Robert Oppenheimer, known as the “father of the atomic bomb”, famously quoted the Hindu text the Bhagavad-Gita: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
Oppenheimer knew he had unleashed a weapon that could destroy humanity itself.
Australia has now crossed that threshold into the nuclear world. We won’t be deploying nuclear weapons, but we will be operating nuclear-powered vessels of war.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said we have entered a new era. He’s right. We will now join only six other nations with nuclear-powered submarines.
The battle lines for security in the Indo-Pacific are being clearly drawn. On one side is the US and its allies, on the other China. Australia no longer pretends it doesn’t have to choose between Washington and Beijing. We are all in with the US, and the risk is a catastrophic conflict. In fact, we are preparing for it.
Time for an independent path?
The US alliance has been the bedrock of Australia’s security. But is that still the case? Former prime minister Paul Keating doesn’t think so.
Reacting to the submarine announcement, Keating said it was a “further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty”. The US couldn’t beat the Taliban, he said — how could it win a war with China?
Keating asked if it is time Australia pursued an independent path.
Supplied: Australian Government
)
It is a critical question as the world ponders the durability of America. Not for nothing has this been dubbed the “post-American world”.
America does not drive the global economy, China does. China will usurp the US outright as the world’s biggest economy by the end of the decade.
Yes, America is still the most powerful military and outspends China on defence. But Beijing is preparing for a different war — a regional conflict that China believes it could fight and win. It has a strategy to neutralise US sea power and drag America into a fight on China’s terms and territory.
The other players
It isn’t just China. Russia retains the second biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet. Along with China, Washington nominates Moscow as its biggest security threat.
Russia and China have drawn closer. And President Vladimir Putin has reasserted Russian power on his borders and into the Middle East.
AP: Sergei Ilyin
)
Despite bolstering the so-called Quad — America, Australia, Japan and India — pushing back against China’s regional ambitions, Japan and India are still hedging. India remains close to Russia, Prime Minister Narendra Modhi talks about their “enduring partnership”.
Russia has traditionally been India’s biggest weapons supplier. Apart from the Quad, India and Japan have pursued a “trilateral” relationship with Russia.
Nations will pursue their interests in their own ways. Old-style Cold War blocs don’t fit so comfortably into a multipolar world.
China and Russia have conducted joint military exercises with Iran. China has close ties with North Korea and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed nations.
In Europe, nations are adopting a more selective and cautious approach to China. The European Union seeks to be what’s been described as a “third pillar” in the world, offsetting the US-China rivalry.
The think tank Chatham House, in a report earlier this year, said: “While the Biden administration has signalled it is keen to work with allies in ‘dealing’ with China, the EU has demonstrated a limited willingness to do so.”
There are obvious economic reasons. China has now overtaken the US as the EU’s biggest trade partner.
Chatham House said the EU is pursuing a risky and unattainable strategy leaving European nations vulnerable to both US and Chinese pressure. Still, it underlines the challenges of any US coordinated push back against China.
The challenge of a global power
Isolating or containing China is going to be much more problematic than it was with the former Soviet Union. Talk of a Cold War 2.0 is off the mark. Beijing is much more entwined with a globalised world than was Moscow.
The bamboo curtain is less clearly defined than the old iron curtain. And China is extending its economic and investment reach through the Belt and Road Initiative — a 21st century “new Silk Road” spanning seventy countries. It has been estimated to boost global GDP by more than $7 trillion dollars a year by 2040.
China is a global power. It is not rising, it has arrived. It is one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council, a member of the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, and a signatory to international covenants.
China is right to point out that the institutions of a global order don’t reflect the shifts in global power. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund, for example, are helmed by the US and Europe.
China is a great power and demands to be treated as such. It is not a democracy but that doesn’t mean its rise is not legitimate. So, what do we do about it?
Some argue that the world should accommodate Beijing. But that risks overlooking the excesses of Xi Jinping’s China — violations against ethnic minorities, a crackdown on dissent and democracy.
There is a tendency to see a moral equivalence between a US-led world and a world dominated by China. There isn’t. China is hardly a champion of human rights. The world would not look to China to safeguard the rights of women in Afghanistan.
Beijing has shown it will use its power — especially in trade — to bully other nations to its will. Authoritarian China presents a clear challenge, even threat, to liberal democratic values. A China-dominated world is a very different world from the one we have known since the end of World War II.
A flawed superpower
America is a flawed superpower; its actions, its interventions, and its military adventurism have not always reflected a nation that proclaims itself a beacon of democracy. But it is also a country where the people can elect their leaders. It is the nation the world looks to in times of crisis.
The question now: can America expect to lead a world it no longer dominates?
American power may be a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem.
The stakes for Australia are high. We live in a region with old enmities, nuclear-armed states, territorial disputes. An accident or miscalculation could rapidly escalate. And it is a region where China seeks to be the preponderant power.
Then there is Xi. He is an X-factor. Taken at his word, he is prepared to go to war to reunify Taiwan with China mainland. He has ignored International rulings and claimed and militarised disputed islands in the South China Sea.
He is brutal at home yet talks about peace and stability abroad. He has declared himself a president for life. Our security is tied to a man who talks of war and whom the Chinese people cannot remove.
Can we go it alone? No. It doesn’t mean we abdicate our sovereignty. But it does underline our dependence. At a time when other nations are hedging their bets we are doubling down on America.
We can only hope the threat of war is enough to deter war. If not, then Oppenheimer told us where that ends.
Stan Grant presents China Tonight on Monday at 9.35pm on ABC TV, and Tuesday at 8pm on ABC News Channel.
from WordPress https://ift.tt/3lBYpjF
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment