Introduction
In the 2000s, the concept and understanding of security in Australia has dramatically altered. What was once considered a self defence issue has now been redefined to encompass economic issues, social factors and environmental concerns associated with the well being of the nation. Therefore, trade, political relations with other nations, immigration and diplomacy are all critical contributors to the challenges faced by Australia in its international relations.
Whether there is a challenge to Australia given that it faces numerous international challenges (China and the US) in the areas of potential great power conflict
Armed forces as a form of national defence in Australia have been critical in assessing the perceived challenges in international relations. In the cold war era, Australia along with the world did not shy away from the use of military power because the war was seen as an ideological battle that would assist in the end of totalitarianism.
The continued existence of such a phenomenon (Totalitarianism) would have been a threat to world peace and it was therefore justifiable to act militarily at such times. Later on, in the 1990s and into the 2000s, perceived threats to Australian security were seen through events in New Guinea, East Timor and Fiji. Therefore, events occurring around the Australian region prompted the country to act accordingly in order to protect its interests in this regard (Ravenhill & Cotton, 2007).
What one can learn from looking at the history of international affairs in Australia is that first the country is peaceful and second, the country is mostly concerned with national security. This implies that there is considerable debate on whether issues such as power conflict especially in light of the existence of two of the most critical global forces in international relations i.e. the United States and China are likely.
Historically, Australia has had a close relationship with the United States. This was largely depicted through the formation of the ANZUS alliance (Albinski & Tow, 2009). Most of the defence policies were tailored towards protecting Australian interests in the event of an external threat to Australian peace.
This is because the US’s military capabilities were a force to reckon with. However, with the passage of time it became apparent that there was indeed a need to gain some degree of self reliance by this nation. Australia then began to forge its own path. In other words, the country concentrated on making itself strong in order to protect itself against its neighbours. Concerns about a power conflict between major global powers like China or the US and Australia did not come into this debate (McDougal, 2009a).
In fact, the realist perspective of international relations has to be balanced by several complex issues that make it very difficult to draw any clear line concerning the Australian scenario. Therefore, one can assert that in terms of military challenges, the United States to Australia has not been perceived as a challenge or an instigator of military power conflicts (Firth, 2002).
On the other hand, Australian-US relations need to be looked at under a different lens i.e. the economic lens. Global trade or free trade for that matter has been more of a reality presently than it has been in the past.
Australian interests can therefore be put under threat if the intrusive nature of free trade is not handled correctly. One of the nations that is at the forefront of this phenomenon is China. Consequently, if Australia results to the use of the self reliance strategy then it could be putting itself at considerable disadvantage (Firth, 2005), (Kelly, 2004).
US-Australian relations
A thorough analysis of the US –Australian relationship demonstrates that there is indeed an imbalance in this alliance. The ANZUS alliance formed over fifty years ago is seen as pivotal to international relations in Australia.
In fact, different politicians and Foreign Affairs ministers have come to the consensus that the foreign relations in Australia would lack a backbone if the US-Australian alliance is ignored. Edwards (2005) believes that such an alliance is a reference point in foreign policy. So important are these ties that anyone who seems to oppose such an alliance will be labelled as a spoiler.
The continued support of the American-Australian union is justified by a number of reasons as stated by Fullilove (2006) who affirmed that the US is a progressive state which adversely believes in protecting human rights so Australia would be in a great position by siding with such a nation. Furthermore, there would be great economic and social advantages that would come out of the continued existence of ANZUS.
It would also play a role in affirming Australia’s stance of the importance of activism and international institutions in the global systems. There are also other unstated reasons that are strategic in nature. For example, Australia hopes that in case of any perceived threat from other nations, it will be protected through the help of the US; a fact that would be impossible without existence of a robust relationship between the two countries.
Fullilove (2007) further adds that the US Australian alliance would contribute towards better information sharing and would also make the playing field more level for Australia. This country can then use its strong relationship with the US to bring out their point of view and hence be at a position to influence the United States in terms of foreign policy issues (Crawford, 2000).
