Is the focus on US-China ‘polarity’ blinding us to broader changes?

For much of history, the geopolitical environment has been the story of multipolarity, whether it was the rivalry between Rome and Carthage, the British Empire and Napoleon's France and even through to the Cold War competition between the United States and Soviet Union.

By far the most central characteristic of this history is the utter dominance of one nation over others, which created what is often described as a lopsided approach to the geopolitical concept of polarity, making the world a tricky environment in which to operate, particularly for middle and emerging powers.

Today's world is no different, despite the post-Second World War dominance of the global leavers of power, institutions and commons by the United States, the post-war world has always maintained an element of multipolarity.

The Permanent 5 members of the United Nations Security Council in particular establish the world as a 'multi-polar' environment in spite of the widely-held belief that the United States was the global hegemon, particularly following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, which required considered and measured diplomacy by all parties involved, particularly the global hegemon.

However, in recent years, the post-Second World War order has come under assault both directly and indirectly — as emerging powers like China and India, backed by established powers, like a resurgent and increasingly belligerent Russia, begin to build out rival economic, political and strategic networks and systems to challenge the world order and directly undermine the legitimacy and reputation of the United States and the post-war order.

Today, the new revolutionary world order would not be led in major part by Russia, rather it would be spearheaded by Mao and now Xi’s China, an economic, political, and strategic juggernaut that extensively studied the lessons of history and has never quite recovered from its “Century of Humiliation” at the hands of colonial empires, with its eyes on usurping the global status quo.

In the face of these challenges, Australia, like many nations around the world, is at the edge of a precipice of immense economic, political, and strategic change.

VIEW ALL

Australia's history of engaging within the broader confines of the global environment has equally, been dominated by an emphasis on reinforcing the established global order and the interests of the global hegemon.

While this is largely as a result of the nation's close relationships with both the British Empire and the United States as the world's historical global superpowers, this has often come at the expense of truly maturing as a middle power in our own right.

We need to mature as a nation

Only by recognising the relative decline of the United States (not a popular opinion to state out loud) and accepting that the United States has limitations can Australia truly begin to take stock of the challenges of operating in this increasingly multipolar world.

However, it is critical for us to understand that Australia's security, prosperity and stability will not determined by events in Europe, nor will they be determined by circumstances in the Middle East, while they may influence circumstance, our national future will not be determined by these areas.

Highlighting this point, Peter Jennings AO, speaking at the Defence Connect DSR Summit, explained, “It [the Defence Strategic Review] misreads the source of the risk, the source of the risk is China.”

Explaining further, Jennings said, “It misreads that we are just watching this (on the sidelines), but we are actually heavily invested in this [US-China] competition. I think that language is giving the government an opportunity not to talk about China ... These three paragraphs would have to have been the three most talked about in the review.

“I am pleased that the document has said what we all know to be true, but there is plenty of transparency about what China is doing. (It can be found) In Xi Jinping’s speeches and writing, government documents; strategy running counter to the current global order,” Jennings told the audience.

It is important to highlight that in the coming era of multipolarity, Australia will face an increasingly competitive Indo-Pacific.

Indeed, separate to the People’s Republic of China, our immediate region is home to some of the world’s largest populations and fastest growing economies with their own unique designs and economic, political, and strategic ambitions for the region.

Rather, we have to accept that while the world is increasingly becoming 'multi-polar', the Indo-Pacific in particular is rapidly becoming the most hostly contested region in the world. Underpinned by the emerging economic, political and strategic might of powers like China, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Vietnam and the established and reemerging capability of both South Korea and Japan in particular are serving to create a hotbed of competition on our doorstep.

Yet, both the Australian government and the DSR only emphasise the challenges presented by Beijing and its designs for the Indo-Pacific, something that needs to be addressed directly and thoughtfully with the Australian public.

“Australians aren’t silly and are, to a certain extent, ahead of our politicians at the moment,” Jennings explained to the audience.

Recognising this, both the Australian public and its policy makers need to look beyond the myopic lens that has traditionally dominated our diplomatic, strategic and economic policy making since Federation.

By avoiding this pitfall, and embarking upon a bold, frank and mature national conversation, Australia can then begin to carve out greater responsibility and opportunity within the region, while remaining true to the historic values and principles that form the basis of the nation's identity.

Multi-polarity isn't all doom and gloom

One of the central points that is often overlooked by Australia’s strategic policy and political leaders when broaching this and similarly sensitive issues with the Australian public is the need to avoid a narrative of “doom and gloom” without presenting engaging solutions.

Rather, in the face of these challenges, we need to be equally presenting the opportunities that balance the challenges and we need to do so in an honest, direct manner.

Equally, we need to see Australia begin to play the long game to fully capitalise on the opportunities transforming the Indo-Pacific.

The most important question now becomes, when will we see a more detailed analysis and response to the challenges and opportunities facing Australia and when will we see a narrative that better helps industry and the Australian public understand the challenges faced and opportunities we have presented before us?

Final thoughts

There is no doubt that Australia’s position and responsibilities in the Indo-Pacific region will depend on the nation’s ability to sustain itself economically, strategically, and politically in the face of rising regional and global competition.

While contemporary Australia has been far removed from the harsh realities of conflict, with many generations never enduring the reality of rationing for food, energy, medical supplies or luxury goods, and even fewer within modern Australia understanding the sociopolitical and economic impact such rationing would have on the now world-leading Australian standard of living.

Enhancing Australia’s capacity to act as an independent power, incorporating great power-style strategic economic, diplomatic and military capability serves as a powerful symbol of Australia’s sovereignty and evolving responsibilities in supporting and enhancing the security and prosperity of Indo-Pacific Asia, this is particularly well explained by Peter Zeihan, who explains: “A deglobalised world doesn’t simply have a different economic geography, it has thousands of different and separate geographies. Economically speaking, the whole was stronger for the inclusion of all its parts. It is where we have gotten our wealth and pace of improvement and speed. Now the parts will be weaker for their separation.”

As events continue to unfold throughout the region and China continues to throw its economic, political, and strategic weight around, can Australia afford to remain a secondary power, or does it need to embrace a larger, more independent role in an era of increasing great power competition?

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..