Wake-up Call
Australia sleepwalking into catastrophic conflict with China, Washington crackdown on China 2023, Japan in ASEAN as well as in Cambodia, Cambodia 2022 Economic Census
UPDATE: Gareth Evans’ review of Australia’s strategic relationship with the United States provides a timely wake-up call on the dangers of Australia sleepwalking into what would be a catastrophic conflict with China.
China-US relations have undergone a turbulent year in 2023, from the US hyping "balloon incident," to Washington's continuous attempt to crackdown on China on almost every front, while the summit meeting between the two heads of state in San Francisco in November brought temporary detente.
After the recent visit of Prime Minister Hun Manet to Japan for the ASEAN-Japan commemorative summit, there are discussions among Cambodian scholars about the impact of Japan in ASEAN as well as in Cambodia.
Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet advised the Ministry of Planning to convert the data from the 2022 Economic Census into a comprehensive and scientific information.
Australia sleepwalking into catastrophic conflict with China
By Jon Stanford
Gareth Evans’ review of Australia’s strategic relationship with the United States (“Why Australia can’t rely on the US to save it from China,” 12 December) provides a timely wake-up call on the dangers of Australia sleepwalking into what would be a catastrophic conflict with China.
As Evans says, “a cutting-edge issue … is whether the US will really feel obliged to rush to our military defence if we are ever seriously threatened, or only do so if its own national interests are also directly at stake … it defies credibility to think that Washington would risk losing Los Angeles to save Sydney.”
Australia’s assessment of its own national interest in foreign policy never seems to go beyond an irrational, neo-colonial assumption that it is identical to that of the United States. As Evans relates, “Peter Dutton … said in 2021 that it was ‘inconceivable that we wouldn’t support the US’ in any military action it chose to take. Defence minister Marles made clear his own view in October that Australia ‘cannot be a passive bystander in the event of war’.” Think back to 1939 when Menzies said “Great Britain has declared war upon [Germany], and … as a result, Australia is also at war.” What has really changed?
One change that has become apparent in the last decade, since the existence of the Five Eyes group was revealed, is the extent to which the intelligence agencies now influence Australia’s foreign and defence policy. Moreover, despite the group’s multi-ocular title, Five Eyes appears to analyse world affairs through a prism that provides a narrow, one-eyed view. Not only is this clearly an American view, but particularly in relation to the strategic competition between the US and China, it reflects the perspective emanating from Fairfax, Virginia and the Pentagon rather than from Foggy Bottom.
Australia never seems to have made a careful assessment of the relative benefits each country derives from the American relationship and how, in our national interest, we might derive a greater advantage from it. Australia is important to America mainly because of our geography. The existence of a physically large, Anglophone, democratic country with no land borders strategically located in the Indo Pacific and the southern hemisphere is potentially of enormous value to the US, which has boundless interests in this region.
Our geography has been of critical significance since the very beginning of the relationship when General Douglas MacArthur landed in Australia in March 1942. While MacArthur publicly promoted the bond of ‘consanguinity’ between the US and White Australia, he privately made clear to Prime Minister Curtin at the outset that the US had no particular national interest in defending Australia. He was here because of an accident of geography; the US needed a large and secure base in this theatre from which they could eventually go forth and defeat Japan.
Curtin, whose reputation as a great Australian leader should be more contestable, failed to understand that America’s need for an Australian base gave his government considerable agency in the relationship. Instead, he established an unfortunate precedent by surrendering substantial Australian sovereignty to the egotistical American general, who became commander of all Australian land and air forces in the region. He later confessed he was taken by surprise by the bounty provided by the Australian prime minister, a gift he proceeded to employ to advance American national interests. As a result, according to military historian Max Hastings, “Australia seemed almost to vanish from the [Pacific] war after 1943 … the country’s internal dissensions, together with American dominance of the Pacific theatre, caused the Australian army to be relegated to a frankly humiliating role in 1944-45.”
