Introduction
The aim of this essay is to determine the rise of China as a major in the Pacific and the analytical content in its military, economic and trade behavior, inevitably captured in the global scale. The research examines the tension that is increasingly attributed to the Sino US relations on Australia’s strategic environment. The study go beyond the analysis of the stress factors that are attributed to Australia’s international partnering concepts and the changes experienced through the decade in its underlying relations with both the US and China. In this scale of analysis, the longer measures in the broader market, including evidenced findings of the bilateral collaborations, greater business enlargement and significant progress in Australia’s policy and economic dynamics are functionally examined. This essay returns to examine the relevance of United States in Australia’s economic development and utilize the risk-adjusted performance measures developed by Hugh White and Paul to factor possible cooperation relationship between the two powers in simultaneous context. This study includes the significant interpretive benefits preserved by Australia in its attempt to have its interests preserved. The US Sino relationship and the fundamental global economic variances are examined to enhance their apparent commitment to positive developments. Their cooperation in various economic strands including combating climatic change, strengthening cleaning energy technologies and strengthening significant freedom of expression are held as per their compliance agreements.
The superpower theory and its contextual relevance in Hugh White and Paul Dibb demonstrate its significance in a wide scope with critical justification of their relevance in the construction of paradigm of power. With regards to this discourse, we acknowledge implicitly that the appropriation of these theoretical viewpoints is greatly focused on idealism and forces of dominance in the global perspective. White (2010) analysis in Power Shift: Australia’s Future between Washington and Beijing, explore the dynamics of China’s rise and which Dibb disputes with a major argument on this analysis and is based on point of power factor and its level of conflict and nuclear war. The attributes by White are synonymous to dangers of conflict and competition which according to him could be the hallmarked factors for confrontation and military conflict. The sense of this theory in Dibb is that during the Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were not basically aided because both sides had relevant information about the war and its impact. In Dibb’s projection, White had a one-sided definition of military incident which happened in South China Sea where China’s aggression in Guam could only inflate war emotions and that the US would not retaliate. While disputing this position, Dibb indicated that US’s military power in this region is in the range of 5000 strategic weapons and it would, in logistical criteria be impossible for United States to back down in a case of an invasion of its territory. On the basis of US and China sharing equal front’s Dibb argues that White’s key platform for this point of reference is simply a form of war creation, and unrealistic strategic space for a preemptive war. White (2010) experimentally indicated that China’s aggressive posture could be a factor beholding its stand in the global perspective, and in Dibb’s position, China’s strategic space is small and actually limited by its core advancement in technology.
The Kennedy's Seven Dimensions of State Power
The changing relevance of power and the unparalleled ability of the US to exert its superpower perception on a wide range of internationally aligned concept and relative power projection on a global scale. In the changing level of political development, the American hegemony is developed within the framework of power rationalization, but its systemic backyard envisions a high level of economic, political and military manifestation. The empirical classification is hence mathematically determined and focused between the US and its relative level of dominance. The ultimate factor that was controversially factored and which had a centered debate was the universality of its unmatched supremacy in terms of power, geography, population dynamics and its world order illusion. In the opinion fostered by Kitney, (2011) the dimensions of power are potentially exhibited by the economic, geographical and political elements which the modification of their relevance present a critical path in ideological perspective. The United States position is enacted proportionally in the changing context of its powerful images across the globe, but equally within its individual power establishment, the country has a more dynamic history which supersedes the rise of China’s adamantly reflective position. While the underpinning factors establish a more generated path in China’s evolution, the fundamental aspect that is radically explored rudimentarily is done within a sensible angle of the theory of superpower. In order to generate a greater debate, GAO, (2006) and Wallace, (2010) indicate that international relations are directly connected to the historical impact of China’s rise and the US demonstrated influence of the Pacific. The progressive theory then establishes the critical component that would be realistically influential. The uncompromising position of China’s policy only distances it from the world powers and especially to the US without which their interests could be aligned towards getting an impressive steadiness in its quest for a powerful position globally.
Australia provides a strategic which is intertwined by its political nemesis and that is a significant lead to more realistic power redistribution across the globe. Australian focus is hence measured through its comparative strength which reflects on the 1990s China’s levels of economic construction. Australia’s neutrality and the key flow scale could be a key measure for enhance its global attention, (Burrell, 2011; Wallace, (2010). Australia’s response factor could be a gateway to a leveled environment which would head a greater attention and fair bargaining from its warring superpowers. According to Nathan and Scobell, (2012) the important contributions which remain virtually reflective should enable Australia to metrically generate policies towards China on one aspect and towards the US on another.
