Printed From: Avian Flu Talk
Category: Main Forums
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Description: (General discussion regarding the next pandemic)
URL: http://www.avianflutalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=36898 Printed Date: April 23 2024 at 2:52pm
Topic: Australia,stuck in the Middle of USA,ChinaPosted By: carbon20
Subject: Australia,stuck in the Middle of USA,China
Date Posted: November 26 2017 at 2:04pm
I
n early June 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull" rel="nofollow - Malcolm Turnbull gave the keynote speech at a big defence conference in Singapore. He warned of China’s ambition to become the region’s leading power, and called on America and its friends and allies in Asia to block this ambition and preserve the old US-led regional order.
This was the first time an Australian prime minister had plainly acknowledged the strategic rivalry between China and America, which was long overdue. But Turnbull expressed great confidence that America would prevail over China, and that Asia would therefore continue to flourish under US leadership. So the Australian government is still a long way from acknowledging, to the rest of us or even to itself, what is really happening between America and China, and what it will mean for Australia.
For a long time Canberra’s refusal to admit either that a great strategic contest is underway between our major ally and our major trading partner – or that the contest might not go as we’d like – has been symbolised by the bold assertion that “Australia doesn’t have to choose between America and China.”
This has become something of a mantra, intoned by leaders on both sides of politics whenever the question of US–China relations comes up. Malcolm Turnbull even repeated it in his Singapore speech, though he’d made it perfectly clear why it was wrong. It is a perfect example of the very human tendency to confuse a wish with a fact.
It is certainly true that Australia doesn’t want to choose between America and China. Our whole vision of Australia’s future assumes that we can avoid such a choice, so that we can keep relying on China to make us rich while America keeps us safe. But in recent years, as the rivalry has escalated, we have more and more faced important choices about when to support America and when to stay on the sidelines. We have not so far been forced to make an all-or-nothing choice to side with one and abandon the other, but that could come if the rivalry escalates further. And if America steps back from Asia, the question of Australia’s choices becomes irrelevant. We won’t have a choice, because America will no longer be there for us to choose.
But, false or not, the “we don’t have to choose” mantra reveals Canberra’s assumptions about Australia’s future. If we won’t have to choose between America and China, it can only be because they are not serious strategic rivals, and if they are not serious strategic rivals, it can only mean that China has decided not to challenge America for regional leadership, because it lacks either the power or the resolve to do so. Canberra, then, is making the same mistake as Washington: it is underestimating China’s strength and overestimating America’s. That is the story we are telling ourselves to avoid facing what’s really happening.
The pattern is clear. Under successive governments since 2011, Canberra has offered strong rhetorical support to America’s leadership in Asia, but has refused to do anything practical which can unambiguously be seen as directed against China. Our aim throughout has been to convince Washington that we are supporting it against China, and to convince Beijing that we are not. It is, in other words, a policy of systematic duplicity. Some might say that such duplicity is unavoidable and even admirable when one is walking a diplomatic tightrope, but that is only true if the duplicity works. Our problem is that it isn’t working: we are fooling no one, except perhaps ourselves.
Certainly the leaders in Beijing are not fooled, but nor are they displeased. They don’t expect us to support them against the United States. They just want to us not to support the US against them – to turn us into a neutral. That is a big win for them, because we are America’s oldest and closest ally in Asia. They therefore tolerate our lip-service to the alliance so long as we don’t give America any tangible or significant support. So far they are getting what they want, so we haven’t been punished. Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull have all avoided doing anything that Beijing has seen as violating Howard’s understanding withthen-leader Jiang Zemin – that Australia’s alliance with America was not negotiable, but nothing Australia would do as a US ally would be directed against China.
Replies: Posted By: carbon20
Date Posted: November 29 2017 at 3:13am
South China Sea: Australia is worried about China's activities — here's why
By political reporter http://www.abc.net.au/news/jane-norman/5873958" rel="nofollow - Jane Norman
The South China Sea is more than 6,000 kilometres away from Canberra but Beijing's activities in this contested body of water are causing deep anxiety within Australia's defence and diplomatic circles.