With the defeat of Japan and the onset of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the Australian relationship did not figure significantly in America’s strategic priorities. In 1951, the US concluded both the ANZUS alliance with Australia and New Zealand and the Mutual Security Treaty with Japan. Neither treaty included a security guarantee along the lines of Article V of NATO. In 1960, however, in return for allowing the US to establish military bases on its territory, Japan successfully insisted on the inclusion of a security guarantee in its treaty, including extended nuclear deterrence.
At much the same time, the rapidly developing space race between the US and the Soviet Union provided a new focus for American interest in the strategic advantages provided by Australia’s geography. In 1962, a White House position paper proposed that “with ample space, relatively advanced technology, political stability and conservative government, Australia has become a uniquely desirable base for both military and civilian programs involving operations in the Southern Hemisphere.”
Bill Battle, US Ambassador in Canberra in the early 1960s, negotiated very favourable terms with the Menzies government for the establishment of major strategic installations in Australia, including Pine Gap, Nurrungar and North West Cape. These facilities were regarded by the US as essential to its national security. Pine Gap, in particular, was an advanced espionage facility that, together with its sister station in the UK, provided global coverage of electronic communications as well as critical data on the performance of Soviet inter-continental ballistic missiles. As the Fraser government later confirmed, these highly advanced installations also made Australia a nuclear target.
Gough Whitlam took office in 1972 committed to forging a more independent foreign policy. In April 1974, having ratified Australia’s accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the previous year, he stated in Parliament that no new foreign bases would be permitted and leases on existing facilities would not be renewed. With the lease on Pine Gap due to expire in December 1975, this set the cat among the pigeons in Washington.
This is the only significant occasion in which Australia essentially stood up to the Americans in its own national interest. It didn’t end well. In July 1974, Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to President Nixon, advised the president to commission a National Strategic Security Memorandum (NSSM 204) reviewing the whole relationship with Australia.
An analysis of the still highly redacted NSSM 204, released in 2014, reveals that in the mid-1970s Australia’s strategic importance to the US was considerably greater than was appreciated at the time. A number of strategic, economic and cultural elements in the relationship were identified and rated in terms of their importance to both the US and Australia. Only three of the various elements received the top grade in terms of importance, being rated as ‘exceedingly high’. These three, which were all benefits to the US, were the CIA espionage facility at Pine Gap, the naval communications station at North West Cape and, more generally, American investment in Australia.
Tellingly, although the overall relationship with the US was rated as being of very high importance to Australia in light of our “fears of being isolated in Asia”, not one individual element was rated as being of ‘exceedingly high’ importance to Australia.
The policy approach adopted by Kissinger as a result of NSSM204 is heavily redacted, but it is possible to identify the two main alternative options that were considered. A principled approach that recognised Australia’s right to pursue its sovereign national interests while retaining ANZUS, was put forward by Ambassador Marshall Green and supported by the State Department. Green proposed a negotiation with Whitlam to extend the lease on Pine Gap to 1978, which would allow time for the facility to be moved to Guam.
This was not adopted by Kissinger, who, no doubt, would have dismissed it as ‘limp wristed’. Instead, it appears the CIA’s preferred option was adopted, namely to seek to retain the facilities in Australia for as long as possible. It is highly suggestive that Whitlam was dismissed from office in November 1975, just before the lease on Pine Gap was due to expire. The lease was immediately renewed by Whitlam’s successor, Malcolm Fraser.
With the rise of China to great power status, the benefits the US derives from Australia’s geography are only likely to have increased over the past half century. Successive Australian governments have never understood that America has always needed Australia at least as much as we have needed the US. Consequently, Australia’s foreign policy has been fundamentally misguided for the last sixty years. In a consistent but unnecessary effort to reinforce American support for what is an inadequate alliance, we have followed the US into wars – such as in Vietnam, Iraq and arguably Afghanistan – that were not in Australia’s national interest.