What these perspectives signify is that the US is an instrumental part of the international relations scene for Australia and that several stakeholders involved in this process need to acknowledge this. In fact, even the public is in support of this view. The US Studies centre (2007) reported that about 79 % of the Australian population believes that an alliance with the latter nation would be crucial to foreign policies of the latter country.
Nonetheless, forty percent of the public also believed that Australia needs to be more assertive in protecting its interests other than simply relying on the US. What this illustrates is that policy makers have been educating the masses about foreign policy issues and have told them about the importance of the US –Australian alliance.
On the other hand, the public has also seen how the government has not been very keen on maintaining a degree of self reliance in international relations. It appears as though Australians do not mind even though they are perceived as being too dependent on the US because the results that come from such an association are too critical (Beeson, 2002).
Some analysts still doubt the importance of the American alliance to Australia by asserting that most advantages in support of it have not actually yielded tangible results. For example, it has been said that the US can assist Australia in information sharing.
However, a look at the foreign policy arena of Australia shows that very little has been achieved in terms of this information sharing so one would wonder whether the importance of the US has been exaggerated. Additionally, it can also be seen that Australia has not been at a position to affect the way the United States carries out its foreign policy with regard to issues that affect Australia.
However McMaster (1998) argues that the public can never fully assess the reasons behind observations in foreign policy because some matters are only known to the privileged few. For national security purposes, this information is never dispensed to the public. Nonetheless, there are still other strategic benefits that come out of such an alliance and they cannot be pushed aside.
This whole discussion about the importance of the United States to Australia illustrates one crucial point in the subject matter under discussion i.e. where there is any real challenge of a power conflict; that the US is an ally and one of the most crucial ones at that. Australia would be acting illogically if it simply ended ANZUS.
It needs to work hand in hand to fight external foreign policy issues such as terrorism which tend to target any western nation irrespective of whether it is an ally of the United States or not. Foreign policy makers in Australia are well aware of this fact and it is highly unlikely that they would reverse that trend by now treating a long term ally as a potential threat to Australia. Power conflicts between these two nations should therefore not be looked at in the conventional way (Ryan, 2004).
Brown and Rayner (2001) affirm that Australia is not in a position to go to a major war without the support of the United States. The country’s small military budget is such that it encourages only small interventions without US support. Another dynamic in the US-Australia relationship is the issue of conflicting interests.
At present, Australia is growing more and more reliant on China as a trading and regional partner. In the event of a conflict between the US and China, Australia would be at a pains to decide on which side to take because on one hand, the country would want to secure the economic ties is has forged with the Asian counterpart but it would still want to safeguard the traditional strategic interests that arise out of the US-Australian alliance.
All in all, it may be said that there is a very asymmetrical relationship between the US and Australia; this could be true but is unlikely to cause any power conflicts between the two nations who still need one another. The only thing that Australia can do is to try and reset its national security agenda independent of the US (Oakman, 2010).
China-Australia relations
China is an emerging power and also a member of the Asian Pacific region. It has witnessed radical growth over the past few years and it is likely that the positive economics may continue to be reported even in years to come. Foreign policy in China reflects this interest in trading with the world. In fact, China is one of the most influential partners in the ASEAN forum yet this was not true some three to two decades ago.
Consequently, it may be said that China is seeking to curve out a place for itself in the world. Australia needs to be in a position where it can handle this emergence in the best way possible. So far, it has been doing this by strengthening its relationship with China (Schmulow, 2007). It has strengthened the level of trade as can be depicted by the amount of revenue generated through an exchange of goods and services between these nations.
Furthermore, the strong bilateral links between these nations is what has gotten them to where they are now. News reports often highlight meetings between Chinese nationals and their counterparts from Australia. In the end, it can be said that China is a different sort of ally; its interests do not lie in the political front as is the case with the United States (Wesley, 2007). China does not focus on ideological battles between itself and the world; its attention is dedicated towards exportation and enhancement of trade.
The Australian and Chinese relationship is pegged on the need to deal with global challenges such as environmental emissions. Australia is responsible for just a small portion of emissions that can be found on the earth’s atmosphere.
