SamuraiBlue
Captain
Historically if Hugh White was to take his position during the cold war or eve of WW2 he would have been branded a light headed opportunist at best and traitor at worst case scenario.
Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
SamuraiBlue
Captain
(It seems as if I can't edit my reply above so am adding another post)
Basically just because a trade partner is opposing another trade partner does not mean you have to choose one all the way. That is not how diplomacy works and he should know better being a professor of strategic international relationship.
Basically just because a trade partner is opposing another trade partner does not mean you have to choose one all the way. That is not how diplomacy works and he should know better being a professor of strategic international relationship.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Hugh White is a pro-Australia ex-government official, and I don't take his views as either pro or anti anyone. He looks at the world as it is and not as he wished it was, and he base his strategic thoughts accordingly. If anything, he prefers American primacy over other choices.
I read his book, The China Choice, and it was a refreshing change from the usual neoconservative and liberal imperalists points-of-view among current Beltway Mandarins.
Brumby
Major
Actually it is a false choice dilemma, a fallacious reasoning which unfortunately is frequently used as an argument.
SamuraiBlue
Captain
I understand what you mean but don't understand a professor would use such tactics to convey his argument unless he has some ulterior motives.
Japan has a long history as trade partners with Australia purchasing various natural resources and agricultural products such as alumina, wool, beef, etc.
If I was him I would advocate in developing a steel mill industry in Australia instead of just trying to sell more iron core to PRC. PRC is at the moment trying to shut down some of the excess steel mills and inefficient coal power plants due to over production within the nation so no matter how much you cozy up with them they will tighten up import of iron ores and coal.
On the other hand if Australia is really trying to develop a ship construction industry to compete globally then developing a domestic steel mill makes sense so they do not have to import high quality steel from abroad from the iron ore and coal that they had originally exported.
I'm a little confused here; are you saying that Australia doesn't have to go "all the way" with China, or Japan?
Because reading the article, it seems like Mr White is arguing that Australia definitely should not go "all the way" -- but that he is saying Australia should not go "all the way" with Japan... not China. [edit: I don't think any part of his article also makes any opinion regarding going "all the way" with China or not either -- merely that the relationship with China is an increasingly important one]
That is to say, the underlying point I'm getting is that he believes if Australia makes a submarine deal with Japan, it will mean that Australia will essentially be making a strategic partnership with Japan, and the prospect of any future disagreement between Japan and China if Australia does not side with Japan means Japan may have the ability to with-hold certain capabilities or development or work that Australia needs for their submarines.
Or putting it another way, I think he believes that Australia making a submarine deal with Japan is equivalent to a de facto "all the way" relationship with Japan where Japan may expect Australia to side with them on certain areas of interest.
OTOH, he's saying if Australia buys European, there will be only a very low chance of Australia holding a position in its future strategic affairs that may cause Europe (whether its Germany or France) to with-hold the necessary work or development of the submarines.
Personally I think it is a little doubtful if Japan would eventually do anything to suspend work or development on the submarines, even if Australia didn't support Japan in a future hypothetical Japan-China disagreement... but the sheer size of the Australia-China economic relationship means considering the risks and benefits of each choice is prudent.
Last edited:
SamuraiBlue
Captain
The items Australia exports are all natural resources meaning any nation would requires them and will fill the void.
On the otherhand I doubt PRC will find another single source to fill the gap if PRC were to sever relationship with Australia.
On the otherhand I doubt PRC will find another single source to fill the gap if PRC were to sever relationship with Australia.
Brumby
Major
I think the main criticism of Hugh White's argument is in the false choices of either or rather than shades of relationship as often reflected in complex geopolitical structures.
I don't think that's how the market would work -- if trade relations between China and Australia were cut off, Australia would have to offload excess capacity (and it would likely cause substantially lowered prices of the rest of its other similar natural exports as well), whereas China would go hunting for natural resources elsewhere.
It would obviously hurt both sides of the economic relationship, but who it hurts more is another question -- i.e.: how much of China's natural resource demand is filled by Australian imports (and how much of those Australian imports could be replaced by imports from elsewhere), and how much of Australia's GDP is dependent on exports to China (and how much of Australia's exports to China could be offloaded elsewhere with acceptable degradations in GDP)
But even ignoring the issue of "who would be hurt more" if the trade relationship between Australia and China were cut off, I think it is quite indisputable that China is without a doubt Australia's largest trading partner, and thus Australia should be interested in handling its affairs with China carefully, including whether it wants to get into a strategic partnership with a nation that may have a chance of entering in a state of confrontation with China.
====
I see, but in the article about the submarines, is he not making an argument that is essentially touting the importance of the complex geopolitics in the region and arguing against Australia making what he believes is an "either or rather" choice?
That is to say, he's arguing that a submarine deal with Japan would be making an "either or rather" decision to strategically ally with Japan and would thus put Australia up against China if Japan and China came to disagreement (given the belief that Japan's willingness to share its sub tech is dependent on an Australian strategic partnership).
Thus he's against making a deal that would essentially tie Australia with another nation in a strategic manner -- and that it would be safer in a geopolitical sense to go for a European sub which allows Australia to keep its strategic choices more open to respond to the complex geopolitical structures in the region?
Or if I had to simplify this, I think he's saying:
Japanese sub choice: results in inevitable degradation of Australia's relationship with China while increasing Australia's relationship with Japan, if Japan and China come into conflict. If Australia does not degrade its relationship with China and support Japan, it risks hindering its submarine programme.
European sub choice: results in an ability for Australia to choose to maintain or degrade its relationship with China, and to control its degree of cooperation with Japan, if Japan and China come into conflict. In this case, whatever choice Australia makes with its relationship with both China and Japan, its submarine programme should not be affected.
Brumby
Major
That is exactly the criticism of Hugh White which you are reinforcing and that is a decision to go with Japan is an either or choice. On the contrary, cogent arguments can be made that such a pathway does not necessarily result in such a skewed outcome for Australia. There will obviously be ebb and flow in relationships in any decision but that has always been the case at least in modern geopolitical relationships.
- Status