Australia and China's Complex Relations in the 21st Century

This briefing paper will view the current China- Australia relationship through a Realism lens to provide a conceptual framework to comprehend the current dynamics between the two. The realism perspective explains how power dynamics, national interests and self-preservation underpin their historical and current tensions (Devetak et al., 2022). Upon assessing their interactions, it becomes evident that the existing relationship carries inherent difficulties. Theoretically applying Neoliberalism Institutionalisation may be the framework to adapt to mend their relationship. In an idealistic scenario, the adoption of a Neoliberal Institutionalism approach could potentially yield a more robust rapport between the two. By embracing the utilisation of international institutions as intermediaries for cooperation, both China and Australia, recognised as formidable global entities, stand to discover common ground aligned with their respective national agendas.

Key Points:

· Since 1972, the Whitlam government in Australia was one of the first Western Countries to recognise the People’s Republic of China as a formal government body.

· With China’s unforeseen rise in power and trade capabilities it saw a mutually beneficial relationship between Australia- China.

· The relationship between the two in recent history has fluctuated considerably, with power struggles, security dilemmas and national interest taking the lead in causing the disturbances within the relationship from both parties.

· The International Relations theory of Realism was adopted to help explain the reason behind the actions that China and Australia are engaging in.

· Ultimately all actions that Australia and China are committing to are caused by not having an adequate central governmental body to regulate tensions between the two. Ultimately they implement foreign policy pertaining to each other to maintain their security, power and self-interest.

· If the two nations were to engage in a Neoliberalism Institutionalism utilisation could ultimately strengthen their tarnished relationship.

· Utilising international organisations such as the G20 offers a positive pathway for the two countries.

· Economic interdependence is vital, but must be monitored and regulated to ensure successful adaptation.

· Establishing effective and realistic norms for complex relationships can help repair the relationship.

A historical perspective on the Australia- China’s Relationship

To understand the current relations between Australia and China, it is important to reflect on the recent history. The relationship between Australia and China has experienced fluctuations in the past five decades. In 1972, the Whitlam government was one of the first to recognise the People’s Republic of China as a formal government, consequently meaning that Australia were one of the first countries in the west to do so. From there, in 1978 under Deng Xiaoping economic reforms it resulted in not only Australia, but many other countries beginning to engage in trade and investment opportunities with China (Mackerras, 2014). A decade on, the devastating Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 strained ties, prompting Australia to offer visas to students, subsequently being a significant contributor to the largest migration of the Chinese to Australia since the gold rush. Despite this challenge among other misdemeanours, China’s rise was still boosting trade, with China becoming Australia’s top trading partner for Iron Ore, natural gases and gold (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, 2023). In recent history, the relationship has encountered various challenges, some of which are related to cyber security breaches, Australia’s private investigation into the origin of Covid- 19 and foreign interference laws (Crowe, 2022). A combination of power struggles, distrust, and self-interest being the main reasons to why there is tension between the two nations.

Understanding Realism and its application to the Australia – China Relationship

Reflecting upon the above history, it can be concluded that Realism is the most accurate theoretical framework to explain their relationship. Realism is a popular theoretical perspective in international relations that provides an explanation of how nations interact within the global arena (Donelly, 2022). It is based on the premise that the international system functions without an effective central governing authority and exists in a state of anarchy, further, countries actions are compelled by a desire to ensure their survival and security (Devetak et al., 2022). Realism persists in those states that operate in an environment tarnished by anarchy, consequently meaning that they need to rely on their own capabilities to navigate and survive. Self-interest is a primary motivator for states, which is associated with maximising their security and power relative to other states (Makkeras, 2014). Many states will engage in constructing complex and powerful military forces, accumulating resources, and forming alliances. The way power is distributed among states is the core dictation of the behaviour that is displayed within Realism theory (Devetak et al., 2022). Players will create alliances with countries to ensure that absolute power is not granted to one nation (Liu, 2023). Finally, realism touches on the security dilemma, whereby states increasing their self-interest through acquiring an increased military capability it generally is interpreted as a threat to others, resulting in escalated tensions.

Now to put this in the context of the Australia- China relationship, several key aspects come into play. National interest and security concerns sit front row, as realism suggests that Australia and China prioritise safeguarding their own security. Australia gained its apprehensions towards China from the unforeseen rise in regional power that they have experienced, the fear of the unknown and the capability they inherently possess poses a great perceived threat to Australia(GIS Reports, 2022). Whereas in Chinas perspective Australia has aligned with the United States of America (USA) to prevent their expansion, influence and threat which is inherently a ‘soft’ attack as it is in the absence of direct military confrontation, but the USA and Australia are still taking a stand against them to minimise their power. The concept of the balance of power holds significance within this theory. By Australia and the USA creating an alliance it balances China’s rising influence globally with their alliances predominately in the Asia Pacific and South Asia (Liu, 2023). Further, although Australia maintains their relationship with China due to mutual economic trade benefits, it has proven that there is not enough leverage to maintain peace between the two. Further, that their pursuit of perceived security has proved to outweigh their need for trade was seen when Australia banned HUAWEI phones utilising Australia’s 5G network, or when Australian Prime Minster Scott Morison announced that Australia was committing to a private investigation into the COVID – 19 pandemic origin in 2020 (Crowe, 2022). Realism provides a comprehensive theoretical framework through which the complexities of the Australia- China relationship can be understood. Examining the pillars of Realism, offers valuable insights into the motivations and interactions of states within the international gymnasium.

Exploring the Application of Neoliberal Institutionalism to Enhance the Australia- China Relationship.

Improving international relations between countries with diverse government structures, cultural complexities, geographical positions, and values is an intricate task, that unfortunately, lacks a universal remedy. Acknowledging this complexity, the Australia-China relationship warrants a tailored approach. Upon examining the finer details of this relationship, Neoliberal Institutionalism emerges as a useful theoretical framework for addressing unique challenges.

Neoliberal Institutionalism, a promenade theory in international relations emphasises the importance of utilising international institutions, norms, and agreements in fostering cooperation and managing conflicts among states (Baldwin, 2014). The basis of Neoliberal institutionalism suggests that while states are self-interested, they can still collaborate by adhering to guidelines and structured frameworks to achieve mutual benefits. This theory is comprised of three main pillars: Countries recognising the importance and usefulness of international organisations such as the United Nations (UN), G20, World Trade Organisation (WTO) and ASEAN Regional Reform (ARF) to name a few, the establishment of rules and norms for countries to adhere to and to for all countries to come to accept the belief that cooperation can lead to positive outcomes even in a competitive world (Stein, 2004).

Applying Neoliberal Institutionalism to the Australia- China relationship offers an arguably idealistic, but promising route to address ongoing issues. For instance, the cyber security breaches and concerns that Australia held towards China can be tackled by establishing international norms and agreements that promote responsible behaviour in cyberspace and protect against meddling in domestic affairs. By both parties agreeing to participate in existing institutions such as the ARF, the two nations may be able to build trust, ultimately reducing tension, misunderstandings, and general conflicts (Stein, 2009).

China and Australia over the past few decades have committed to creating mutually beneficial trade agreements, that have created somewhat of an interdependent relationship between the two (Crowe, 2022). Neoliberal Institutionalism relies on the concept of nations leaning on each other for the betterment of the society that they represent, if they were to engage further with bodies such as the WTO when negotiating comprehensive trade agreements it would decrease the likelihood of inevitable economic disputes arising.

When reflecting on territorial disputes, strategic concerns and the acquisition and use of power, Neoliberal Institutionalism could involve engaging in multilateral negotiations through international forums such as the G20. These discussions can help elevate distress when negotiating, provide an opportunity to mend relationships and express clear rules and mechanisms that were internationally accepted and adopted. Australia and China successfully engaged in this in recent history, where Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Chinese President Xi Jinping met at the G20 summit held in Bali in 2022, where they publicly released that “China is ready to meet “halfway” and wanting to seize the opportunity to celebrate the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations to promote sustained, sound and steady growth of China- Australia relations (Crowe, 2022) ”.

In summary, the relationship between Australia and China has highlighted its intricacies and multifaceted challenges. Employing the Realist theory has allowed light to be shed on how power dynamics, national interests, and self-preservation have influenced the historical and present actions and tensions between the two. However, the application of Neoliberal Institutionalism provides an avenue where reconciliation can be found. Encompassing recognition for the international institutes such as G20 or the WTO, could allow Australia and China to work towards building trust and reducing misunderstandings. By looking at and understanding the origin of the historical actions between the two, it can highlight the need to introduce a new framework in which Australia and China base their relationships.

References

2022, The future of Australia-China relations, retrieved 20 August 2023, <https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/australia-china-relations/>.

Crowe, D 2022, ‘China “will meet Australia half way” Premier Li Keqiang tells Albanese’, The Sydney Morning Herald.

Baldwin, D, ‘Neoliberalism, neorealism, and world politics’, in Elman, C. and Jensen, M., The Realism Reader, Routledge, Oxford, UK, 2014, pp. 313-319.

Devetak, R, True, J & Burchill, S 2022, Theories of international relations, Bloomsbury Academic, London.

Donnelly, J, ‘Realism’ in Devetak, R. and True, J. (eds.), Theories of International Relations, Bloomsbury Academic, London, 2022 (6th edition), pp. 19-34

Duncan Bell, ‘Realist challenges,’ in Brown, C. and Eckersley, R. (des.), The Oxford Handbook of International Political Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford U.K, 2018, pp. 241-251.

Liu, F 2023, ‘Balance of power, balance of alignment, and China’s role in the Regional Order Transition’, Navigating International Order Transition in the Indo-Pacific, pp. 35–57.

Mackerras, C 2014a, ‘China and the Australia-U.S. Relationship: A Historical Perspective’, Asian Surbey, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 223–246.

Mackerras, C 2014b, ‘China and the Australia-U.S. relationship: a historical perspective’, Association for Asian Studies.

Stein, AA 2009, ‘Neoliberal institutionalism’, The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, pp. 201–221.

Westcitt, B & Pandey, S 2023, ‘China Rebuilds Australia Ties After Failing to Press Economy.’, Health Business Elite.

Xi, J, Zhou, W & Wang, H 2018, ‘The impact of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement on Australia’s education exports to China: A legal and economic assessment’, The World Economy, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 3503–3523.

‘The third wave of establishing diplomatic relations with other countries’ 2023, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China , retrieved 21 August 2023,