Australian Foreign Policy - Essay Example

In the modern stage of Australian foreign policy development the issue of appropriate partnership appears. In fact, as an isolated country for most of its history, Australia now faces unprecedented range of choice of allies in terms of security and economic development. In fact, globalization and liberalization created the current situation for Australia supplemented by deep connections with USA, Europe and Asia at the same time. In this context, the necessity of closer ties with these partners is disputed in the negotiations concerning the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) of creating the free trade area between Australia and several Asian and American countries. However, current political and economic background in the international relations make it reasonable to doubt the appropriateness of even more open market for Australia. In fact, the realistic approach in international relations stresses on that each country should remember of its national interests in international negotiations. And so, in this essay the issue of the TPP agreement is analyzed in terms of the content of its requirements, current political and economic situation in Asia-Pacific region, and the main subjects of concern of it. To start with, after the Cold War with a collapse of USSR USA was left as the only strong actor that is able to rule the world in economic, cultural, political and military aspects. However, contemporary rise of Asian countries such as China, Japan, and India creates a chance of weakening of current American hegemony in the international system. And so, Australia as a country that seeks for cooperation with stronger allies in security and economic means faces an opportunity to join the TPP with Asian countries and USA together instead of relying solely on USA. On the current stage, the negotiations are taken between twelve countries (namely, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam), most of which (especially, Japan, United States, Singapore. New Zealand, Malaysia) are in the top trading partners for Australia (TPP Agreement negotiations, 201-). Concerning the trade agreements already signed by Australia with other current participants, the Australian government is often blamed by making rather political than economic agreements due to the lack of real trade benefits gained from them (Armstrong, 2011, p. 4). And so, the current geopolitical situation in Asia-Pacific region should be determined in order to get the background of current negotiation. Here, the rise of China and India is troubling the international environment in general and Australia in particular. In context of Chinese empowerment, the role of USA is important to be mentioned. In fact, the nuclear and military capability of contemporary world leader is enough to keep China calm and maintain global security (Lundberg, 2010, p.1). However, the fact of rapid growth in Chinese capabilities creates the danger that most of current Australian allies in the region (namely, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea) will find themselves one day in the area of Chinese influence (Dobell, 2011). In this context, the Chinese strength is an inevitable aspect of Australian foreign policy as “up to the 1840s it had been, obviously, the superpower of its own world” (Bell, 2005, p. 35). And so, Indian emergence as a probable new world giant is more preferable for Australia in terms of democracy and active connections with West (Bell, 2005, p. 35). In this context, the non-involvement of China in the TPP agreement negotiations process can be seen as the way to create the competitive economic environment in the region. In fact, the design of the requirements for the TPP is created for developed countries; and so, it reduces the opportunity of China to join the agreement (Armstrong, 2011, p. 10). And so, Australian economic cooperation with Asia in alliance with USA is built currently in order to control the regional situation from Chinese expansion. But, if the world is transforming into “international terra incognita” (Bell, 2005, p. 39), the alliances that deeply connect as much international actors as possible seem to be the only chance to stabilize the world in the long-term perspective. Therefore, the elimination of China transforms the whole free trade area into exclusive group of developed participants with certain political regime (Armstrong, 2011, p. 16). And so, instead of stabilizing the situation in the region it constructs economical borders within the Asia-Pacific region. Moreover, in transforming the agreement from economic into political one, the suspicion towards the U.S. policy appears. In particular, in some cases American behavior is seen by Australian scholars as aggressive in its willingness to destruct enemies (Lundberg, 2010, p. 2). In this context, the international solidarity with jihadists and suspicion towards the U.S. invasion in Iraq caused the emergence of collective security concept in Asia-Pacific as it is (Bell, 2005, p. 25). And so, this attitude encourages regional countries in general and Australia in particular to search for other allies in the world (like United Nations). In this context, exclusively Asian partnership in political terms is more preferable alternative for Australia. In fact, numerous Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) were signed in order create new security institutions based on the trade regulations (Wesley, 2008). And so, the political dimension of the TPP agreement with several Asian countries and USA cannot be considered as an advantage for Australia in conditions of Asian international empowerment. In economic terms, the key role of USA in international economy is not stable. In fact, this country can lose its significance faster than in all the other spheres in comparison to Asia and Europe. In fact, the economy of European Union is already bigger than American one (Lundberg, 2010, p.2). In addition, the fast development of Asia is also challenging for USA. Therefore, the free trade agreement is pushed by the world leader in order to have economic control over the Asia Pacific region. In this context, Australia is not interested that much in the American market. In fact, in 2002 more than a half of total Australian merchandise exports were directed on Asian countries (Garnaut, 2002, p.140). And so, in economic terms the TPP agreement is not that necessary for Australia as it is for other participants. However, political leaders of Australia stress on the importance of the TPP agreement for the country. As Australian government (201-) defines it, “the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is one possible pathway toward realizing the vision of a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific.” Among the main benefits, improvement of commerce and better trade conditions are mentioned as being improved by the agreement for Australia (TPP Agreement, 201-, p. 8). From American point of view, such an agreement assists USA not to lose its significance in the world and “ensure that we are not left behind by our competitors in a vital region of the world” (TPP, 2014). Among the key objectives of the United States in this agreement there are mentioned: (1) reducing barriers for trade and investment, (2) obtaining significance in the Asia-Pacific region through trade liberalization, and (3) providing new rules on regulation, supply chains, state-owned, small- and medium-sized business (Williams, 2013, p. 1). But, the ability