Search

Like many other regional powers in the Asia‐Pacific, Australia is a middle‐sized state wedged between two great powers, the United States (US) and the People's Republic of China. While Australia continues to rely upon the US alliance for security, China remains its biggest trading partner. Over the past two decades, Australia's public foreign policy discussions have centred upon Australia's "China Choice" in the context of growing strategic rivalry between these dominant powers. This debate has sought to grapple with the options available to Australia in managing its relations with an increasingly assertive China and an unpredictable US. This article examines the public debate on China policy since the election of the conservative Liberal‐National Coalition government in 2013. It argues the appropriateness of a pragmatic foreign policy in relation to the engagement of great powers has been the central question in Australia's China debate. Yet what constitutes pragmatic action in relation to Australia's China policy is varied and based on differing understandings of how middle‐sized states can and do seek to cope with structural shifts. The paper also argues, however, that an emergent anti‐pragmatist tradition has recently emerged that reflects the unprecedented challenges facing Australian foreign policy and presents "pragmatism" as a threat to Australian sovereignty, principles, and values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of the ongoing international debate concerning the efficacy or otherwise of the NPT and IAEA in preventing or managing nuclear proliferation, Australia's undertaking to enter a nuclear cooperation agreement with the People's Republic of China (PRC), once identified as a “strategic competitor” of Australia's major alliance partner the United States (US), suggests that Australia's approach to proliferation issues is being re-evaluated. This paper argues, utilising an analysis of the relationship between the evolving US approach to nuclear issues and Australian policy, that the Howard government's evolving approach to nuclear issues can be characterised as an attempt to balance the competing imperatives of maintaining Australia's reputation as a nuclear non-proliferation standard bearer, regional strategic and economic considerations and the weight of the Australia-US alliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rapid deterioration of the Australia‐China bilateral relationship from a warm and positive partnership to cold hostility has been overwhelmingly interpreted as the result of the actions of one or the other of the parties. This article seeks to analyse the recent negative dynamic in Sino‐Australian bilateral ties in a broader context, considering the full history of Sino‐Australian relations, and by drawing into the analysis both countries' crucial relationships with the United States. It argues that a deep and comprehensive understanding of Sino‐Australian relations is not possible without appreciating the triangular dynamics that operate among Australia, China, and the United States. It seeks to conceptually elaborate on the notion of triangulation as a foreign policy strategy as a prelude to examining the changing dynamics of Australia‐China relations between 1949 and the present day. It then traces the evolution of the triangulation dynamic through several phases, most recently attempts by Australia to "de‐triangulate" the relationship before succumbing to Washington's and Beijing's efforts at re‐triangulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the mysteries in contemporary world politics is why in recent years Australia has been leading the world in its hawkish approach to China, its largest trading partner. More than most of its allies, the Australian government seems to regard the China emergency — fuelled by threat perceptions ranging from foreign influence operations to economic coercion — as more pressing than, say, climate change. This article extends and supplants existing explanations of this puzzle by providing a more theoretically oriented account. Situating Australia's China emergency in the context of its ontological (in)security, this article traces the rise of such insecurities and Australia's responses through the conceptual frameworks of state transformation and neoliberal governmentality, which together offer a more socially and historically grounded account of the dynamics of ontological (in)security. The article argues that the China emergency narrative, as a specific routinised form of neoliberal governmentality, both helps sustain Australia's dominant identity construction as a free, democratic, and resilient state, and provides a raison d'être for the national security state that has become part and parcel of the evolving techniques of neoliberal governmentality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the undertakings of the Commonwealth of Australia from July to December 2009. Topics covered include the Henry Tax Review, the Council of Australian Government's increased focus on health issues, water conservation and the management of the Murray-Darling Basin, foreign relations with China and efforts by Liberal parliamentarians to undermine the leadership of politician Malcolm Turnbull. The article also includes examinations of the political undertakings of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory.