Of late, Australia has been seeking to create some political space for its diplomacy between the US and China. Australia is one of the US' closest political and military allies. Not long ago, Australian Prime Minister John Howard prided himself and Australia on being the US' deputy sheriff, as reported in the Australian press at the time.
It is now part of the "coalition of the willing" in the US-led military operations in Iraq. It has steadfastly supported the US in its political and military missions across the globe, including vis-a-vis China. For instance, during the Taiwan crisis of 1996 at the time of its presidential elections, Australia was united with the US to deter China from any use of military force.
Lately, though, there has been some change of emphasis. Without question, Australia's alliance with the US is still the cornerstone of its foreign and security policy. But its perception of China as an inevitable security threat has undergone important changes. For instance, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer reportedly said, while in Beijing a while ago, that Australia and New Zealand's ANZUS security treaty with the US didn't necessarily mean Australia would become involved in a military conflict over Taiwan.
Howard, though, has been more diplomatic by brushing aside such questions as hypothetical. He even refused to buy into US President George W. Bush's invitation, during a July visit to the US, to "work together to reinforce the need for China to accept certain values as universal -- the value of minority rights, the value of freedom of people to speak..."
Howard had earlier spelled out the rationale of his government's new China policy during a speech in Beijing in April. He said at the time, "If you want to build an enduring association with a nation, you should do it within a realistic framework. You should not allow it to be dominated by differences and dominated by history." He went on, "Rather, it should be dominated by those areas of agreement and positive endeavor ... that can take the two countries forward. And that has been the reason why, at a political level, our relationship has been productive."
In other words, Australia prefers to concentrate on a growing economic relationship between the two countries. China has contracted to buy billions of dollars worth of gas from Australia over two decades or more. Australia is also supplying other raw materials for China's surging economy. Indeed the current slack from a slowing housing sector is being made up by growing demand from China for Australia's mining and other resource materials. And it is getting much higher prices for its commodities because of the robust global demand.
China is also keen to invest in Australia's resources sector, and the two countries are working on a free trade agreement. One can, therefore, see how important China is becoming to Australia's economic prosperity. China is also very important in terms of Australia's engagement with Asia. With Beijing's imprimatur, Australia's Asian credentials will become more credible.
But Beijing feels uncomfortable about Canberra's US connection. Australia's alliance with the US has been seen as directed to contain China, at least until very recently.
That would make dependence on Australia for essential resources for China's economic growth a dicey thing. As its ambassador told an Australian journalist, "Depending on Australia for key materials means becoming dependent on you to some extent."
In other words, Beijing needs to tread warily and make sure that Australia is not tied up with the US against it.
Australia has been doing its bit to reassure China in this regard. It is still an enthusiastic US ally, but is seeking to extract political autonomy in its relations with China.
Indeed, in some ways, it is even becoming a spokesman of sorts for China in the US. Speaking at a recent Asia Society function in New York, Howard conceded that China's rise would inevitably place stress on the international system.
"But to see China's rise in zero-sum terms is overly pessimistic, intellectually misguided and potentially dangerous," he added.
He went on to make a strong case on China's behalf.
"Its economic liberalization and integration into the world system has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Its growth in recent years has helped to sustain the expansion of the global economy and of world trade," he said.
However, Howard knows that Taiwan is a serious obstacle between China and the US, and fervently hopes that the cross-strait dilemma will be resolved peacefully. But if this were to develop into a military conflict, Australia might have to excuse itself from entering the fray.
Howard is not apologetic about Australia's newly-found passionate advocacy of China's growing role in the Asia-Pacific, regarding it as natural and positive. He believes that "Australia's strong relationship with China is not just based on economic opportunity."
According to him, "We seek to build on shared goals and not become obsessed with those things that make us different."
Did Howard mean that the US was obsessed about China? He obviously didn't. And he heaped praise on the US' role as global leader, and as a Pacific power. To quote Howard: "America is a great Pacific power and, as has often been the case, it fulfils its regional role most powerfully when it provides global leadership."
He added, "America's alliance relationships, including with Australia, will be the anchors for that US presence."
Only time will tell how Australia will reconcile its US alliance with China's rising power in the Asia-Pacific.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS