Oz's reorientation
- By Kerry Brown
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail Beijing Review, June 9, 2013
Diverse alliances
The tone of the 2009 defense paper attracted notice at the time. It spelled out a framework in which the main objectives were to create a secure country, a country which could support a stable neighborhood, and which was also contributing to global security. The strongest link in Australia's security architecture was the alliance with the United States. While the 2009 paper stated that maintaining a strong and practical relationship with China as it assumed a greater role on the global stage was important, there was also forceful language about needing to have China spell out more clearly its strategic vision and declare more about its goals in the region and further afield as it became a bigger player.
The less categorical tone of the 2013 paper is partly because, as it itself admits, the global context has grown more complex, and this has inevitably had an impact on Australia. "China's continuing rise as a global power, the increasing economic and strategic weight of East Asia and the emergence of India" are given explicit prominence in the paper. The commitment to the United States as the key ally remains clear and strong. But the tone is far more pragmatic. "For Australia," the paper states, "this more complex relationship will make it more challenging for us to achieve or influence outcomes. Asian countries will balance a broader range of interests and partners, and Australia's voice will need to be clearer and stronger to be heard."
Part of that "clearer and stronger" voice is to resist the issue of needing to go for exclusive relationships. The key issue here is a statement that China is not viewed as an adversary, in ways in which the earlier paper had hinted. Instead, its economic prosperity and success are critical for the health of the region, and to Australia. In view of this, therefore, there is the need for a much more nuanced and sophisticated positioning—one in which Australia is able to balance often diverse and sometimes very different alliances. Good relations with India are needed to preserve the stability of key trade routes. Links with Indonesia and across Southeast Asia are important particularly for cooperation on counterterrorism. Strong economic ties with Japan and South Korea remain key.
Diversification is not so strange. The 2009 paper inhabited a world which seemed too black and white, spelling out clear choices and coming across as more adversarial. In 2013, things are less clear. The Australia in the Asian Century paper had declared that there was a need in the new era for an Asian savvy and knowledgeable policy making generation—people in government who were at ease with thinking about themselves as part of the Asian region, and understanding the different countries, their internal dynamics and their strategic visions better.
The difference between the defense papers of 2009 and 2013 therefore shouldn't too readily be seen as signs of internal discord and incoherence, but rather of development and evolution. As the economist John Maynard Keynes famously noted, when the facts change, then so should your ideas and opinions. And that, as a country, is what Australia has been doing for the last four years. These papers are simply a testament to that.
The author is an op-ed contributor to Beijing Review and executive director of the China Studies Center at the University of Sydney.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)