Australia to China: We (may) Choose You

There has been speculation that Australia’utes recent change in prime minister from Tony Abbott to Malcolm Turnbull will mean a shift in Australia’s choice of partners in Asia. The change does not mean that Australia will now ‘choose’ China over the United States. However, it could change what Australia strategies by its ‘choice’ of the United States.

In choosing the United States, Tony Abbott meant American ideals and its powerful military. With regard to Abbott the success and balance of Asia — and in turn Australia’utes success and stability — was due to US economic as well as military power. In his view, the norms, institutions, and niceties of the regional environment were largely a useful fig leaf. Sometimes they helped, but they could never replace the real basis of regional security — United States power.

Abbott concerned that Beijing’s military spending and assertive behaviour had been directly challenging Washington’s military authority. A lacklustre and aloof Whitened House compounded this. As a way to encourage the United States to regain its confidence, Abbott sought to build up Australia’s military capabilities as well as reach out to fellow US allies.

Most notably, preparations were in position for a historic deal to purchase Japanese submarines. There was even mention by loose-lipped Australian and Japoneses officials of the A-word (alliance). That may not have been the direct ambition, but the path towards a common security relationship was definitely an option if the United States didn’t seek to reassert itself in the region.

For the new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, to choose the United States way to embrace American ideas and also the regional order it has helped build in Asia. With regard to Turnbull this order has a value in its own right that is distinct from the specific capabilities of the US government.

In Turnbull’s view, the United States is a vital player in a regional order, as opposed to the sun around which the program revolves. Emerging powers may become threats and challengers, but their growth is not automatically a risk. The more these states embrace the norms of the region, such as free markets and peaceful dispute resolution through the WTO or the UN, the less their development is a concern.

Power still matters to Turnbull. He is fond of quoting Thucydides’ famous Melian dialogue. As he said in a recent interview, ‘the strong do the things they will and the weak suffer as they must … That is what the whole international order is designed to quit — to ensure that there is a rules-based approach to international relations, and it’s necessary for stand up for that’.

Turnbull sees exactly the same concerns about power-based struggles within Asia as his predecessor did — particularly in the South The far east Sea. Both men would agree Thucydides captured the long lasting impulse by strong states to dominate. However, where Tony Abbott believed the only way to react was through deterrence by a stronger state, Australia’s brand new leader seems to believe we are able to overcome this challenge through a wider range of means. With the right institutions, norms and methods of international politics in place, the region can prevent strong states from aggressively pursuing their interests to the hindrance of weaker states. At least curb the worst extravagances of such behaviour.

As prime minister, Turnbull continues to ensure Australia remains a close ally of the United States. Washington’s energy remains the best way to re-enforce and support the system, helping to keep changes within the existing order, rather than against it. However, simply because power and order aren’t synonymous for Turnbull, there are areas where what is good for the US may not be good for the region (which would be an oxymoron in Abbott’s globe).

Therefore, Turnbull will seek to more obviously distinguish American interests through those of Australia and those from the wider region. He is likely to be more welcoming of endeavours such as the Asia Infrastructure Expense Bank, an initiative that split his predecessor’s cupboard in two. Likewise, he will wish to continue to build links along with states who can support the local order, with less regard for whether they are All of us allies. Therefore, New Zealand was Malcolm Turnbull’s first official go to, a country with similar ideas and concerns to Australia, but who famously abandoned the united states alliance in the mid-1980s.

None of this would be to suggest Australia will ever ‘choose’ China over the US. Nevertheless, its change in leadership will change the implication of ‘choosing’ america. According to the former leader Tony a2z Abbott, US power was what mattered. According to the new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, the order the United States built has a value in its own right, one that might still stand, even as US power declines.

Australia has had four prime ministers in the last four years. None has had a substantial impact on the direction associated with national foreign policy. Architectural factors and a heavy bipartisan straightjacket constrain innovation and debate. Nevertheless, the latest change in leadership will suggest a slight re-evaluation of the hierarchy and meaning of key factors within the national policy mix.

This is unlikely to cause much change in the short term. In the medium to long term — should Turnbull last that long — the change may lead Australia towards a more regional and order-centric approach.

Will a Turnbull government mean a new foreign policy for Australia? is republished with authorization from East Asia Forum