{"id":1558,"date":"2012-10-09T14:56:29","date_gmt":"2012-10-09T04:56:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=1558"},"modified":"2012-10-10T09:18:12","modified_gmt":"2012-10-09T23:18:12","slug":"grand-strategy-australia-and-china","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/grand-strategy-australia-and-china\/","title":{"rendered":"Grand Strategy, Australia and China"},"content":{"rendered":"
As the final post in this series<\/a> on<\/a> grand<\/a> strategy<\/a>, I\u2019m going to apply the framework developed earlier to one of the day\u2019s biggest challenges (and opportunities)\u2014China\u2019s emergence on the world stage. Ironically, despite the acres of newsprint devoted to the subject in the rest of the world, the clearest grand strategy is probably the one the Chinese themselves are pursuing, which reflects the core interests<\/a> of the state (or at least the leadership), most notably political stability and preserving the leading role of the Chinese Communist Party. Achieving those objectives<\/a> informs the way in which the Chinese state makes use of all instruments of national power, whether in defending territorial integrity, maintaining internal harmony or building linkages with other nations that can deliver the economic growth seen as essential to legitimising the Party\u2019s role. Given this, for the rest of the world, the task becomes identifying the strategy that they should adopt to build the international relationship they would like.<\/p>\n Australia has a complex and diverse relationship with China today, but it has evolved through interactions at many levels of government and business without any overarching plan. If we were to pursue a grand strategy, the broad choices are denial, reform or engagement. A denial<\/em> grand strategy seems problematic; there are currently no areas of our strategic interests threatened by China for which we would consider using military power (and increasingly no credible way our military power could sway China anyway). The relationship between the two countries has few areas of significant disagreement and is instead mutually beneficial, with both sides having an interest in making it more so. As a middle power, Australia isn\u2019t in a position to choose this kind of strategy, but we could be a small part of a future American-led one which some<\/a> are trying to convince the US to adopt, largely based on concerns about China\u2019s political system.<\/p>\n A reform<\/em> grand strategy to change China\u2019s social rules towards liberal democracy appears unrealistic for any state to presently undertake. While there is some genuine discontent<\/a> within China about the existing governmental social rules and there are groups and individuals who could act as ideational advocates, most support the current domestic political order. And without the extant social rules collapsing, their replacement cannot be set in motion. And even if it could, the outcome might be less predictable than hoped.<\/p>\n An engagement<\/em> grand strategy which leverages off the current Chinese political system seems a more practical option. When the Chinese Communist Party decided to reform the economy and open the country to international investment, it devolved power<\/a> to the regional and local level. The political system is less monolithic than we imagine and has become increasingly pluralist, with numerous politically influential<\/a>, competing<\/a> state and non-state domestic groups. An engagement grand strategy can build on this to work with and strengthen compatible, well-placed domestic groups.<\/p>\n The diversity of such groups suggests multiple connection points. However, these groups operate within broad guidelines emanating from the Chinese Communist Party. There may be opportunities to engage some of those groups and key individuals to build an institutional type of order between Australia and China where both sides agree on the operating rules, military threats are not seen as an option, and both cooperate to reach common objectives, particularly economic and financial. The aim would be to build linkages with Party groups and influential individuals in a manner that gives them a stake in sustaining and deepening mutually beneficial relations.<\/p>\n This would allow us to make an already multifaceted relationship less fragmented. Adopting an institutional order would see the relationship placed on a more formal and stable basis, with multiple transnational linkages between Australian and Chinese domestic state and non-state actors. The instruments of national power could be used in a variety of ways to build and sustain an institutional order.<\/p>\n