Posted on 03/17/2006 11:37:14 AM PST by oklahoma guard
Alexander Downer is in for a tough day. He sits down this morning for the first ministerial-level tripartite talks with the US and Japan. Top of the agenda is the complex and vital issue of the rise of China. And Downer will be in a minority of one against our major ally and our biggest trade partner.
These talks are not routine diplomacy. The US Secretary of State and the Japanese Foreign Minister have gone to a lot of trouble to be here together for today's session. They have a serious purpose: to arrest what they see as Australia's drift towards China. They worry that, dazzled by China's economy and seduced by its diplomacy, we are growing too close to Beijing.
From their perspective, Washington and Tokyo are right to be worried. Australia does take a different view of China from both the US and Japan. In public Downer and Condoleezza Rice have played down the differences, but they are clear.
Of course we all agree that China offers big opportunities. It has already underwritten economic growth in many parts of the world, and in doing so has become central to the prosperity and stability of the global economy. That is why talk of "containment" is really beside the point. We could not contain China even if we wanted to, because we all rely too much on it to try to isolate it from the rest of the international system.
But the risks from China's growth are also obvious. As its power grows, China might start to throw its weight around, trying to impose its will on others. Washington and Tokyo think this is already a problem. They point to China's rapid military build-up as evidence. They emphasise these anxieties in talking of their relationship with China, as we have seen from Rice this week.
Australia takes a different view. John Howard and Downer describe our relationship with China much more optimistically, as "good" and "mature". This is partly because Canberra thinks, as Downer said last weekend, that China has been using its growing political weight "responsibly" in recent years.
These differences in tone point to a much deeper difference in our thinking about how to handle China's rise. America instinctively expects China, as it grows, to adapt itself to a regional order in which the US makes the rules. China expects much more: that as its power grows, it will have a role in setting the rules, not just following the US rules.
Australia tends to be more sympathetic to China's aspirations, and more worried about what China might do otherwise. Downer thinks we should reward and encourage China's responsible conduct. And Canberra is alive to the risk that if we do not give the Chinese a role in setting the rules, we may drive them towards trying to overturn them.
But to share power with China is a big ask in Washington. Even "pro-China" Americans find it hard to imagine ever treating Beijing as an equal partner in managing regional affairs. They think it's up to China to choose whether it is going to play by America's rules, or face America's wrath. That is what the Pentagon means when it says China is at a "strategic crossroads".
Thus, while Americans sometimes talk as if they are willing to work with China, it remains clear that they will only do so on America's terms. And by that they mean changes to China's internal politics as well as its foreign policy. No wonder the Chinese are edgy.
Tokyo supports America's tough view. China has deep historical animosities towards Japan, and the Japanese fear that the more power China has, the more Japan will suffer. So they will be keen to support Rice's proposal this week that the three countries should work together to "produce the conditions in which the rise of China will be a positive force in international politics, not a negative force".
Whatever that means. The record of the Bush Administration leads one to be cautious about vague, grand concepts without clear implementation plans. There are real doubts whether the US and Japan any longer have the power to shape China's rise. Some Americans may think they can use economic pressure, compelling China to behave as the US wants by threatening its access to the US market. They are a good five years too late. Economically, America now needs China as much as China needs America. Neither side can afford to use this vital link as a political lever.
Others, including Rice, seem to think that America can compete effectively with China for the allegiance and support of China's Asian neighbours. Again, they are five years too late. Especially since 9/11, China's diplomacy has trounced America's everywhere in Asia except Japan. Unless Beijing starts behaving badly, it is too late to start building an anti-China coalition now. Not even John Howard and Alexander Downer will join them.
That leaves Downer with a big job: to persuade the US and Japan to take a more moderate, constructive approach to China. Not easy, but very important.
Hugh White is a visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute and professor of strategic Studies at ANU.
The guy seems to be in bed with the Chicoms though... although he tried to sound rational, his intentions are very clear.
Hope the Aussies wake up to the threat to themselves that china will become before it's too late.
But the message that we are 5 years too late to contain China does strike a nerve. While we've been fighting in Iraq, we've completely ignored China and its dealings with the rest of the world. Still better late than never.
Bttt! LOL!
bingo
Nobody has ignored the stinking chicoms. Australia understands the threats from them, I'd bet. They can play 'good cop'.
They're aware of the threat from the lying chicoms. See here. http://www.intelligencesearch.com/ia044.html
I agree that the U.S. has been neglectful in watching China, but disagree that the region is as wowed by China as the author suggests. For example, the author forgets India and Vietnam. History has a way of not easily being forgotten. I doubt that either of these two countries view China's increased military buildup in the manner the author suggests merely because the Chinese have come calling with shiny beads and trinkets.
The author leaves the impression, however, that Australia has been boughtoff by those trinkets and beads. Fine, but I hope they remember that when the Chinese military is appropriating Taiwan and a few other places.
Paul, he's back...
Who'd a thunkit?
Thanks for the heads up
Actually Rice has been talkin with Japan and Australia to form a strategic trangle. All three countries have a mutual interest in countering China. That is why Bush is in India promoting relations too. One of the benifits of attacking Iran is that it will remove one of China's allies and that will be coming sooner or later. China is getting allies in central and South America. We are only reacting to that and getting our own allies.
The public maybe, but the military has always kept a srong eye on China. While our ground forces are in the middle east, our Navy is patrolling the oceans (including the western pacific). Over the past 6 years the Pentagon and even State Department have been getting Japan to pair with us to contain China. A war against China would be a Navy and Air Force war.
Good to hear.
'Heal thyself, physician'!
How can we reasonably expect Australia to follow our lead here, when all we've done for the past 15 years is turn our backs on long-standing allies and Western values in exchange for a few cheap baubles from Red China?
If we start leading by example in this regard, the Aussies will follow suit. I doubt they're any more keen on China's ascendancy than main-street America.
In 1995, at the University of Washington, former leaders and former high ranking officials from Pacific Rim nations (including Alexander Haig) met. This was unofficial of course and open to the public.
Bob Hawke the former Prime Minister of Australia (1983-1991) was there. Alot of the questions from the audience were directed at the Chinese representative and concerned human rights abuse. He was drawing most of the question, though all negative.
In the midst of the euphoria China bashing questions, one question I did remember was one toward Bob Hawke in regards to China. The question being "What role will Australia play in containing China?". Bob Hawke's reply was "China is a big country". "In the long run, we aren't going to bend China, China is going to bend us."
He was not taking a defensive or defeatess attitude or even a resentful attitude. But merely acknowledging that in that part of the world, it will be China and not Australia that will be the major player there. And that is will be Australia who will need to learn to adapt to China rather than China to Australia. I found him to be rather delightful to listen to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.