of the TPP agreement to provide real benefits for its participants depends largely on the U.S. willingness to open its market for the countries it does not have trade agreements still (Ruvenhill, 2009, p. 27). Concerning the linkage between Australia and the United States, an idea of Free Trade Agreement between them appeared long time before the current agreement (in particular, in 2002); actually, this fact indicates of the existence of close strategic economic connections between these two countries (Garnaut, 2002, p.124). However, the further debate on this issue showed its negative impact mainly on pharmaceuticals and Australian intellectual property (Quiggin, 2005). In fact, the closeness to America was also motivated by the problems in relations with Asian countries like Malaysia and Indonesia in the last decade of previous century concerning trade arrangements (Garnaut, 2002, p. 125). But, even though the whole text of the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement seemed beneficial to Australia, it should have been changed at least in the part of Intellectual Property rights (Quiggin, 2005, p. 15). In fact, the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) finally came into force in 2005 (Armstrong, 2011, p. 3) and currently seems to facilitate the negotiation on wider free trade area with other countries in Asia-Pacific region. The TPP agreement in the current background of regional bilateral and multilateral agreements cannot be taken as an absolutely reasonable step towards the facilitating of trade environment for Australia. In this context, the extent of the TPP is not wide enough in order to change the current economic situation. As Ravenhill (2009) characterizes it, such an agreement will be signed between already closely connected in trade terms countries, the level of liberalization is not changing the current situation significantly, resolves only some existing disputes on services and includes some necessary protectionist policies (p. 23-24). In fact, such a slight level of transformation can be considered as a result of fears of national governments on a free trade agreement. Moreover, the reliance on the trade policy is not the best option for Australia in the current age of globalization that leads to fast emergence of new unexpectedly important actors on the international and domestic stages (Kunkel, 2002). Also, the level of diversification between the participants of negotiations on TPP agreement is high. In this context, USA has a chance to play the key role in regulation of this agreement in economic terms as richer and larger country than most of the partners (Williams, 2013, p. 2). In this context, entrance of Japan as the third economy in the world increases the potential of the TPP agreement significantly (Williams, 2013, p. 7). Nevertheless, the opportunity to keep the Asian market open and involve key US market into the free trade agreement seems to be Australian interest on the modern stage (Armstrong, 2011, p. 2). Actually, throughout the years it was typical for Australia to join multilateral agreements on the international stage (Garnaut, 2002, p. 128); therefore, the current negotiations on TPP meet Australian interests in cooperating with most countries in the region and the United States as the key partner. In this context, the style of Australian foreign policy is often associated with value-based direction in order to protect national priorities and it is behaving in idealistic terms of democracy and global justice in the modern struggling international system (Gyngel and Wesley, 2007, p. 274). However, if USA decides to stand for its “platinum” standard requirement, the whole agreement will lose its potential economic benefits for most of the current and potential participants of the brand-new free trade area (Armstrong, 2011, p. 15). In this context, Australia as already opened country cannot effectively shape the agenda of the current agreement as it significantly lacks “negotiating coin” (Capling, 2008, p. 237) to set the rules. In order to sum up, the current situation with the TPP agreement is the subject of debate for Australian scholars. Even though the ground idea of facilitating the trade with the key Australian partners seems preferable, the real circumstances of the international environment make it less favorable for Australia. In particular, the exclusion of rising China from the TPP trade area creates the danger of split within the region. And so, the agreement transforms into political rather than economic step. Moreover, the style of previous Australian agreements with other countries show the more relying on values in context of Australian foreign policy than trade benefits. Therefore, the current negotiating process is not about economy but saving political face on the global stage. And so, the TPP agreement cannot be taken as a good way to develop Australian international image in case when China is not participating in such an agreement and USA has so many resources to shape the requirements with no advantages for Australia. References: Armstrong, S., 2011. Australia and the Future of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. In: TPP and Asia Pacific Regional Integration, China National Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation (CNCPEC). Beijing, 8-9 December 2011. Canberra: East Asian Bureau of Economic Research. Bell, C., 2005. Living with Giants: Finding Australia’s place in a more complex world. Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Available at: [Accessed 7 September 2014]. Capling, A., 2008. Australia’s Trade Policy Dilemmas. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 62 (2), pp. 229-244. Dobell, G., 2011. Rip off a Chinese arm. The Interpreter. Available at: [Accessed 6 September 2014]. Garnaut, R., 2002. An Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 56 (1), pp.123-141. Gyngell, A. and Wesley, M., 2007. Making Australian Foreign Policy. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kunkel, J., 2002, Australian Trade Policy in an Age of Globalization. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 56 (2), pp. 237-251. Lundberg, D., 2010. Asian Integration Models, Australia and the US [pdf]. Asian Studies Association of Australia. Available at [Accessed 6 September 2014]. Quiggin, J., 2005. How to kill a country?: The US-Australia Free Trade Agreement, pharmaceuticals and intellectual property. Australian Public Policy Program Working Paper P05 (1). Available at: [Accessed 7 September 2014]. Ravenhill, J., 2009. Extending the TPP: The Political Economy of Multilateralization in Asia. In: ARTNeT (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific), Asia Pacific Trade Economists’ Conference. Bangkok, 2-3 November 2009. Trans-Pacific Partnership, 2014. Office of the United States Trade Representative. Available at: [Accessed 6 September 2014]. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (overview) [pdf], 201-. Australian Government. Available at: [Accessed 6 September 2014]. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations, 201-. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Australian Government. Available at: [Accessed 6 September 2014]. Wesley, M., 2008. The Strategic Effects of Preferential Trade Agreements. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 62 (2), pp. 214-228. Williams, B., 2013. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Countries: Comparative Trade and Economic Analysis. Washington: Congressional Research Service. Read More