Instead, when the US installed major defence facilities on Australian soil in the 1960s, we should have followed Japan and insisted on the inclusion of a security guarantee in the ANZUS treaty. Australia is of greater strategic importance to America than almost every NATO country and yet, under the terms of its alliance with the US, North Macedonia is guaranteed a far higher level of security, including extended nuclear deterrence, than is provided to Australia under ANZUS.
And now we have AUKUS. The author is part of a group that, in seeking a more self-reliant sovereign capability to defend Australia, advocated the procurement of nuclear-powered attack submarines for the RAN. It is difficult to disagree with Gareth Evans, however, that by acquiring American submarines that would otherwise be part of the US fleet, we may be unable to resist participating in a war with China that would be highly damaging to our national interest. As Curran has reported, “President Biden’s Asia ‘tsar’, Kurt Campbell described the AUKUS agreement as ‘getting Australia off the fence. We have them locked in now for the next 40 years’.”
As Evans suggests, Australia’s lack of a security guarantee and extended nuclear deterrence leaves us in a vulnerable position. We put ourselves at the front of the pack in challenging China over COVID-19 and other issues and suffered damaging economic coercion as a result. The Americans told us they ‘had our backs’, but any material support was lacking. Instead, US industries moved into our former markets.
Now consider a showdown over Taiwan. China presents Taipei with an ultimatum. The Americans, being outgunned by the PLA’s conventional forces in the theatre, resort to nuclear blackmail, as they have in the past. How would China wargame a response? One option would be to attack Pine Gap with a long-range missile armed with a small, low yield nuclear warhead. Pine Gap would be a legitimate military target and the civilian population around Alice Springs is not extensive. It would not even be the first nuclear explosion in central Australia.
In response to such an attack, under ANZUS the US would be required only to consult with the Australian government. China would have demonstrated its nuclear capability. No rational US president would risk sacrificing Los Angeles in defence of Taiwanese autonomy. The nuclear codes would go back into the briefcase. A peaceful solution would be found.
And Australia would have taken one for the team.
Read more here.
2023 China-US interactions
By Global Times
China-US relations have undergone a turbulent year in 2023, from the US hyping "balloon incident," to Washington's continuous attempt to crackdown on China on almost every front, while the summit meeting between the two heads of state in San Francisco in November brought temporary detente. Although the US still largely holds competition as the dominant theme of bilateral ties, interactions on people-to-people exchanges, climate issue, drug control and some other areas between the two countries have increased.
Experts said those interactions can help consolidate guardrails of China-US relations, and help form a driving force that may lead to more cooperation between the two countries, thus will be conducive to stabilising an unpredictable bilateral relationship. Whether the world's most important bilateral ties can be less tumultuous in 2024 than this year, it depends on Washington's ability to avoid spillover effects of US domestic politics, such as the presidential election, and both countries' willingness, as well as ability to solve specific issues troubling bilateral relations and expand areas of cooperation, said experts.
The Chinese Embassy in the US held an event recently to commemorate the 52nd anniversary of Ping-Pong Diplomacy. The Peking University table tennis team was invited to attend the commemorating events in Washington and San Francisco. The team has also participated in the 2023 USATT Table Tennis Open Championships at the Ontario Convention Center in California, the Xinhua News Agency reported on December 18.
"What impressed me the most is the huge interest and enthusiasm the American youth showed during our visit to the US this time," Zhang Yuwen, a student from the Peking University table tennis team, told the Global Times. "Every time the Americans saw the name 'China' marked on our jerseys, they would come to ask where in China we come from; which games we play, and even wish us good luck in our games."
"We saw great examples of how people-to-people ties and educational and cultural exchanges can overcome political and ideological differences during the summer of 2023 at our Invention Convention China (ICC) Finals event held in Zhengzhou, Henan Province," Adam Foster, president of the Helen Foster Snow Foundation in the US, told the Global Times.
