An emergence of a new power dynamic in Asia

[Joseph27]

First and foremost - apologies for this simple cut and paste job - but it does open an interesting paradigm for the Asian region.  Last year in Beijing - Alexander Downer said that in the event of a Cross Straights War - Australia would not necessarily side with the US.  This was later described as an ad hoc policy change - on the run Downer style.  

As it turns out – and as I suggested then - this represents a major change in Australian foreign policy.  Downer formally repeated this statement last week and this has demonstrated the emergence of China’s soft power in Asia.  Through such diplomacy Australia has sided with the Chinese before a shot has been fired.  

This logic in this article is consistent with Chinese foreign policy history.  We can go back a century or Millennia and we see the same concepts consistently.   China does not present a military threat to Asia however its emergence does shake up the status quo and its use of trade and commerce means that the US is facing a new set of problems here – and it is one they cant solve militarily

China's growing economic and strategic influence is challenging Australia's alliance with the United States, writes Hugh White.

Two big anniversaries this year mark turning points in Australia's strategic history. Two hundred years ago, Nelson destroyed Napoleon's navy at Trafalgar. For nearly a century afterwards, Britain's naval supremacy made Australians secure from the European rivals that seemed, back then, our only potential threats.

Then in 1905, 100 years ago, in the straits of Tsushima, the Russian fleet was destroyed by Japan's new navy. It was the first time an Asian power had defeated Europeans at sea. Australia was shocked.

We might in future face threats from Asia. Britain, now challenged by Germany, might not be there to help. Ever since, Australia's strategic priority has always been to support Britain and America - especially America - to dominate Asia so they could prevent such threats materialising.

1805, 1905, 2005? I'm not a numerologist, but you have to wonder whether we might face another strategically transforming naval battle this year.

Advertisement
AdvertisementAnd there are no prizes for guessing what it would be: a Battle of Taiwan between the US and Chinese navies, ostensibly over the independence of Taiwan, but in reality over which power would emerge strategically pre-eminent in Asia in the 21st century.

The battle probably will not happen. But in a way it's not needed. The strategic competition is happening anyway. And China is already effectively challenging America as the pre-eminent power in Asia. Even Australia is being drawn into its sphere of influence.

Last week Alexander Downer made it absolutely clear that if the US and China went to war over Taiwan, Australia would prefer to stay on the sidelines.

Last year, when he said the same thing in Beijing, the Americans probably assumed it was just a mistake. Now there is no doubt.

China is using its economic potential to build a sphere of influence, and we are being drawn in by our purse strings.This is good news for China. It is exactly what President Hu Jintao asked for when he addressed the Australian Parliament in October 2003 - for Australia to play "a constructive role" on Taiwan.

Beijing will also have been pleased a few weeks ago when the Howard Government declined America's request to urge the Europeans to maintain their arms embargo against China.

How far John Howard's Government has come since March 1996 - just a few weeks after it won office - when the US and China last went toe to toe over Taiwan. Then Australia gave America swift and unconditional support. Now we are closer to Beijing than to Washington.

This tells you something about Howard. He supported George Bush over Iraq, but history will say Howard's biggest legacy in foreign policy has not been to move us closer to the US, but to move us closer to China.

Of course we all know why.

China is seen as the key to Australia's economic future, and Beijing has made it clear that economic opportunities are conditional on strategic and political alignment. China is using its economic potential to build a sphere of influence, and we are being drawn in by our purse strings.

They are watching in Washington. They will not be happy. Downer's view that we might not help the US against China directly contradicts American doctrine.

For them, ANZUS is not an "a la carte" alliance: you can't pick and choose. Or as Bush says, you are either with us or against us. So they must be wondering where on earth Australia is heading.

America has recently been shoring up support among other Asia-Pacific allies. Last month it persuaded Japan to formally affirm its support for the US over Taiwan.

But as they watch the way Australia and other regional countries are going, American policymakers must start to ask themselves whether they are not already losing the race with Beijing for regional influence.

In fact America, preoccupied with terrorism, has underestimated China. With unchallenged global power, Washington has assumed that it could dictate the pace and terms of China's engagement with its Asia-Pacific neighbours. But the Chinese have proven better than the US at using the "soft power" of trade and diplomacy, which was supposed to be an American strong-point.

China is using this soft power to build a new regional political order with China itself at the lead. And as long as China's economy stays on track, there does not seem to be much that the US, for all its power, can do to stop the process.

