Skip to main content

After APEC, Australia Remains Caught Between the US and China

23 November 2018

As rancor at the meeting shows, striking the balance between the two great powers will only get more challenging.

Dr Bates Gill

Associate Fellow, Asia-Pacific Programme and US and the Americas Programme (based in Australia)

@batesgill1

2018-11-22-APEC.jpg

Security forces, including ships from the US Navy, Royal Australian Navy and Royal New Zealand Navy, patrol around P&O Cruises ship Pacific Explorer, which hosted part of the APEC summit in Port Moresby. Photo: Getty Images.

Share

   

It was the diplomatic equivalent of a food fight. At the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, held last week in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea (PNG), the United States and China traded barely-veiled barbs and their growing rivalry prevented agreement on a final communique for the first time since the organization’s founding nearly 30 years ago.

Many equate these results with failure. But the forum accurately reflects the region’s evolving geostrategic dynamics. Importantly, the gathering provided a platform on which those dynamics could unfold peaceably, if contentiously – which is exactly what APEC should be doing. And, also true to APEC’s intent, it allowed for the advancement of the interests of smaller players while they tried to navigate the dilemma of great power competition.

Case in point: Australia. Canberra came prepared to have an impact. It was especially keen to do so given that the host, PNG, is Australia’s closest neighbour, separated by less than 100 kilometres of open water. PNG is also representative of many other Pacific island nations in Australia’s strategic backyard, all in need of development and greater opportunity to benefit from the region’s economic growth.

Hence, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a further ‘stepping up’ of Australia’s presence in its Pacific neighbourhood. On the economic and development front, the Australian prime minister formally opened the School of Business and Public Policy at the University of Papua New Guinea and – along with Japan, New Zealand and the United States – announced a joint plan to provide 70 per cent of the PNG population with electricity by 2030. (Only 13 per cent have reliable access to electricity today.)

As for regional security initiatives, Australia announced an enhanced security cooperationarrangement with Vanuatu, to include infrastructure improvements, training and advisory services for the Vanuatu police forces, as well as a pledge to make progress on a bilateral security treaty. Canberra will also join with the United States and PNG to build new facilities at the Lombrum naval base on the east side of PNG’s Manus island.

But in taking these steps, Australia exhibited the delicate diplomatic act it needs to perform as it balances relations between a rising China and an uncertain America.

Canberra is clearly concerned about China’s growing presence in the south Pacific.  Its economic initiatives during the APEC summit can be seen as countermoves in response to China’s already extensive economic development assistance to Pacific island nations.  Extending security assistance to Vanuatu and upgrading PNG’s naval facilities – including the possibility that Australian and US military vessels could be berthed there – is an unmistakable response to Australian newspaper reports that China aimed to build a naval base in Vanuatu.

But Australia has good reason to worry about American engagement in the Indo-Pacific as well. The recent concentration of US interest in the region – led by Vice President Mike Pence’s blunt China speech in October and his pointed remarks at APEC – have come belatedly in the Trump administration’s first term, and have not yet established the reassurance America’s allies and friends need about US commitment to the region. As a result, Canberra is no doubt relieved to solidify its partnership with Washington through the PNG electrification scheme and joint development and possible use of the Manus island naval base.

Yet Australia’s middle power dilemma persists. Even as Canberra takes steps in its immediate neighbourhood to counterbalance China, it cannot go too far. China remains – and for the foreseeable future will remain – Australia’s most important trading partner and its fastest growing foreign investor. Divisions run deep in Australia about the best way forward for China policy, with the business community and many in the foreign policy establishment urging caution to avoid alienating Beijing.

And while Canberra welcomes the signals of greater American engagement in the region, there is far less support for an openly confrontational US approach toward China. Australia has much to lose in joining an escalating trade war with China or taking part in overt containment of China’s rise. This is all the more so given the continuing volatility and unpredictable nature of US foreign policy, including in the Indo-Pacific.

