The flaw in Australia’s ‘China threat’ thesis

Economist John Edwards contends that Australia's approach to potential conflict with China is "a relatively superficial understanding." He observes that other nations such as Europe, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia and India are not preparing for this scenario. Instead, Edwards sees the U.S.-China rivalry as an opportunity. Positioned between a security ally in Washington and a major economic partner in Beijing, Australia could prosper for the next 25 years, provided it does not align with either superpower.

In his book "Overhaul: How Australia can adapt to a changing world economy," Edwards argues that US-China competition and occasional antagonism have primarily caused anxiety for Australians, but for Australia, it presents a valuable asset. Both China and the U.S. are predicted to remain the largest economies in the coming 25 years, a race neither can win.

Smaller countries benefit from having two large partners; thus, Australia should not "meekly accept" Chinese economic sanctions or deliberately provoke Beijing. Edwards, like his former Labor prime minister Paul Keating, favors a foreign policy that is not dominated by the U.S. Critics argue that Australia's Aukus defense pact with the U.S. excessively binds Australia's defense capabilities and technology to the U.S., effectively forfeiting independent operational decision-making.

Aukus's heavily subsidized nuclear-powered submarines, primarily intended for offensive operations in the South China Sea rather than for Australia's defense, have been heavily criticized. Similarly, former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr has emphasized that Taiwan should never be a cause for war for Australia, maintaining regional peace under the one-China policy.

However, the "China threat" narrative is often peddled by vested interests to serve various agendas, including to bolster democracy, preserve the rules-based order, and protect Western societies and civilizations. The true underlying motives remain hidden.