The government is correct to raise concerns about China’s attempts to extend its control of the South China Sea via land reclamation projects. Without explicitly blaming China, Defence Minister Kevin Andrews said yesterday:
“Australia has made clear its opposition to any coercive or unilateral actions to change the status quo in the South or East China Sea. This includes any large-scale land reclamation activity by claimants in the South China Sea, and we are particularly concerned at the prospect of militarisation of artificial structures.”
This is exactly what China is engaged in, in an attempt to give itself an advantage in this disputed area.
Australia’s long-standing position is that we take no sides in the dispute, but support a peaceful resolution and not unilateral action. A number of countries have unilaterally established artificial structures in the region, but China’s activities in turning reefs and atolls into artificial islands and then militarising them dwarfs the activities of other countries and threatens the chances of a peaceful resolution. It also offers enormous potential for instability and, perhaps, armed conflict.
The United States has directly criticised China’s activities and warned it will continue to assert its freedoms of navigation and flight in the region. In Andrews’ pointed remarks, the government is endorsing US concerns, a risky stance for a country that depends so heavily on its exports to China for its economic success. Nonetheless, the government has made the correct call: China’s activities pose a threat to Australia’s economic security because of its potential for regional instability. Some commentators talk of China requiring Australia to choose between its economic and its military interests. In the South China Sea, the choice is straightforward: China’s unilateral behaviour is a threat to both.
A typically one sided view. Why not mention the fact that the US bleats about maritime law, yet refuses to ratify the Convention on Maritime issues. Or that the US has ringed China with military bases and regularly threatens to use force. Or that the South China Sea is a legitimate sphere of influence for China, which is more than one can say for the US. What do you suppose the American response would be if China had military bases on the Canadian and Mexican borders, and conducted exercises in the Gulf of Mexico? How many military bases does China have overseas? None. How many does the US have? More than 1000. The issues here are a great deal more complex than your simple minded chest thumping would allow. Try not to so reflexively echo the US position.
I’m absolutely chuffed and so pleased that our bestest friendly US friends don’t have military bases at Guam, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, and is not creating a greater military presence in Australia.
China is just protecting itself against a Ukraine development in its backyard. As the rhetoric ramps up and attempts to isolate China become more evident a lot of neighbouring nations may realise that the endgame maybe all out war. i don’t think they will be too keen on that. Incidentally the endgame of the TPP is a wedge to China and the last time that was enacted (ie with Japan) we got WWII – so hang onto your hat.The parallels are eerie.
I don’t think Australian’s realise that China is busy building an alternative supplier for its raw materials as we move toward betting all our chips on the military option. I am not sure Australian businesses would be as keen on that as certain Gung Ho members of the current ruling faction.
WE have a positive trade balance with China and a negative trade balance with the US. China is our major export market and we are definitely not theirs. Our relationship with China is more than double Japan our next largest.
We need to be extremely cautious about how we respond.