisis. China’s participation in regional forums, such as the EAS and APEC, also helps bolster this enmeshment process.
But for many in China ‘responsible stakeholder’ connotes a subordinate position within a system largely dictated by the interests of liberal democratic states under American leadership. And while there are some within China’s political spectrum who are satisfied with the current status quo, others, particularly sections within the People’s Liberation Army, are less enthusiastic about following America’s lead.
As Professor White points out, if China is to become a fully integrated and responsible stakeholder within regional and international forums, other countries must realise — particularly the US — that China may increasingly demand its interests and concerns be accorded the same weight as their own.
What does this mean for the region?
It means accepting compromise and flexibility as the keystone of regional interaction with China, as China’s interests increasingly overlap and intersect with those of other countries. It also entails recognising China’s newfound regional influence and how this may affect the Asia Pacific’s regional dynamics. Indeed, China is now among the largest trading partners for many countries in the Asia Pacific region, granting it considerable political leverage. Whilst unpalatable for many, these compromises may prove essential to ensuring continued regional stability and prosperity.
Failure to do so may beget a belligerent, volatile and isolated China; a scenario everyone in the region is keen to avoid. China’s bellicose response in the diplomatic spat with Japan last year over the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands is just one example of this. And the suspension of rare earth exports to Japan, following the incident, shows China is willing to use its economy to leverage other countries for political objectives.
For Australia, this means accommodating a country with starkly contrasting ideas about human rights, political freedoms and governance.
Accommodation does not necessitate abandonment of Australia’s core values or a fundamental reshaping of Australia’s strategic outlook and the US alliance — nor should it. The security alliance with the US continues to form the bedrock of Australia’s defence policy and strategic planning, as the Labor government made clear in the 2009 Defence White Paper. This will not, and ought not to, change any time in the foreseeable future. America remains the only country capable of guaranteeing Australian security and Australia has benefited enormously from the stability the US has brought to the region.
But, Australia’s position within the Asia Pacific is not as simple as it once was, and it will have to find ways to reconcile divergent economic and security interests, as is underlined in White’s essay. Hence, prudent strategic and economic planning must be central to Australia’s long-term strategy of regional engagement if it hopes to successfully adapt to the Asia Pacific’s changing dynamics brought about by the re-emergence of China.
Christian Jack is a Prime Minister’s Australia-Asia Endeavour Award Scholar at Peking University, China.
Hegemonic stability of the 21st century will be provided by the strength of China and the United States. Thanks for President Richard Nixon and Dr. Henry Kissinger in their visions of the United States Grand Strategy.
In the realm of international security, the top countries create rules of the game to keep peace and stability. I wish Hillary Clinton would take some courses in international relations so she could talk like Secretary of State instead of someone graduated from law school. For example, the United States cannot follow the rules of the road in the case of Iraq. The hegemon has the responsibility to act in the necessary strategic situation regardless the rules of the road.
If there is genuine intention for China to participate as a responsible stakeholder surely China’s interests and charateristics must be included in what is defined as “INTERNATIONAL”. If “INTERNATIONAL” is meant to exclude China’s interests and characteristics in the first place then there isn’t any sincerity on the part of US or other countries. It is better then for China not to waste time with the US and work on another order.
When one speaks about being responsible it works both ways. Is Australia guaranteeing the whole world or at least East Asia, where Australia is realistically located, that US will remain responsible indefinitely? There is one important question that Australia must ask herself in order to search for the answer, that is – Is Australia strategizing according to her own racial identification rather than genuine impartial factual sole interest of Australia? Australia asked what if China becomes rebellious? Did Australia ever ask what if US repeats an Iraq type of attack on China where the reason for US attack is dubious or malicious – where will Australia stand then? Will Australia defend China against US? In the question of equality if US can develop weapons, Russia can develop weapons, India can acquire weapons why not China?
Australia probably finds it suddenly so difficult because Australia had never questioned US leadership before and there was only one leader in Australia’s horizon. However now that leadership is preparing to accomodate a new partner and Australia is torn between her loyalty to her current leader and the new partner. Is this situation like when you have been working for 20 years for a sole propreitor and suddenly that sole propreitor admits a new partner into the business? If the two partners are in conflict, most of the time that employee will find the situation difficult and will eventually resign but if the two partners co-operate excellently things will be bright. Believe it, this isn’t about democracy or communism or the question of human rights, the Chinese government is more pro-business, competitive and opens up more for business than do the US government. From the past 5 years until the next 5 years China will likely lift her people out of poverty empowering them to live the life in a safe manner like others do. Isn’t this human rights – helping her people to possess the same level of comfort, rights and powers as others do?
For those who pretend to be Chinese, I would like to say this: Asia and the Pacific region in the future will be just fine. Countries with large lands such as Australia, India, the United States, and China have no intention to waste human and material resources for war. Your purpose is to create conflict in the region so that unsatisfied small territorial areas would gain a larger land after the war. You can dream about it but that would not ever happened. So I suggest you stop writing boring subject trying to make countries with large lands hate each other.
The practice of geopolitics is not merely the mastery of the actual process of global interaction. It is also the mental discipline of conceptually controlling the flow of history — the interpretation of it. Get it?