Australia is not alone in this. Even Shinzo Abe’s Japan – buffeted by US trade threats, unsatisfactory results with North Korea and continuing White House complaints about Japan’s host-nation support for US forces – also seeks stable and improving relations with its major neighbours China and Russia. This pattern repeats itself across much of the Indo-Pacific.

The raucousness and rancor of the APEC summit only exacerbates what was already a difficult dilemma for small and medium powers in the region. Understandably, they want it both ways: continued beneficial relations with the United States and China. But the lesson of Port Moresby is this: striking that balance is only going to get more challenging in the years ahead.



https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/after-apec-australia-remains-caught-between-us-and-china

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

SSG Commando Muddassir Iqbal of Pakistan Army

“ Commando Muddassir Iqbal was part of the team who conducted Army Public School operation on 16 December 2014. In this video he reveals that he along with other commandos was ordered to kill the innocent children inside school, when asked why should they kill children after killing all the terrorist he was told that it would be a chance to defame Taliban and get nation on the side. He and all other commandos killed children and later Taliban was blamed.
Muddassir Iqbal has deserted the military and now he is  with mujahedeen somewhere in AF PAK border area”
For authenticity of  this tape journalists can easy reach to his home town to interview his family members or   ISPR as he reveals his army service number”
Asalam o Alaikum: My name is Muddassir Iqbal. My father’s name is Naimat Ali. I belong to Sialkot divison (Punjab province), my village is Shamsher Poor and district, tehsil and post office  Narowal. Unfortunately I was working in Pakistan army. I feel embarrassed to tell you …

CPEC Jobs in Pakistan, salary details

JOBS...نوکریاں چائنہ کمپنی میںPlease help the deserving persons...Salary:Salary package in China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in these 300,000 jobs shall be on daily wages. The details of the daily wages are as follows;Welder: Rs. 1,700 dailyHeavy Duty Driver: Rs. 1,700 dailyMason: Rs. 1,500 dailyHelper: Rs. 850 dailyElectrician: Rs. 1,700 dailySurveyor: Rs. 2,500 dailySecurity Guard: Rs. 1,600 dailyBulldozer operator: Rs. 2,200 dailyConcrete mixer machine operator: Rs. 2,000 dailyRoller operator: Rs. 2,000 dailySteel fixer: Rs. 2,200 dailyIron Shuttering fixer: Rs. 1,800 dailyAccount clerk: Rs. 2,200 dailyCarpenter: Rs. 1,700 dailyLight duty driver: Rs. 1,700 dailyLabour: Rs. 900 dailyPara Engine mechanic: Rs. 1,700 dailyPipe fitter: Rs. 1,700 dailyStorekeeper: Rs. 1,700 dailyOffice boy: Rs. 1,200 dailyExcavator operator: Rs. 2,200 dailyShovel operator: Rs. 2,200 dailyComputer operator: Rs. 2,200 dailySecurity Supervisor: Rs. 2,200 dailyCook for Chinese food: Rs. 2,000 dailyCook…

The Rise of China-Europe Railways

https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-china-europe-railways

The Rise of China-Europe RailwaysMarch 6, 2018The Dawn of a New Commercial Era?For over two millennia, technology and politics have shaped trade across the Eurasian supercontinent. The compass and domesticated camels helped the “silk routes” emerge between 200 and 400 CE, and peaceful interactions between the Han and Hellenic empires allowed overland trade to flourish. A major shift occurred in the late fifteenth century, when the invention of large ocean-going vessels and new navigation methods made maritime trade more competitive. Mercantilism and competition among Europe’s colonial powers helped pull commerce to the coastlines. Since then, commerce between Asia and Europe has traveled primarily by sea.1Against this historical backdrop, new railway services between China and Europe have emerged rapidly. Just 10 years ago, regular direct freight services from China to Europe did not exist.2 Today, they connect roughly 35 Chinese…