In Australia's case, for example, would we accept a Chinese invitation to join the new "ASEAN Plus Three" regional political grouping that excludes the US? Of course we would.

This tells us how far we have come already from our post-Tsushima strategic policy paradigm. For 100 years we have supported American primacy in Asia. Now we seem happy to be drafted into a Chinese sphere of influence that directly challenges that primacy.

This is not necessarily a mistake. Australia has no choice but to adjust our policies to the raw facts of China's growing power. But we need to be careful how we do it. In particular, we need to be careful to make sure that America does stay effectively engaged on our region, if not in a position of outright primacy, then at least as an influential member of a sustainable regional power structure.

If America cannot dominate Asia, it can help to maintain a strategic balance among the major powers. That would be overwhelmingly in Australia's interests. But this is a new role for America - different from the kind of role it has played in the past, and the role it has been expecting to play since it won the Cold War. Washington will need to start thinking about its power in different ways.

We will need to think about our alliance with the US in new ways, too. And we had better start a serious, frank, private dialogue with them about these new realities, if we want our alliance to adapt to the new circumstances.

Washington will need reassurance and new ideas. This is a major priority for Australian diplomacy. If we can make headway on that in 2005, we might just enjoy a happy anniversary.

Hugh White is visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute and professor of strategic studies at ANU.

[Potemkin Cruise]

Im all for a bit of strategic diplomacy to keep over-reaching US administrations in check, but I would not be so quick to ascribe passive motives to the PRC.  Historically, China has indeed been inward looking, but there is no reason to assume that that will continue, particularly where the resource rich South China Sea is concerned or where a real or perceived slight to "national honor" is involved.  Remember, imperial Japan was at one time inward looking as well ... up until their resource flow became tight (or was made tight).

Again, not saying that there is anything unique about the PRC compared to any other great power on the rise (they all tend to get too big for their britches, whether you are talking about the UK, US or the PRC), just that -- given the avowed anti-democratic tendencies of the communist leadership there -- I wouldn't romanticise their intentions just because geopolitically, they may have interests adverse to Bush's.  

Bush can be voted out if he crosses the line; there is an active opposition to him within and without the US, with some amount of press criticism.  The same cannot (yet) be claimed for the PRC.

[This message has been edited by Potemkin Cruise (edited 23-03-2005).]

[Joseph27]

I certainly wouldn’t say that the Chinese are passive but rather I don’t envisage that they would have the ability to project their power militarily for at least several decades if even then.  9 years ago, the Chinese military showed their limitations in war games near Taiwan and despite the large amount of resources poured into their military; it is unlikely their ability to project their military might has improved too significantly to constitute a genuine threat.  

The world Japan existed in during the 1930’s is I consider very different from 2005; there are disputes but the large scale fighting as seen in World War II is highly unlikely.  What’s more likely are shorter conflicts involving overwhelming force – Taiwan declares independence and is hit by a blockade – and perhaps one or two calculated strikes.   A full scale military invasion of Taiwan is militarily impossible for the Chinese – they would lose decisively despite their numerical supremacy.  Add a few US carriers and there is simply no chance of China posing a threat unless they went nuclear in which the danger of regime collapse in Beijing is even more likely.    

The PRC leadership fully understands the position they find themselves in, naysayer’s in the West often suggest that the Chinese want to initiate action knowing full well their predicament – I personally don’t agree with that.  Chinese foreign policy is shaped very much in neo realist beliefs – every year these naysayer’s predict the end but rather than push the envelope the PRC elite is projecting a soft power into Asia and in so doing is extending their sphere of influence.  Why engage in war when you can achieve more in peace.

I don’t romanticize their intentions; the PRC is run by an authoritarian government with views and objectives that may run counter to the longer term interests of many in Asia.  Taiwan remains a volatile issue as it cuts to heart of China’s self image in the international community – whether valid or not, Taiwan is seen as part of China and Taiwan’s loss remains one of the last symbols of the century of shame.  China’s interests now extend deep into Asia, Africa, South America and certainly Iran – the Chess board is out and the pieces are being positioned – the Chinese will not be likely to offer a material exchange at this point but moves to extend their presence economically into South East Asia and beyond does help address a material weakness vis’a’vis US military hegemony.  

[Mr Hyde]

every century there is surely a new superpower. USA is at the top on borrowed time.

smart move for au i reckon, very smart.