Strategic strengths and weaknesses of the US and China
The United States and China relations is based on a wide range of issues and the context of the strategic inclusion of the business ties in their development clout only implies that their development paradigms are affected by their individual behavioral responses. China’s role in world affairs is relevant to the development process of policies and models of stability across the globe. The projections established in the greater levels of China’s re-emergence define the impact of conflict in a weaker scale, including the relevance of peaceful developments between the US and China. The US –China military ties is based on the broader context of a prosperous, tangible and policy rebalancing. This trend in China’s economic rise has generally created tension in terms of bilateral investments, mutual work strategies and improved infrastructural developments.
The US-China sector has become a mature, sophisticated, highly successful indirect financial investment vehicle with significant commercial property assets in both countries. Dibb (2011) ranks US as having the most transparent trading market in the world and the US-China bilateral relationships are an important ingredient to achieving this high level of economic balance. Irvine (2013) report on the erosion of the defensive characteristics of the US assertion against the wider global market, pointing out that the newly developed attributes of China along with the accompaniment of significant diversification advantages had been a major driver in the popularity and growth of investment into the Asian environment in the last decade. The major structural changes have been well-grounded US-China literature within the scope of the bureaucratic developments era, and there exists a substantial amount of evidence that these changes have ultimately developed to alter the fundamental risk profile of their economic relationships. The Global Financial Crises was the catalyst by which these changes were exposed for their impacts and the standing of China-US relationship on the investment stage and this has changed dramatically ever since.
However, despite this remarkable relationship, Kennedy, (1987) suggested that China’s rise is only threatening to worsen its economic potential and this is especially due to the US emerging partners in Asia including South Korea and Australia. The volatility of the issue regarding Taiwan has seen the United States policy shift dramatically and the economic anchor that is precipitated relevantly in this context exhibit a greater build-up of constructive defense cooperation. According to Leonard, (2013) the convergence of the methods initiated in order to provide a significant measure to combat their power struggle was pressed by the rivalry factor, and China’s rise equally marked by conflicts of commitment to newer levels of relationships. The resurgence of the Chinese elites in the growing domination in the Pacific and the greater impact established indicate that the levels of relationship established between itself and the US do not provide the agreeable concept relative to the restrictive policies it establishes within its levels of operations. Despite the wider prospects by the US to share important goals with China, general principles were only made and to objectively define a scope relevant to the security mechanisms established in a background operational setting. According to Liu and Renn (2014) the strong differences that are exhibited by the two countries only generate concerns about the valuable levels of Chinese actors. The principle contributions to their involvement in cyber terrorism controls were cited by Leonard, (2013) and Mearsheimer, (2012) as the elements that distort the US-China terrorism disunity. By allowing their mergers in security monitoring across the globe, Johnston, (2013) indicated that there is comparative assertiveness which China portrays in order to create commitments in their new model of relationship which was reoriented on the basis of the growing divergence in logistical differences. In the Obama regime, Nathan and Scobell, (2012) argue that the integrity of the United States is longstanding on the terms that are reconcilable with the Chinese government. The core security matrix in the Asian Pacific was significantly sustained within the measurable levels of key functional compositions. In this context, China’s capability has been made to be a key factor in providing peace and stability with its power being significantly utilized across the region.
The notion of informational efficient technologies leads to a powerful transformation of the Sino-US relationships and which were recreated in a more divergent system. On the basis of the global process, the considerable levels include the US security treaties and important US-Taiwan Relations Act, which formed a more generative principle as a core technique required in proportionally guided mechanism (Hale, 2014).
The experience of China and the United States regarding the political transition has allowed the leadership in both countries to place emphasis on the relations that are bilateral. These are free from any domestic political campaign in the form of pressure although the bilateral domestic politics of such bilateral relations within each country entail the structural tension between the powers in establishment. This in addition the challenger that is perceived to be rising which has led the U.S government to take new measure of assertion mainly in Asian and China so as to establish a form of its influence in the region (Leonard, 2013; Lovelle, 2013). As such the relationship between the United States and China are likely to be lowered in stability with increased possibility of conflict unless both nations can accept a sort of modus Vivendi to maintain peace in Asia. In this case the challenge arises when this form of entente holds the possible requirement of the nature of political change within China as well as its leadership. This with the held determination of blocking any fears in the form of threats posed to the legitimacy of these nations. In addition the reverberation of the relations lies in the likelihood of conflict as held in the risks that are downside for both nations with the impact being felt beyond the Asian borders (White, 2010a, 2012).
