Philippines v. China Arbitration Case:
Australia’s Diplomatic and Security Responses Sam Bateman
Australia’s position on the South China Sea is complex with a range of occasionally conflicting economic, political and strategic interests.1 Economically, China is Australia’s major trading partner and about 20% of Australia’s seaborne trade crosses the South China Sea, three-quarters of which is trade to and from China. Politically, Australia has two treaty arrangements that could involve it in the area. The first is the Alliance with the United States. This could lead to Australia bolstering American efforts to counter China in the area. However, Canberra has not so far agreed to support U.S. freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) around Chinese claimed features in the South China Sea despite some active lobbying for it to do so.2 The Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA) is the second treaty that links Australia to the region. Malaysia and Singapore, Australia’s regional partners in FPDA, are both littoral to the South China Sea, but while Malaysia 1
Sam Bateman, “China and America’s South China Sea Clash: What Do U.S. Allies Think?,” The National Interest, May 31, 2015. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/china-americas-south-china-sea-clashwhat-do-us-allies-think-13007
2
For example, Bonnie Glaser, “High stakes for Australia in limiting China’s South China Sea incursions,” The Age, May 22, 2015. http://www. theage.com.au/comment/high-stakes-for-australia-in-limiting-chinassouth-china-sea-incursions-20150521-gh6nwv.html; Euan Graham, “As RAN prepares to exercise with China’s navy, Australia risks a PR disaster,” The Interpreter, October 30, 2015. http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/10/30/As-RAN-prepares-to-exercise-with-Chinas-navy-Australia-risks-a-PR-disaster.aspx
is a claimant to several island features, both countries have been relatively mild in their anti-China rhetoric. Strategically, by virtue of geography, its regional relations and economic interests, Australia has a clear strategic interest in the situation in the South China Sea not deteriorating further. Australia has come under pressure both directly from the U.S., and indirectly from Japan through the Trilateral Dialogue between Australia, Japan and the U.S., to extend its current military activities in the South China Sea and more directly confront China. Australia’s involvement would help bolster the legitimacy of the involvement of these other extra-regional parties in the South China Sea. There are differing views in Australia regarding whether and how the country might become more directly involved in the South China Sea, including by joining the U.S. FONOPs. There are those who support greater involvement arguing that Australia’s vital interests are threatened by China’s destabilizing actions, and it is necessary for like-minded countries to act together to ensure that a rules-based order is maintained in the region.3 However, there are others who argue that the situation in the South China Sea is complex and greater 3
John Garnaut, “A bet each way: our China policy is rational,” The Age, May 22, 2015. http://www.theage.com.au/comment/a-bet-each-wayour-china-policy-is-rational-20150521-gh6dsv.html
South China Sea Lawfare • 75