Australia’s recent white paper on foreign policy highlights how the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific region is shifting away from the US.
The US has ruled the waves with its large and powerful navy, but China increasingly insists that much of the South China Sea and the islands it has built are its sovereign territory. It has set up military facilities and structures to forewarn all against challenging this new regional order.
This is happening as US power is waning internationally, which has been further compounded by the confusion and uncertainty under US President Donald Trump, whose rhetoric on China during the presidential election foresaw tense times ahead.
However, as president, Trump has toned down his rhetoric on China — one reason being the need for China’s help in persuading North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jung-un, to abandon his nuclear weapons.
The shifting power balance is causing serious concern in Australia, which has depended on the US security umbrella since World War II.
This concern is stated bluntly in the white paper, which says: “Navigating the decade ahead will be hard because as China’s power grows, our region is changing in ways without precedent in Australia’s modern history.”
One Australian commentator said: “Australia is a country worried about a future under a mighty and demanding China and afraid American leadership has already checked out.”
At its worst, Hugh White, a defense analyst writing in Quarterly Essay, an Australian journal, said: “How the contest [between the US and China] will proceed — whether peacefully or violently, quickly or slowly — is still uncertain, but the most likely outcome is now becoming clear. America will lose, and China will win. America will cease to play a major strategic role in Asia, and China will take its place as the dominant power.”
What are Australia’s choices? According to Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in his introduction to the white paper, “Australia must be sovereign not reliant.”
How do you do that when, as Turnbull said recently, the US and Australia are joined at the hip in their security partnership?
Catherine McGregor gave one way in her column in the Sydney Morning Herald: “It might be time to consider theatre missile defense and even nuclear missiles for our submarine fleet. The regional balance is shifting rapidly.”
However, that takes time and resources.
Another way is to create a counterbalancing regional group of like-minded nations.
“What we are seeking to do is to balance against bad behavior [from China]. The key is a rules-based order. We urge China to defend and strengthen that order,” because “it is the rules-based order that helped China’s rise, and it can help other countries to rise too,” Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop said, adding that “among the like-minded democracies are the US, Japan, India and Australia. Another balancing group would be the 10-nation Association of South East Asian Nations [ASEAN].”
However, it is not as neat as that. For instance, some of the ASEAN countries have made their peace with China, especially as the US does not seem as committed to maintaining its primacy and dominance.
That leaves the US, Australia and Japan in a counterbalancing role, as India would like to keep its options open.
Sydney Morning Herald columnist Peter Hartcher highlighted Australia’s predicament: “The US cannot be relied upon to protect the regional order. It [Australia] doesn’t envisage an Indo-Pacific region without America. But it implicitly accepts that the region has already lost American leadership.”
Australia hopes to persuade China to maintain regional stability without pushing its territorial and sovereignty claims in the South China Sea. At the same time, Australia is committed to support in every possible way the US’ continued commitment to regional security.
That is the problem.
China does not regard Australia as a disinterested party, being part of the US alliance system. The Chinese government has criticized Australia for making “irresponsible” remarks about Chinese island-building in the South China Sea, such as expressing concern at the “unprecedented pace and scale” of China’s activities in the region crucial for shipping.
Within Australia, China is attempting, as the Sydney Morning Herald editorialized, “through control of Chinese-language media in Australia, to keep local populations of Chinese background loyal to its political program and ignorant of alternatives,” thus arousing “understandable suspicion.”
Australia will find it increasingly difficult to reconcile its primary security relationship with the US — and with China, as its largest trading partner.
Beijing keeps reminding Australia of China’s primacy as a trading partner.
A recent Chinese official commentary said: “China continues to maintain its position as Australia’s largest trading partner, the largest export destination and the largest source of imports.”
Australia is thus on notice that China has considerable leverage, even as Australia sets forth its foreign policy white paper.
Sushil Seth is a commentator based in Australia.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
After the coup in Burma in 2021, the country’s decades-long armed conflict escalated into a full-scale war. On one side was the Burmese army; large, well-equipped, and funded by China, supported with weapons, including airplanes and helicopters from China and Russia. On the other side were the pro-democracy forces, composed of countless small ethnic resistance armies. The military junta cut off electricity, phone and cell service, and the Internet in most of the country, leaving resistance forces isolated from the outside world and making it difficult for the various armies to coordinate with one another. Despite being severely outnumbered and
RSS