{"id":14892,"date":"2014-07-24T14:40:31","date_gmt":"2014-07-24T04:40:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=14892"},"modified":"2014-07-25T13:53:45","modified_gmt":"2014-07-25T03:53:45","slug":"analysing-the-china-choice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/analysing-the-china-choice\/","title":{"rendered":"Analysing the China choice"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/p>\n The recent posts by Peter Jennings<\/a> and Hugh White<\/a> outline an interesting set of thoughts about Australia\u2019s strategic policy options in a transformational Asia.<\/p>\n If I can summarise the argument bluntly, Peter says we don\u2019t need to choose between the US and China, nor even between Japan and China\u2014explicitly making the case that \u2018countries in the Asia Pacific stickily persist in cooperating with each other\u2019, and implicitly making the argument that zero-sum strategic competitions come along a lot less frequently than many people suppose. Just as well too, says Peter, since the choice Hugh outlines is one between \u2018subordination or incineration\u2019.<\/p>\n Hugh agrees that the objective of Australian policy should be to avoid having to choose between the US and China. But being able to do that, he says, turns critically upon how well the US and China get on with each other: \u2018the worse they get on, the starker the choice we\u2019ll face between them\u2019. Since Hugh is a self-confessed pessimist, he doesn\u2019t expect the two great powers to get along well. So he does think we face a looming\u2014stark\u2014choice between great powers. Hugh\u2019s answer is greater accommodation of China: \u2018the more firmly we resist any accommodation of China\u2019s ambitions, the faster strategic rivalry will escalate\u2019.<\/p>\n The argument between Peter and Hugh is rather more subtle than it appears at first glance, but I think it turns upon one important difference: Hugh wants Australia \u2018to promote a new power-sharing order in Asia\u2019, where I get the sense that Peter would like Australia to promote a new responsibility-sharing order in Asia. Between the two competing principles, I\u2019m attracted to the notion of responsibility-sharing. If China\u2019s ambitions don\u2019t include a role as something like a \u2018responsible stakeholder\u2019 in the regional order (yes, I know Robert Zoellick\u2019s term is unfashionable these days, but it captures the right metric), why should we accommodate it?<\/p>\n Power is neither a good thing nor a bad thing in international relations\u2014it\u2019s what it\u2019s used for that matters. In that sense, power\u2019s like war and intelligence operations\u2014you judge it by its political objectives rather than standing in slack-jawed admiration of power in its own right. That\u2019s the way we\u2019ve always judged other powers: it explains why we think now that concluding \u2018peace in our time\u2019 with Hitler was wrong, and also why we thought the Soviet Union had to be contained, even if it couldn\u2019t easily be fought in a nuclear age.<\/p>\n So, the real determinant of whether we have to make a choice between the US and China isn\u2019t how well they get on with each other. It\u2019s \u2018what does China see as its role in the world?\u2019 The problem is that question doesn\u2019t get a single answer, even in Beijing. Chinese grand strategy is a mish-mash of: its earlier expectations of what it meant to be a great power; a sense of entitlement now China has escaped the century of humiliations; a great sense of economic interconnectedness to the outside world; and a history of fractious relations with its neighbours.<\/p>\n That means Beijing likes some parts of the current regional order but dislikes others. It likes maritime security and safe sealanes so it can trade. It likes regional stability so it can concentrate on development. It accepts that US alliances help \u2018tether\u2019 Washington\u2019s regional allies, though it\u2019s becoming a bit more hesitant about that one. It dislikes foreign barbarians encroaching on Chinese civilisation. It resents that it\u2019s a great power with unsettled territorial claims. It dislikes an Asian security order organised in Washington.<\/p>\n Hugh says that accommodation doesn\u2019t mean giving Beijing everything it wants. That\u2019s true. But what do we do when push comes to shove on something it wants but we don\u2019t want? At some point, even in Hugh\u2019s universe, the rubric of \u2018choice\u2019 cuts both ways. And choosing to resist China in a regional order we\u2019ve designed to accommodate it might involve a set of strategic risks that we\u2019d be unwilling to run on the day: by necessity, there\u2019d be a set of salami-slice calculations in which the running of great risks for small gains could always be reasoned away.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s go back to the nub of the problem: what does Australia want in Asia? I think the answer is relatively simple: it wants a stable, liberal, prosperous regional order. We can accommodate a China that wants that too. But power-sharing for its own sake doesn\u2019t strike me as a recipe for strategic happiness. And arguing in Washington for a course that dilutes US influence in order to fashion a workable G2 with China means arguing for a smaller role for the one great power that\u2019s actually built a stable, liberal, prosperous order in Asia. I\u2019m not in favour of our doing that.<\/p>\n Rod Lyon is a fellow at ASPI and executive editor of\u00a0<\/em><\/em>The Strategist. Image courtesy of Flickr user Daniel Lee<\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The recent posts by Peter Jennings and Hugh White outline an interesting set of thoughts about Australia\u2019s strategic policy options in a transformational Asia. If I can summarise the argument bluntly, Peter says we don\u2019t …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":14893,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[17,52,1426,181,708,31],"class_list":["post-14892","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-australia","tag-china","tag-hugh-white","tag-international-order","tag-power-sharing","tag-united-states"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n