At its heart, this is a dispute over competing territorial claims but the South China Sea has become a symbol of China's inexorable rise and a shift in the global axis of power.
Here's why Australia is concerned and how it's responding to the issue.
Who's involved in this dispute?
China is the main aggressor.
The country claims sovereignty over most of the South China Sea, including a bunch of small land formations, directly challenging the territorial claims of its neighbours — the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan and Malaysia.
These countries are all keen to exploit the vast fisheries and significant oil reserves that lie beneath.
So what's the dispute about?
China's motivations are both economic and strategic.
It claims "indisputable sovereignty" over an ambiguous Nine dash-line — basically a U-shaped area which takes in most of the South China Sea — and since 2012, it's been using its considerable naval might to assert control over this area.
At the same time, China has seized small land formations and installed military bases on artificial islands it's created by dredging 13 square kilometres of land from the ocean floor.
It means Beijing can now deploy combat aircraft and missile launchers to the islands at any time.
There is serious concern that China's trying to assert control over the area, and project its power throughout the Indo-Pacific region, which is why the United States has got involved.
Why is Australia worried?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-22/south-china-sea-islands-before-and-after/6794076" rel="nofollow - Before and after: South China Sea
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-22/south-china-sea-islands-before-and-after/6794076" rel="nofollow"> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-22/south-china-sea-islands-before-and-after/6794076" rel="nofollow - See how China is converting reefs to military facilities by building artificial islands in the South China Sea.
There are two reasons cited by the Government — "freedom of navigation" and "rules-based global order".
The South China Sea is one of the world's most important shipping lanes, between $3 trillion and $5 trillion worth of trade passes through the contested waters each year (estimates vary) — including more than half of Australia's coal, iron ore and LNG exports.
So Australia has a big interest in keeping that trade route open.
The other concern is that China is threatening the "rules based global order," which basically relies on all countries following international laws and resolving territorial disputes peacefully.
So, how has Australia responded?
Australia is in a tricky position — the United States is our strongest military ally, while China is our biggest trading partner. And both relationships are crucial.
While the risk of war between the US and China is considered to be low, it is the source of considerable tension.
Ultimately Australia does not want to see the South China Sea militarised and international trade routes compromised.
Publicly, Australia has taken a taken a relatively neutral position — refusing to take sides but calling for a "peaceful solution" to the disputes.
Australia has also been using diplomatic channels and forums to put pressure on China to end its military build-up.
On the defence front, RAAF planes regularly conduct surveillance flights and the Australian Navy sails through the contested waters all in the name of freedom of navigation.
But don't get these confused with the more provocative Freedom of Navigation Operations (or "FONOPs") the US has been carrying out.
What are the US and the Philippines doing?
Since 2015, the United States has conducted FONOPs to challenge China's "excessive" claim.
These operations, which infuriate China, involve US naval ships sailing within 12 nautical miles of China's artificial islands — sending a message that the US does not recognise them as Chinese territory.
It's not about "containing" China, according to the US, but maintaining this "rules based global order".
But China does not see it that way. It has told the US to stay out of the dispute, and warned the FONOPs "severely harm China's sovereignty and security".
At the recent ASEAN forum, President Donald Trump took a typically unconventional approach, offering to "mediate" between China and the other parties. So far no-one's taken him up on this offer.
The other big player was the Philippines, which up until recently, was on the US side of the dispute.
Last year, it took China to the UN's Permanent Court of Arbitration, which ruled that Beijing had no historic rights over the South China Sea.
But China ignored this ruling, declaring it "neither accepts nor recognises it," and the Philippines has since elected a new president who seems much less interested in pursuing this issue.
In fact, Rodrigo Duterte has only deepened his country's ties with China, signing multi-billion dollar economic partnerships, and at the ASEAN summit all but confirmed his complete capitulation.
"The other hotheads would like us to confront China and the rest of the world for so many issues," he said.
"The South China Sea is better left untouched. Nobody can afford to go to war."
That is true, but also a sign that old alliances are shifting, further complicating this already complex situation.
For now at least, China's slowed down its military build-up in the South China Sea but all eyes are on these contested waters, waiting for its next move.
------------- Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.🖖