The ICC is one of the largest invention educational activities in the world. Every year, more than 140,000 students from around the globe take part. The Helen Foster Snow Foundation has been supporting ICC China for a long time, which has since become an opportunity to promote non-governmental educational exchanges.
"In today's tense US-China political climate, sometimes harsh rhetoric and dehumanizing language is used. We hope that people on both sides can contend peacefully to defend their legitimate interests and viewpoints while remembering that the people of the two countries have so much in common," said Foster, hoping that people-to-people exchanges can help to ease tensions and remind both sides of the long list of things they have in common.
Chinese President Xi Jinping said at a welcome dinner by friendly organizations after the San Francisco summit in the US last month that China is ready to invite 50,000 young Americans to China on exchange and study programs in the next five years to increase exchanges between the two peoples, especially between the youth.
Xi also said Pandas have long been envoys of friendship between the Chinese and American peoples and China is ready to continue the cooperation with the US on panda conservation.
The US would welcome back any giant pandas China decides to send, the White House said right after Xi's remarks.
The importance of non-governmental exchange can never be underestimated as it serves as important channel for both sides to form objective and true understanding about each other, and it will help prevent misunderstanding and misjudgment between the two countries, Li Haidong, a professor at the China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times.
In August this year, Xi replied to a letter from the US-China Youth and Student Exchange Association and friendly personages from all walks of life in the US state of Washington.
The association helped facilitate the visit of 118 students and teachers from Lincoln High School in Tacoma of Washington State to visit China in 2016. David Chong, founder and president of the US-China Youth and Student Exchange Association, told the Global Times that back then some parents had little understanding of China thus they were concerned about their children's visit. However, the students came back informed the parents the true picture of China, and helped the latter form an objective impression of China.
Afterwards, many schools in Washington State also started summer camps to China, and many parents decided to bring their children to China during summer vacations, said Chong.
"It is essential to encourage comprehensive exchanges and cooperation between the youth and students of both countries. It is particularly important to enable young people from both countries to understand each other's culture and values, especially after the pandemic," said Chong, noting that his association is preparing for more exchange programs with US schools and youth organizations and is working to help realize 50,000 young Americans' visits to China in the next few years.
Necessary interactions
The interactions between China and the US this year have reached a new level, the highest in at least the past five years, Wu Xinbo, director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University, told the Global Times on Sunday, referring to not only frequent high-level officials' visits, but also consultation on issues including trade, drug control and climate change.
Liu Zhenli, a Central Military Commission (CMC) member and the chief of the CMC's Joint Staff Department, on Thursday held a video teleconference with CQ Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US, at the latter's request.
During San Francisco summit meeting, China and the US also agreed to establish a working group on counternarcotics cooperation. Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Wang Wenbin commented that counternarcotics authorities of China and the US are resuming regular communication. Recently, China has been engaged in campaigns against fentanyl and its precursor chemicals, and cracked down on illegal and criminal activities involving the smuggling, illicit manufacturing, trafficking and abuse of fentanyl-related substances, said Wang.
The US also lifted sanctions on "Drug Analysis Division I, National Narcotics Laboratory" last month by removing it from the "Commerce Entity List"
Hua Zhendong, director of the lab, said his lab has undertaken a significant amount of technical work, including monitoring the illegal production and trafficking of fentanyl, defining the classification of fentanyl-like substances, and establishing sentencing standards for relevant varieties. He said he hoped the US will not do anything to sabotage the drug cooperation between the two countries again.
Before the COP28 meeting in Dubai, China and the US jointly released Sunnyland climate agreement in mid-November. The Chinese and American teams have worked together to support the success of COP28, which was also one of the goals of the previous joint climate statement between the two countries, Xie Zhenhua, China's special envoy for climate change affairs, said at a press conference along with US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry.