Australian implications in its future strategies
Australia has long assumed the middle man position in regard to maintaining political stability in the Asian with a background of historical claims to makers of policy dating back to the 1940S. However, with recent time several studies have provided a description of Australia as a sort of "middle" power which presents the question of the basis of such a judgment. This will further place consideration on the role of Australia in this position following such a judgment. As such in order to gain an understanding of this predicament we can approach this matter in three contexts of the definition of middle powers. This followed by the application of such a definition to Australia in addition to examination of each approach and its associated implications to any "middle" powers within the region. In this case predictive and analytical resources that will specifically provide a definition that aims to create an improved perception of Australia. In any case if Australia is defined as a middle power then this will create an increased contention in the form of a debate in the literature field on the most appropriate approach (Khong, 2014).
China has registered a remarkably overwhelming penetration into the Australia’s investment sector with a growth factor of $120 billion worth of investment by 2012. However, in 1972, the total investment made by China was only $100m and in both Hale, (2014) and Dibb, (2013) China’s investment landscape in Australia has been fostered by its economic capacity, including a new wave of investment reorientation.
The theoretical perspectives of a modeling structure that reflect US relationship with Australia in terms of economic growth exhibit a stronger potential, remarkably based on a changing shift in the leverage established within the construct of changing relevance of the US in influencing the Australian GDP.
Military Challenges
According to Irvine, Lee (2013) and Mearsheimer, (2012) China understands the complications that are structurally reoriented on the basis of its military power within the Pacific region and on the global scale. In this context, major attention is determined proportionally within its own Aspirations, including the long-term relations with the United States. The placement factor which Sino-US relations determine is arbitrarily based on trust and the nature of Australia’s strategic environment. This is ultimately determined within the porous borderlines within which Johnson, (2013) indicate as a major proactive factor in this trade arrangement. The scope of US military power and its significant technological inclusion imply that the middle power factor and the entire attribute is comprehensively in a critical point between the US and China. The aspects relevant to the military outlook of China and a leverage to have a key influence in this region only generate a high level of mistrust. China’s key role requires a cautious approach which the administration in Beijing will critically consider for its further participation in the region as a regional power. Japan’s power is equally on a greater scale but its link with powerful forces including the US is less significant. Ultimately, the line of thought in the China’s military capabilities is importantly examined on the basis of its technologies and innovative approaches (Khong, 2014; Gupta, 2013). Ultimately, US military dominance and its sparingly different political and operational outlook give Australia a major test in its relationship with the US. The accommodative principle which China seeks to exert in order to attain a robust influence is the link between itself and the United States in terms of military operations and installations in the Pacific, (Liu and Ren, 2014). The important note which is largely significant is the Australia’s engagement with the United States in its military upgrades, training and the favorable democratic policies that enhance a buildup of its military power, (Sanders, 2013).
China’s rise coinciding with an eminent loss of United States’ strategic stronghold in the Asia Pacific and this has put Australia in a greater dilemma. This perspective is government by the China’s insistence on Taiwan’s independence case. The threat viewed by the United States portrays China as being incisive and which in the last two decades has only escalated tension in the region, (Lee, 2013).
The challenge posed by China to the overall economic structure is its changing leadership role including the militarization of its borders as well as its coherent move to deter other countries from impracticably influencing the region, Johnson, 2013). This is against the backdrop of the United States reversed influence in the Pacific. Further, possible influence by the US in the Australian Peninsula is specified by the military training and base operations that critically beef up the US capability to monitor security threats across this region (Sino-Australian relations. 2011). Regional instability is most likely to unfold with the increasing economic and military power in China. This has contributed to an escalation of tension and equally straining its relationship with the United States. Australia, given its strategic location will be in a position to protect its core value and be able to drive change and facilitate a more favorable position which hence depicts a greater resilience in its policy relations with both United States and China. The measure is drawn from the fact that Australia possesses reasonable capacity both militarily and economically to enhance what it values most strategically.
