This past Wednesday, Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard agreed to station 2,500 American Marines in Australia to “help strengthen the alliance between the U.S. and Australia.” However, to others this was clearly a response to China’s recent purchase of her first aircraft carrier—an weary move made to watch over China’s threatening naval growth and influence over South East Asia.
Recently, trade has been disrupted in the region because of China’s competition. By moving troops to Australia, Obama is asserting to China America’s presence in the region’s trading business. However, because China is Australia’s most important trading partner, American occupation of Australia won’t have much power in decreasing China’s influence in Australian trading.
The U.S.’s move may have caused tension in the Trans Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement with Pacific Rim nations, by deterring China from joining. The organization's goal is to lower trade global trade barriers and promote economic expansion.
Was it really wise of the U.S. to move naval troops into Australia? Can it really help solve our trade problem there? Not to disregard the intimidation factor of establishing troops in a nation an ocean away, but I feel that the U.S. could have been directing its time and resources towards more efficient methods of improving her trade condition in South East Asia, such as establishing better trade relationships in the region, instead of raising tensions.
14 comments:
An interesting move by the Obama security team, one that China should take notice of. China's two faced approach to trade, its ridiculous claims to the South China Sea, continuing militarization and currency manipulation suggest that China is positioning itself to be more openly hostile in the future.
The move isn't about improving our trade position, it is about our ability to project force far away and it is about sending a signal that economics aside, there are limits to our patience with the authoritarian Chinese regime.
The US is paying close attention to the Asia-Pacific region because that’s where a part of the world is experiencing solid growth while Europe’s economy is still suffering. Obama’s nine day trip oversees has included many decisions like advocating a new free trade area that leaves out China in addition to US marines in the northern part of Australia. Already, America’s standing with Asia has declined in the last decades as China has increased. US see China as a threat since now they are the top trading partner for many countries all over the globe. Sure, China has struggled to keep inflation at bay, but they are still the first nation to emerge from the 2008 financial crisis. Many democrats and republicans blame China for American’s economy struggling. China has been a popular political issue on the GOP presidential campaign. Mitt Romney already promises to sanction China as a currency manipulator if he were to be elected president. I think that US marines at Australia will only cause tension and could hurt business interest. US actions to China’s economic growth do not help the US economy by triggering a trading war.
I agree with both of you above in that placing Marine troops in Australia will only raise tension. I don't see how it could possibly help improve trade there unless as Mr.Silton stated they foresee expanding their sphere of influence by placing Marines there will better their trade position rather it will only ruin our trade with them since we're already pretty reliant on Chinese manufacturing.
I don't view this development so much as a move to improve trade relations as it is to demonstrate U.S. Naval capacity.
What is currently going on in the South China Sea as well as the Indian Ocean (both bodies of water which are major trade routes), is an arms race. China is competing with India as well as other South East Asian Nations in developing Naval capacity.
With regards to the South China Sea in sepcific, there have been recent estimates that oil reserves underneath some of the islands within the sea are comprable to if not larger than the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia.
It is only natural that the United States would want to assert its Naval strengths in the region. While it is projected that China will overtake the United States as the country with highest GDP in the coming decades, the United States will still have a far superior military for decades to come.
Moreover, the U.S. is not the only country displaying its relative military strengths. Recently, in the Libya operations, China did decide to send in some of its navy to assist the operation in the North African country. Although China has always been a resolutely noninterventionist country, this act was a clear display of the growth of its navy.
Recently, Hilary Clinton, Secraty of State, has written various articles and made several annoucements stating a vested U.S. interest in the South China Sea. This action certainly demonstrates that interest.
Perhaps, placing 2,500 marines in Australia will increase tensions in trade. But this action shows that there are likely certain interests in the region which are higher up on the agenda than the maintaining trade.
I don't really see this as the US trying to prove its ability to project military power. There are US troops already stationed in South Korea and Japan, and adding 2500 more to Australia would not prove much since Australia is an industrialized nation easily capable of accommodating US troops.
I think this is more about the US trying to get at the oil in some islands in the South China Sea (the Spratly Islands come to mind after a trip to the Philippines) as Andrew said by getting more troops closer to the region to indirectly reinforce claims made by its close allies.