Interactions on those areas suggest that both countries are sincere about achieving concrete results in specific collaborations, experts said, therefore, joint cooperations on those areas aim to further strengthen general cooperation between the two sides and, where possible, facilitate cooperation in other areas that are difficult to cooperate on, said Li, noting that those interactions are very helpful for maintaining stability and long-term development of the China-US relationship.
Looking forward, Wu said that the successful holding of the San Francisco summit, where a series of important consensuses were reached, has become a highlight of China-US relations in recent years, or could be seen as a new starting point for China-US relations.
"While the summit meeting in San Francisco has helped to stabilize China-US relations, the question now is whether we can move forward. Can we resolve specific issues disrupting bilateral relations and expand areas of cooperation? I believe this is possible, so next year's China-US relations are likely to show a distinct dual nature," said Wu. Particularly noteworthy is next year's US election.
Next year's China-US relations are expected to stabilize, said Li, explaining that the effect to stabilize the relations brought about by the intensive interactions between China and the US in the second half of this year will continue into next year.
Moreover, although the US may adopt an unfriendly rhetoric towards China during next year's presidential election, it will be difficult for Washington to roll out new policies in an election year, said Li, noting that the negative spillover effects of domestic politics in the US on China-US relations will be especially important to watch.
Read more here.
Cambodia in the shadow of Japan and China competition?
After the recent visit of Prime Minister Hun Manet to Japan for the ASEAN-Japan commemorative summit, there are discussions among Cambodian scholars about the impact of Japan in ASEAN as well as in Cambodia.
Japan is very active in supporting Cambodia and other ASEAN member states while China has been working closely with almost all ASEAN countries. Both Japan and China are very important for Cambodia. How should Cambodia balance its foreign relations among the two good friends who are competing with each other?
Japan has traditionally dominated the ASEAN economy with its cutting-edge technology, robust industrial sector and well-known international brands. Japanese businesses have made large investments in a number of sectors, including the development of infrastructure, electronics and the automobile industry. Because of their reputation for excellence and their emphasis on quality and dependability, buyers highly value Japanese products.
China, on the other hand, has grown into a powerful player in the ASEAN region thanks to its enormous population and quickly expanding economy. Chinese businesses have become more prevalent in a variety of industries, including energy, construction and telecommunications. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which encourages trade connections and infrastructure development among member nations, has further cemented its power.
Comprehending the economic sway of China and Japan is crucial for Cambodia in order to develop winning tactics. By evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of these two economies, Cambodia can find possible areas for cooperation and rivalry. It may take advantage of China’s market potential and infrastructure development plans while using Japan’s technological know-how and investment resources.
Cambodia can improve its competitiveness by studying the tactics China and Japan use. For example, incorporating Japan’s emphasis on innovation and quality might assist Cambodian enterprises in standing out in the marketplace. In a similar vein, trade and investment opportunities may arise from supporting China’s connectivity projects.
But Cambodia also needs to be wary of the possible threats posed by China’s and Japan’s economic clout. It needs to make sure that the influx of foreign businesses doesn’t overshadow or undermine its domestic sectors. Priority should be given to balancing economic cooperation with these two countries while defending Cambodia’s interests at home.
Rich natural resources, including farmland, minerals and fisheries, are among Cambodia’s advantages. This gives sectors like manufacturing, tourism and agriculture a solid basis. Cambodia also has the advantage of having a young, reasonably priced labour population, which attracts global firms looking for low-cost production and outsourcing.
However, there are certain shortcomings in Cambodia that must be rectified. Its low technological capabilities are one of these weaknesses, which might impede innovation and competitiveness in high-tech businesses. With their superior technological know-how and capacities for research and development, China and Japan shine in this field.
Cambodia faces additional difficulties due to its very tiny domestic market in comparison to China and Japan. Due to the potential for this to reduce its customer base and scale economies, it is critical that Cambodian companies look into exporting and build robust global networks.
Cambodia can efficiently navigate this competitive landscape by concentrating on particular industries where it has a comparative advantage, thereby leveraging its capabilities. For example, Cambodia may leverage its agricultural resources and encourage organic farming methods to meet the increasing demand for food products that are both nutritious and sustainable.