The military capacity may not be sufficient enough to equally challenge the might of a superpower militarily, but it posses the ability to significantly hike the costs involved and serve a deterrent to attacks. This is highlighted by a natural setup of Australia geographically and additionally, its military spending in 2013 amounted to $45b, representing an increase of 9.2% up from 7.7% in 2012. This is based on the country’s military capacity and the ability to make a more secured military buildup in the region. Owing to this, Australia finds that it is militarily secure and optimally within a more significant position in the Pacific (Khong, 2014).
Australia can still take advantage of her status as power to change the course of the established order between the major regional players and ensure that it is relied in changing the dimension of the relationship between the United States and China (Lee, 2013). Australians record speaks volumes for its self in relation to an impact on international order given its well formalized and informal structures including culture, norms and power balances. Australia’s strategic standing has continued to give it a global recognition for assuming a unique role in policy reformation regarding Proliferation Security Initiative putting it in a very formidable position to counter any of unrealistic forces as a result of an arms race between the United States and China (Lee, 2013). However it should be noted that Australian strategic position will be strongly compromised should there be a breakage in the system that limits Australia’s capacity to, influence fundamental aspects of the regional system (Dibb, 2008). This is very possible as a result of the pressure posed by a strong and formidable challenge posed by China to united state’s bilateral co operations with Australia (Leonard, 2013). The process can easily eliminate Australia from its status as a middle player something that calls for Australia to continue enhancing its capacity militarily, economically and socially (Damon 2011).
Cultural ties
Cultural affinity between the United States and Australia has been both ideal and significantly important because the democratic processes in Australia are the core facets of her growth establishment, (Scobbel and Harold, 2013). The deepening divisions in view of China’s rigid position on human rights and a move backwards in various factors such as democratic values make it unfavorable for better link with Australia. According to White, (2010a. 2012) and Yuan (2014) genuine democratization and the pursuit for significant recognition of values generate a more broader outburst between China and Australia. Despite the increasing trade ties in Sino-Australia relationship, there are significant views on China’s moral values and there are factors ranging from abortion, childbirth rights and work factors that illegitimate China’s attempt to influence Australia, (Twining, 2013). Ultimately, in the Sino-US relations, the political leverages examined and seen in multiple dimensions also generate a shift in the Asian-Pacific region. Turner, (2014) acknowledges that Washington’s strong advocacy for better values is symbolically significant to Australia’s institutional framework. The regionalism concept involves a more dynamic reference landscape that Irvine, Gupta, Dibb (2013) all explore as the major mechanisms for expanding the role of the US in the Australian Peninsula. This critically imply that the judgmental levels attained by the US’s idea establishes an instrumental level for building its regional influence in Australia.
Conclusion
Hale (2014) explains the initial factors aiding Australia’s relations with the United States and China. The economic proponents demonstrate the foreign influence imbalances within its economy and in excessive view, the demonstration excessive role that the two countries exert. This vulnerability, according to Irvine (2013) is heightened by speculative dilemmas of existing economic imbalance that viewable economic models cannot adequately decompose. The provisional generation of monetary values in a counter balance scenario stipulates the existence of equilibrium uplift within the Pacific region. The generational disequilibrium factor enlightens the shifted focus on research work of Hale (2013) and this demonstrated important factors about Australia’s benefits and how it relates directly to both the US and China. In references of its policy regulatory concerns, Australia’s assertiveness presents a more permeable approach that distinctly enables it to present itself on the basis of a greater balance in both the bilateral leverages and the military factors. Australia is hence able to have a closer link with the two countries and hence generating a notable step towards assuming a more contained process of expanding the economic relationship between Australia and the US on one aspect and between Australia and China on another aspect, comprehensively meeting its general objectives and affirming its powerful strength in the region.
References
- Downer, Alexander (2002). "Australia and Recognition of the People's Republic of China: 1949-1972". Australian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 4 July 2012.
- Wu, C. (13 April 2006). Let us work to bolster Sino-Australian ties. China Daily, pp. 4-4. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/257871268?accountid=12629
- Sino-Australian relations. (2011). Engineering and Mining Journal, (00958948), 59-62, 64. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/900577689?accountid=12629
- GAO, J. (2006). Organized international asylum-seeker networks: Formation and utilization by Chinese Students1. The International Migration Review, 40(2), 294-317. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215272872?accountid=12629
- Philipp, Ivanov, (2011). "Australia and China's higher education revolution".