Regarding trade, China is Australia's largest partner, and sending troops only looks antagonistic. The only way to improve trade (or redirect some towards the US) between the US and Australia would be for the US to set policies that make it look more attractive.
I'm not sure what else I can add that Joey or Andrew haven't said. To be honest when I first heard this happen I was wondering what was going on. I didn't know why we were moving 2500 marines to Australia and so this blog post has helped shed some light on that ordeal. I don't really agree with the US moving troops to Australia, it creates a tension that isn't needed. Our economy and government system is based off trust, where the citizens of the state trust their government to not abuse their power and money is loaned out in the form of mortgages that banks trust the people can pay back over time. Once the trust is gone, you have a situation similar to Bear Sterns collapsing because of a rumor that they were running out of money causing a typical run on the bank. Just like that, this tension created by the US moving troops to Australia is like a sign that trust has been lost, and when trust between two nations is lost, trade cannot be performed between the two nations. While I do see Mr. Silton's point of China abusing the trust invested in them in the first place by aggressively showing its hostility to other nations and that china is pushing our patience too far, we are no better by projecting our might all the way across the pacific ocean to send them a stern message. This also somewhat fits the unfair stereotype of the US as the police of the world, and in a case like this, we're only proving it to be true. Whether or not someone needs to police or manage this situation is a topic I, as of now, do not have an opinion on just yet.
I agree with Joey in part in how I think 2500 troops is nothing in comparison to the amount of troops we have abroad. I believe that they are there because there was a reason to go, whether it be for oil or stability or not, no general would send men somewhere without a reason. Also, as for raising tensions I think that 2500 troops does not really matter, just the media, as usual is blowing things out of proportion to scare the general public. If the US really wanted to show force they would have to do something bigger than the Mars rover mission to combat the first chinese space docking, troops are hardly great intimidators in comparison to new spaceships. Furthermore, the Chinese economy is slowing, it is still growing and is growing much faster than other countries, but because of its high yen value the cost of production there is growing.
Although I agree with Billy on his point that the space race and technology races are better places for a show of force, the movement of troops into Australia is nonetheless an effective show of force. The movement of troops into Australia is a more relative show of force than an achievement in the space or technology sector for this situation. Since this situation specifically concerns China’s movements in the Pacific, a show of force in the Pacific is much more relevant than anything else.
Then why move to australia, not korea ,we have nearly the same relations with them, which is closer, and why marines and not naval groups? With troops being stationed all over, why would you move them to somewhere that is miles away? Sure australia is a major partner of china, but so are we, so why would we want to aggravate them at all? Also, the china sea wont be solved by 2500 extra marines, everyone should know that.
Although we do have a similar relationship with North Korea, it is China that is currently acting aggressively, and unlike North Korea, China has multiple allies that America is also an ally with, so positioning those troops in one of those countries has more effect and is less costly to America than placing troops in a country we have a less stable relationship with. And as to your question about the placement of marines rather than navy troops, I think that since the marines are often used on land conflicts, this maneuver is a more fitting show of force, since land troops on the soil of a country on is allied with is a much better threat than placing naval troops on around the country, since land troops can potentially takeover the country while naval troops are more likely to blockade the country. I think the maneuver wasn’t undertaken in order to solve the China Sea conflict, but rather to show our stance on the situation.
China must know as well as us that Australia is more of our ally than Chinas therefore the supposed symbology of invading australia and that they are next us not relevant. Also, what is the point of having something be symbolic, if the responding country knows we would not ever invade. In the end I just do not see this as an occupation but a blown out of proportion shuffling of troops that media decided to distort.
I simply provided that extreme hypothetical situation in order to show a possible reason for the show of force, but a more logical explanation is that America is trying to prove exactly what Billy just stated, that “Australia is more of our ally than China’s.” By placing troops in Australia, America is effectively showing China that we have more influence on one of their allies than they do. Although this may seem to be a blown up story due to actions of the media, any maneuvering of troops in any country is significant, since most movements of the troops are symbolic and are intended to deliver a message to someone.
Post a Comment