He argues that Australia can't tie its foreign policy to the US or to China, that it must take a third course, focusing on Indonesia (a candidate for the next ascendant economic and military power).
Keating writes:
While we will always have a close relationship with the US based on our shared history and our similar cultures, it is obvious that the right organising principle for our security is to be integral to the region.
From now on we have to concentrate on where we can be effective and where we can make the greatest difference. I believe that is fundamentally in south-east Asia.
I do not think this is an example of Australia balancing against the US, nor an example of balance of threat. Layne makes the mistake of assuming that if states are not closely allied, they must be in opposition; there is no middle ground. This is an example of Australia looking out for itself and has little to do with their wanting to balance against the US. To use an analogy, just because you leave your current job for a better one, it does not mean you hate your boss and coworkers and are actively out to get them. It simply means that you have found a better opportunity elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteGood analogy, Collin.
DeleteI agree with Collin. In every chapter of Layne, the same problems with his argument keep occuring. He is so convinced of US hegemony that he fails to include other arguments or points of view that could be correct. A state does not have to be connected only to the United States in order to be considered a safe state. The United States pushed for an Open Door Policy, and that connects all nations together, not just the US individually to every other nation; open door would fail if this was the case. Australia's aliance with Southeast Asia is not an act of balancing, nor is it problematic. It is a country acting in its best interests.
ReplyDelete