On the other hand, because of continued investment and production, China is responsible for one of the crucial and fundamental environmental challenges; excessive green gas. Through regional associations and partnerships such as Asia Pacific Partnership in climate and clean development (AP6) group, Australia can contribute towards solving these problems.
In the latter association, Australia has been at the forefront for advocating for application of technology change in the way groups deal with these emissions. It brought together six of the highest global emitters. One can therefore argue that the Chinese Australian relationship is not as one sided as the relationship between Australia and other traditional allies (Keaney & Rubin, 2001).
This is because Australia has produced tangible results designed at making a global impact. In this regard, it is highly unlikely that there can be a power conflict between the two nations.
These countries depend on one another environmentally as well as socially and would therefore be less likely to engage in any dramatic disagreements. In fact, China accounts for over fifty percent of all exports from China while the United States is only responsible for ten percent of the exports that enter Australia. Pursuance of closer ties in this regard need to be inclined more towards the Asian region rather than the US even for practical reasons.
One of the reasons behind this observance lies in the proximity of the Australia and China while other reasons could simply be the foreign policy priorities of China. Nonetheless, one would be better off if one had the ability to deal with these issues through a better perspective than was the case with other nations. Ideological battles are not likely to lead to such developments and the accuracy of such depictions is likely to hold true in the near future as well (McDougal, 2009a).
The middle power concept
It is imperative to acknowledge that Australia has been viewed by many scholars as a middle power democracy. This is highly relevant to the matter under analysis concerning the potential great power conflict. First, it is prudent to look at common understandings of middle powers and how this has been depicted in Australia. Some scholars believe middle powers are ranked by geographical size.
However, this is highly debatable because if that were the case, then some large countries like Russia would be ranked as superpowers. Others argue that the behavioural traits inherent in a particular nation heavily determine whether a country is a middle power or not. Alternatively, some scholars believe that middle powers can actually be witnessed through their ability and willingness to use military powers internationally and also through their economies as well as their diplomatic choices (Hazleton, 2005).
In this regard, countries with middle income economies are likely to pursue middle power diplomacy because their resources require them to do so. The last definition is the most accurate of all the others. Arguably, Australia should be seen as a middle power because of its reluctant to employ military force, it has also been using proactive diplomacies in the past and the country is ranked as being neither too big nor too small (Ungerer, 2007).
On the other hand, a country like the United States is seen as the only current superpower. The military capabilities in the latter nation are unrivalled by any other and the size of its economy backs this up. China on the other hand is not in the same league as the United States militarily; however, its large size and strong economy show that it does have greater international influence than Australia. In other words, both these nations have a higher power ranking than Australia.
Foreign relations experts and policy makers in the country are well aware of this fact. Therefore decisions made on the international level are likely to follow the middle power concept. Taking on a super power like the United States would be deemed as unwise and unproductive for Australia because its capabilities would not allow it. This challenge of power conflict is therefore highly imagined as the two countries are not on the same level.
In the past, Australia has shown a reverence for the use of middle power diplomacy in pursuit of its interest and it is likely that the country will continue with the same in the future. The Australian government has affirmed a commitment to this middle power concept by asserting that partnerships will be the key tools to be used in foreign policy implementations (Australian prime minister, 2009). ASEAN has been an important part of this strategy as well since China is invaluable to Australia (Gyngell & Wesley, 2007).
Furthermore, Australia has shown its commitment to middle power diplomacy by working hand in hand with international bodies like the United Nations. This has been witnessed through its concern for climate change and the Kyoto Protocol. Nonetheless, one should not assume that middle powers are not assertive in pursuit of their interests.
Australia still pursues its national interests but tends to do this creatively and diplomatically. One can therefore say that the likelihood of conflict between Australia and the US or China is unlikely since this would be contrary to the middle power concept.
Globalisation
The concept of globalisation has been a reality even more today than it has been in the past. After the cold war, world markets began embracing free market economics and began understanding that a new global order was emerging.
Some argue that this redefined the relevance of the nations since international systems drove most economies while some argue that globalisation has actually strengthened the position of nations in the international system because they are the key players that influence how budgets are run or how exports are determined (Benvenuti & Jones, 2006). Regardless, of either one of these arguments, it must be accepted that nations in this millennium have become more self reliant.