[T2K]

So, you think China will remember this little bit of appeasement, and be easy on Australia later, when they are more economically and militarily dominant in the region?  Riiiight...

No way is China ever going to consider Australia anything other than 'lao wai ' interlopers into "their" part of the world.

Don't worry, the US will be there for you when you need us, as usual.

[Mr Hyde]

talk about appeasements. both uk and oz have given USA a wide berth on countless occasions, and even supported her too.

appeasements don't work, like what the world had seen in the run up to WW2 but it might work if you sided the right guy.

i don't want to be rude. but the US' policies are very fishy. they say one thing but they actually mean another and they go ahead and do it anyway with snobbish disregard.

[Joseph27]

T2K - I dont believe that this is appeasement; it is rather simple politics, though Australia will have to be extremely cautious in managing the relationship within the region so as to not ostracize itself with either Japan, China and the USA.   That by the way is not going to be an easy thing to do.  Military I don’t see China taking on that aggressive American type military posturing; the region will balance through a combination of inferred containment vis’e’vis Asean, coupled India’s emergence to the South and a strong Korea and Japan.  You don’t have the dynamic of a super strong Japan or China taking over the region – any conflicts are more likely to be limited skirmishes involving heavy hardware casualties.  A military clash between say the US and China would likely involve a series of air and sea battles in which the US would be able to destroy much of what China could throw at them notwithstanding certain advances in anti shipping cruise missiles.  

Once again the naysayer’s in Washington speak of the dangers China poses through their massive military budget but even the most outrageous estimates of China’s defense budget put the figure at around $200billion (perhaps more in the order of $150billion) – that is less than half of what the US spends – and if you consider that the Chinese military budget has since the 1970’s remained quite modest.  The US budget on the other hand is offensively high and has been so for decades.

[Potemkin Cruise]

Again, I think you guys are being a bit too generous toward the PRC and a bit too harsh on Uncle Sam.  Maybe we are talking about different timeframes here, but the US, too, has had relatively low military budgets in the past (pre-WWI and WW2, if I remember correctly) yet was able to ramp up rather quickly.  Given the Tibet invasion, the war with India and the noises being made now over Taiwan and some of the islands in the SCS, Im just not so sure whether China won't eventually do the same -- except, this time, without democratic machinery to control the worst excesses of their leaders.

As to the US, of course Bush's rhetoric is "fishy" but, compared to some of the patent nonsense that comes out of Bejing, it isn't worse by any order of magnitude.  Honestly, it seems to me that there is a bit of a "familiarity breeds contempt" sort of thing going on -- traditional US allies like the UK and Australia can only take so much of the US throwing its weight around before they start to resent it.  The US starts to remind people of that rich kid from school who was in your class but you didn't really like because he bragged too much.   Still,  though, you knew he wasn't not going to beat you up and take your lunch money -- well, at least not YOU, anyway.

China -- well I wouldn't be so sure.  The point is, nobody really knows beyond the fact that there is less of an internal brake on government decisionmaking there.  I guess we'll see what happens when oil prices hit $100 a barrel.

[Mr Hyde]

WW3 is coming.

[T2K]

"appeasements don't work, like what the world had seen in the run up to WW2 but it might work if you sided the right guy."

If you think China is "the right guy" - then you are naive or misinformed - or both.  Luckily the Aussie gov't is smarter than that.  

Sure, make nice with China and hope for some trade benefits.  Why not?  But, no way is Australia stupid enough to cut their security lifeline to the US.  Nobody in this part of the world gives a damn about Australia, except New Zealand (maybe) but they aren't exactly a strategically important ally.

Anyway, these days it's all about money.
Direct power projection isn't on China's agena in the immediate future.  We'll see in another couple of decades.

[Joseph27]

The analogy of the rich kid not beating you up seems a bit silly – the US may be a rich kid but he is also a big bully and unless you agree with his supposedly great principals he will beat the crap of you much more than other bullies can and or will.  If you piss him off, your other friends and his friends will also turn a cold shoulder to you.  

T2K – I would agree that Australia is certainly not so stupid as to cut off defense ties with the US but at the same time we can’t find ourselves automatically supporting US wars of aggression.  There must be a line we draw – personally though I would be much comfortable to support Taiwan and the US in the event of a conflict than I would be in sending troops into Iraq.  The problem comes if the skirmish is limited – we will have greatly annoyed our major trading partner, and with the Chinese government that would have severe ramifications on the trade front.