Working with Chinese and Japanese businesses can be advantageous for Cambodia as well. Through the establishment of strategic alliances and joint ventures, Cambodia can obtain access to cutting-edge resources, capital and knowledge. By doing so, it will be able to close the technology divide and become more competitive overall in the ASEAN market.
Cambodia should also spend money on educational and career-training initiatives in order to create a workforce that is qualified to fulfill the needs of developing markets. Cambodia can encourage innovation and draw in higher-value investments by developing a knowledge-based economy.
Cambodia can efficiently navigate this competitive landscape by concentrating on particular industries where it has a comparative advantage, thereby leveraging its capabilities. For example, Cambodia may leverage its agricultural resources and encourage organic farming methods to meet the increasing demand for food products that are both nutritious and sustainable.
Cambodia can also benefit from its youthful and energetic labour force. The skilled labour pool in the nation is expanding, especially in sectors like manufacturing, technology and textiles. Cambodia can maintain the competitiveness of its workforce and its ability to adjust to the changing demands of the market by making investments in education and vocational training programmes. This will draw in outside capital and promote the expansion of local businesses, enhancing the overall economic development of the country.
Infrastructure plays a pivotal role in facilitating trade, logistics and connectivity, which are vital for attracting foreign investments. Well-developed transportation networks such as roads, ports and airports not only enable efficient movement of goods and services but also reduce costs and improve accessibility. This, in turn, creates an attractive environment for foreign investors looking to establish or expand their operations in Cambodia.
To effectively attract foreign investments, Cambodia needs to prioritise infrastructure development in key areas such as transportation, energy, telecommunications and digital infrastructure. Collaborating with international partners and leveraging their expertise and resources can expedite the process and ensure the implementation of high-quality infrastructure projects.
Corruption is another big problem for Cambodia. Businesspeople always search for information related to Cambodia before they come to invest in the country, so the government should take real action to attract foreign investors.
Lastly, maintaining a business-friendly environment, reducing regulations, and ensuring transparency and good governance are vital for attracting foreign investors and building a conducive atmosphere for economic growth. Cambodia’s journey in navigating the ASEAN competition requires a strategic approach that encompasses leveraging strengths, investing in infrastructure and human capital, fostering collaboration, embracing innovation and ensuring a conducive business environment. By applying these important takeaways, Cambodia may pave its path to success and prosper in the dynamic ASEAN market.
Seun Sam is a researcher at the Royal Academy of Cambodia.
The views expressed are solely his own.
Read more here.
PM Hun Manet “2022 Economic Census Data is Comprehensive and Scientific Information”
Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet advised the Ministry of Planning to convert the data from the 2022 Economic Census into a comprehensive and scientific information.
The premier spoke Tuesday morning (Dec. 26) during the launch of the national report on the final results of the Economic Census of Cambodia 2022.
Such transformation will be achieved through the application of appropriate statistical science methods, providing concrete input for ministries and institutions to use in their respective tasks, particularly in the realm of policy-making, the premier added.
“Therefore, we must have faith in the census results, and it requires quality data. I believe that any company, upon receiving the data released by the Ministry of Planning, will not conduct double-checks or reviews. Naturally, these companies will utilize this data. The Royal Government, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, and all ministries, before formulating policies, do not send their officials to conduct individual censuses due to budget constraints, lack of expert skills, and time constraints. Consequently, reliance on this shared data is essential for attracting investment,” the premier underscored.
Taking advantage of the occasion, Samdech Thipadei urged the Ministry of Planning to continue enhancing the economic census and other relevant surveys. This ongoing improvement process should ensure the collection of data that genuinely represents the explored issues, serving as a valuable input for socio-economic development. The Ministry of Planning must focus on reinforcing the National Institute of Statistics in terms of structure and human resources.
Read more here.