Partnerships through bilateral trade agreements or mutual cooperation have become very valuable and countries are trying as much as possible not sever these relationships. The Australian government recognises the interdependence of its economical, social, military and environmental machinery with other nation states (COA, 2000). It is therefore unlikely that there would be power conflicts between these very valuable allies (China and the United States) and Australia.
Globalisation would simply not favour this and the democratic space in the modern world is such that it would encourage mutual dependence between these partner states rather than disagreement with them. Australia needs China for future economic growth especially because as of 2007, mining exports to China from Australia accounted for approximately 23 billion dollars worth of revenue.
Dramatic shifts in the relationships between these nations would leave the country vulnerable and prospects for the future would therefore be totally ruined. Therefore, the choices available to Australia are quite limited because every decision made by the latter country in the foreign policy area will be reverberated back home. Globalisation has made countries heavily dependent on one another and this means that every move will have to be made in light of these changes.
Conclusion
Australian foreign policy environment presents it with unique challenges that require creative means to solve them. The country has historically relied on China and the United States for economic and military reasons respectively. Consequently, it is not likely that there will be a conflict between these nations. Furthermore, it is also unlikely that the country would deviate from the tendency to use middle power diplomacy so the challenge of a great power conflict will not be likely.
References
James Cotton and John Ravenhill (2007). eds., Trading on Alliance Security: Australia in World Affairs 2001-2005, South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Derek McDougall. (2009). Australian Foreign Relations: Entering the 21st Century, Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education Australia.
Allan Gyngell and Michael Wesley. (2007). Making Australian Foreign Policy (2nd Edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stewart Firth (2005). Australia in International Politics: An Introduction to Australian Foreign Policy (2nd Edition), St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
McDougall, D. (2009). Foreign policy studies in Australia. Australian Journal of politics and history, 55, 375.
Firth, S. (2002). The Domestic politics of International relations. Contemporary Pacific, 2(14), 478-479.
Rayner, L. & Brown, G. (2001). Upside done: ANZUS after 50 years. Parliamentary library department, 2.
Edwards, P. (2005). Permanent friends? Historical reflections on American Australian Alliance. Sydney: Lowey.
Australian Prime Minister (2009). Its time to build an Asian Pacific Community. Web.
Beeson, M. (2002). Issues in Australian Foreign policy. Australian Journal of politics and history, 4(15), 79.
COA (2000). Our Future defence force, Canberra, 394.
Fullilove, M. (2006). Left has cause to cherish US alliance. The Australian, November 9.
Schmulow, D., Cayley, R. & Shelton, G. (2007). Australian and South African relations in the new millennium. Australian Studies Journal, 4(12), 87.
Fullilove, M. (2007). Still looking to America: US alliance and Labour. Web.
Albinski, H. & Tow, W. (2009). ANZUS: Alive and well. Australian Journal of politics and history, 4(15), 79.
US Studies Center (2007). Australian Attitudes towards the US. Web.
Ryan, A. (2004). The tiger and terrier: Making the most of the US Alliance. Quadarant magazine, 18.
Keaney, T. & Rubin, B. (2001). US allies in a changing world. London: Frank Cass.
Ungerer, C. (2007). The middle power concept in Australian foreign policy. Australian Journal of politics and history, 4(14), 67.
Hazleton, W. (2005). Middle Power Bandwagoning? Australia’s Security Relationship with the United States. Annual International Studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Crawford, R. (2000). Realism, idealism in international relations. London: Routledge.
Benvenuti, J. & Jones, D. (2006). Tradition and the dilemma of the Australian foreign policy. International Affairs Australian journal, 60(1), 103.
Oakman, D. (2010). Seed of freedom . Australian Journal of politics and history, 4(6), 19.
Wesley, M. (2007). The Howard paradox: Australian diplomacy in Asia. Sydney: ABC books.
Kelly, (2004). Punching above our weight. Independent Studies Centre, 20(2), 1-6.