- Rick, Wallace, (2010). "Japanese investment in Australia slips under the radar". The Australian.
- Damon, Kitney, (2011). "Foreign investment must be win-win: Gary Gray". The Australian.
- John, Brumby, (2011). "Chinese investment an opportunity, not a threat". The Australian.
- Andrew Burrell (2011). "Barnett's 'mixed signals' on Chinese investment". The Australian.
- Dellios, R. (2013).'The China choice: Why America should share power', Australian Journal of International Affairs, vol 67, no 3,pp 374-5.
- Dibb, P. (2006). Essays on Australian Defence, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, The Australian National University, Canberra.
- Dibb, P .(2008). The future balance of power in East Asia: What are the geopolitical risks?, Strategic & Defence Studies Centre.
- Dibb, P. (2011). 'Paul Dibb: The rise of China and the inevitable decline of America', ANUChannel, Video lecture, YouTube.com, <http://youtu.be/Ts04-23URYA%3E.
- Dibb, (2013). 'Paul Dibb: What are the risks of war between China and the US?', ANUChannel, Video lecture, YouTube.com, <http://youtu.be/YsrzvkG5_KI%3E.
- Gupta, A. (2013). 'Australia in the Asian Century: Australian Government's White Paper, strong and secure: A strategy for Australia's National Security', Strategic Analysis, vol 37, no 4,pp 505-9.
- Hale, D.D. (2014). China's new dream: How will Australia and the world cope with teh re-emergence of China as a great power?, vol Feb 14, The Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited, Barton.
- He, L.L. & Sappideen, R. (2013). 'Free trade agreements and the US-China-Australia relationship in the Asia-Pacific region', Asia Pacific Law Review, vol 21, no 1,pp 55-76.
- Irvine, R. (2013). 'Getting Back on Track: China, the United States, and Asia-Pacific security, ' American Foreign Policy Interests: The Journal of the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, vol 35, no 3,pp 137-47.
- Johnston,AI, (2013). 'How new and assertive is China's new assertiveness?', International Security, vol 37, no 4,pp 7-48.
- .Khong, Y.F. (2014). 'Primacy or world order?: The United States and China’s rise—A review essay', International Security, vol 38, no 3,pp 153-75.
- Lee, J. (2013). 'Australia’s 2015 Defence White Paper: Seeking strategic opportunities in Southeast Asia to help manage China’s peaceful rise', Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol 35, no 3,pp 395-422.
- Leonard, M. (2013). 'Why convergence breeds conflict: growing more similar will push China and the United States apart', Foreign Affairs, vol 92, no 5,p Web.
- Liu, Y. & Ren, J.Z. (2014). 'An emerging consensus on the US threat: the United States according to PLA officers', Journal of Contemporary China, vol 23, no 86,pp 255-74.
- Lovell, D. (2013). Asia-Pacific security: policy challenges, ANU E Press, Canberra.
- Mearsheimer, J. (2012). 'Why China cannot rise peacefully', in U o Ottawa (ed)Online Lecture, YouTube.com, <http://youtu.be/CXov7MkgPB4%3E.
- Nathan, A.J. & Scobell, A. (2012). 'How China sees America: the sum of Beijing's fears', Foreign Affairs, vol 91, no 5.
- Sanders, R.(2013). 'The Commonwealth and China: upholding values, containing the Dragon?', The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs, vol 102, no 3,pp 223-34.
- Scobell, A. & Harold, S.W. (2013). 'An “assertive” China? Insights from interviews', Asian Security, vol 9, no 2,pp 111-31.
- Strahan, L 2014, 'Australia's Asia: From Yellow Peril to Asian Century', Journal of Australian Studies, vol 38, no 1,pp 34-135.
- Turner, O 2014, 'Knowledge, desire, and power in global politics: Western representations of China's rise', Global Change, Peace & Security: formerly Pacifica Review: Peace, Security & Global Change, vol 26, no 1,pp 121-3.
- Twining, D 2013, 'The future of US–China relations: from conflict to concert', The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, vol 48, no 2,pp 12-6.
- Tylera, MC & Pahlowa, E 2014, 'Australia on the UN Security Council 2013–14: A voice for small and medium countries?', The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs, vol 103, no 1,pp 95-108.