A question for you.  What is the moral difference in the PRC passing that anti succession law versus the US Congress giving the President the right to illegally invade a sovereign country and then engage in regime change?  Sorry but to me the American action is vastly more damning – the Chinese can at least argue that they need to maintain the cohesion of their country – the motive for the US which has changed several times seems more nefarious to say the least, especially looking at the condition of the country.  Of course your average Bush supporters will point out that Iraq is now a democracy as though that justifies everything in some bizarre twisted Machiavellian logic, though of course a dare say few of them would offer to take up a job there given the inherent dangers that will continue to exist for years.

[Mr Hyde]

the US is like a bad investment. of course you can't throw everything in one basket. got to give and take a little.

what oz is doing in this instance is somewhat similar to what sg has been doing all this time.

not specifically taking sides but just sitting on the fence, sucking up to whoever in order to maintain its existence.

[T2K]

Taiwan is a democratic nation which is a member in good standing of the global community.  Their only real problem is the diplomatic pressure China puts on them (no UN seat, no Taiwan Olympics team, etc).  Taiwan has never invaded it's neighbor.  Taiwan has never used chemical weapons on its own people.  Taiwan has not been in violation of UN sanctions for 12 years, and refused UN arms inspectors.

Those are a few of the more important differences.  While I think the Iraq invasion was wrong at least in its timing, if not in more fundamental ways, it was certainly imminently more justifiable than any Chinese action towards Taiwan would ever be.

Australia is totally correct, in my opinion, to look out for its own interests first.  That is what I would expect of any nation.  And, if that means playing a little on both sides of the fence, then that's what needs to be done.  However, clearly, if push comes to shove US and AU interests are more closely aligned than AU and CN interests.

[Publius]

T2K is right, China's interference in Taiwan's sovereignty is far more damning than US interference in Iraq.

Unlike Saddam's Hussein's Iraq, Taiwan is a liberal democracy. Unlike Iraq, Taiwan has never invaded any of its neighbors and has a long history of respecting the rights of its citizens and the tenets of international law. There are no mass graves in Taiwan and no UN inspectors asking for entry.

Taiwan's sovereignty rights are much firmer than Iraq's and, until Deng visited the US in the 1970's, they were respected by the UN.

When the US invaded Iraq it overthrew an illegitimate regime in every respect. Saddam's regime was entirely unelected. Whatever sovereign rights the Iraqi regime had (if any) were undermined by its leaders gross human rights abuses and the four hundred thousands graves that have been uncovered there since the US invasion.

China may believe Taiwan to be integral part of its territory in the same way that Iraq's leaders believed Kuwait to be so, but this does not make it so.

Joseph, I find it odd indeed that you are less troubled by violations of the sovereign rights of a true democracy, like Taiwan, than you are by a violation of the sovereign rights of a totalitarian dictatorship responsible for the deaths of thousands, like Saddam's Iraq.

The indefensibility of this viewpoint is based upon your own inherent bias against the US, plain and simple.

This is the best example of "irrational hatred against America" that I have come across on this message board.

[This message has been edited by Publius (edited 24-03-2005).]

[Potemkin Cruise]

>> The analogy of the rich kid not beating you up seems a bit silly – the US may be a rich kid but he is also a big bully and unless you agree with his supposedly great principals he will beat the crap of you much more than other bullies can and or will.

Hummm.  Perhaps, though the only scenerio under which I could ever envision US Marines landing in Sydney Harbour would be to throw someone else out.  I would never say the same about the PRC.

Of the most recent US wars of aggression, one (Afghanistan) was completely justified, one (Iraq) was unjustified but understandable in the sense that Iraq had invaded Kuwait the first go-round and later had tried to have Bush Sr. knocked off (so at least we know where the bad blood came from).  The third, Vietnam, was completely unjustified, but to nobody's great surprise, the American public eventually caused enough of a stink to force a withdrawal.  

Now, the "other bully" on the block -- China -- doesn't have anything close to that sort of public control mechanism -- and they sure as hell are not going to listen to what Australia has to say -- so my point is simply that its all fine and good to play the US and PRC off against each other, but as soon as you begin to demonise one party and cannonise the other to fit into a pre-ordained worldview, you won't be doing yourself any strategic favours.

[This message has been edited by Potemkin Cruise (edited 24-03-2005).]