so the question is what should Canberra

do well now for the debate now in

tonight's debate each speaker will have

15 minutes to make their case and let me

introduce our first speaker Hugh white

is a professor of Strategic Studies and

he's probably known to many of you in

this room at the ANU here in Canberra

he's also the author of the quarterly

essay without America Australia in the

new Asia

he's a former deputy defense secretary

and his new book how to defend Australia

which is published by black ink

basically fleshes out the defense

requirements for his without America

thesis and you can buy that book in the

lobby as I've seen many of you doing

this evening so ladies and gentlemen

without further ado please join me in

welcoming professor Hugh white well

thank you very much sue for that

introduction thanks Tom for CAS is

organizing this thanks John it's a great

pleasure to appear on this platform with

John Mearsheimer amount whose work I've

admired and learn a great deal from over

many many years and thank you all for

coming

it's great to see so many out on a cold

Canberra night so so I think you set the

scene for us very nicely that mantra

that we've heard so much about over the

last 10 years or so we don't have to

choose between America and China always

depended for its credibility on whether

Washington and Beijing agreed and if

what you do in Beijing decided or if

either of them decided that we did have

to choose then we had to choose and last

weekend if we'd been any doubt before

last weekend removed any doubt at all

that at least from Washington's point of

view and I was Jose from Beijing z-- we

do have to choose we do have to make

some choices and the choices we're

talking about our very big ones

because the us-china rivalry that we're

seeing today over which of them will be

the primary power in the world's most

dynamic region is a very big strategic

challenge indeed it's the biggest

challenge to Australia strategic

assumptions I would argue since the late

1930s and that didn't end well now it is

I believe an oversimplification to see

the choices which that confronts us with

in the terms in which for example and

relentless grilling from Tom Switzer on

Sunday afternoon the US Secretary of

State characterized them as a choice

between soya beans and security a choice

between the United States is our great

ally and China is our great customer it

is true that there is a choice between

prosperity and security and the way we

manage this but tonight I want to leave

prosperity to one side and I want to ask

what is best for our security what

choices do we face in terms of how best

to manage our security over the years

and decades to come

in the light of this rivalry between the

US and China is it best for us just to

support the United States in what

appears to be its current policy of

trying to contain China's challenge and

restore the old us-led order which has

served Australia so well or is it better

for us not to support them and to try

some other approach I'll touch very

briefly on what that other approach

might be later now just to be clear this

is not a conversation about what we'd

like if you ask me at least what I'd

like I'd like American primacy and Asia

to last forever but I but what we need

to have a conversation about is not what

we'd like but what we should prudently

expect and I don't think we can

prudently expect that supporting the

United States in the policy that it's

currently appears to be pursuing is the

best way for us to proceed and there is

two reasons why I think that the first

is that I don't believe the United

States itself is committed to it and

therefore it won't work

the second is that even if the United

States is committed to it it won't work

and it will lead to a disaster let me

analyze those to explain those to

explore those two propositions in a

little bit more detail why why do I say

the United States is not really

committed to the policy of containing

China and restoring the us-led order

well it's easy to assume it is partly

because they say so that's what

secretary Pompeo for example was saying

over the weekend but I do tend as a

point of methodology to discount what

what countries and their leaders and

their political representatives say and

look more carefully at what they do

so stronger reason as to why the United

States should be committed to preserving

its leadership in Asia

is that it's always done so before that

the United States for a long time a

century you might say has has always

been committed to preserving its

position as the leading power in East

Asia and more broadly to resisting

challenges posed by peer competitors

successively through the 20th century

and that is true nineteen seventeen

nineteen forty one the decades of the

Cold War the United States has been

pretty consistent but the fact that

that's what the United States has done

before is no guarantee that that's what

it'll do in the future and it seems to

me in particular that the in the case of

the contest with China there are two key

differences the first is that China is

stronger than any of the peer

competitors would be peer competitors

that the United States has ever faced

before it's stronger is an economic

power in particular and I do take an

old-fashioned view that economic weight

is the foundation of national power that

is not to say that China that America

isn't strong to it's a very strong

country but China is stronger relative

to the United States than any country

has ever been since the United States

first poked its nose out of the Western

Hemisphere at the end of the nineteenth

century its economy is far far bigger

probably already now twice as big as the

Soviet Union's was relative to Americas

at the height of the Cold War and it's

likely to grow much bigger still we

would make a real mistake to keep

under estimating China's power for the

next few years as we have done so

consistently for the last 25 years we

face this predicament today because

we've underestimated China's power for

so long and I might say we've

overestimated the United States but long

taken it for granted that the United

States is by definition the world's

strongest state by definition has a

military power to do whatever it likes

what we've discovered repeatedly but

still don't seem to have learned from is

that the United States for all its

strength and power and creativity and

all the good things about it is not the

power we thought it was and the power we

hoped it would be and what that means is

that the costs the United States or

preserving its leadership in Asia in the

face of China's power and ambition to

overtake it is going to be very high it

will become comparable to and perhaps

higher than the costs of preserving its

position visa via the Soviet Union

during the Cold War because China is

stronger now the other side of the coin

is that the imperatives of the United

States are lower then then then they

were in previous enterprises when it

confronted peer competitors and that's

because in the past when the United

States has set out to defeat for example

vilho mind Germany in 1917 or the Nazis

and the Japanese in 1941 or the Soviets

in 1948 and onwards they confronted in

each of those episodes powers which had

a real prospect of dominating the whole

of the Eurasian landmass and any country

that dominates the whole of the Eurasian

landmass is easily going to be strong

enough to threaten the United States at

home in the Western Hemisphere that

provided a very deep foundational reason

why the why the United States should be

prepared to be the burdens and pay the

costs of confronting those very powerful

States but I think it's hard to argue

that China has a prospect of doing that

because although I am pretty bullish

about China I think the chances of China

having a kind of preponderance that

would allow to dominate the other

countries in Eurasia are very low

therefore the chance of it being able to

dominate Eurasia and threaten the United

States at home in the West

hemisphere are very low and therefore

the chance of the United States having

the will the motive the purpose to pay

those higher costs and risks in order to

confront China in East Asia to prevent

China becoming the primary power in East

Asia is pretty low because I just don't

see why the United States should commit

itself to those costs and risks and

moreover there's no real sign that they

are there are people in Washington

including the Secretary of State and the

Secretary of Defense who talked of a new

Cold War or language like it but I think

they still underestimate China I don't

hear from them a clear understanding of

how big that will be a clear

articulation of a strategy that would

deliver America a reasonable trust

prospect of success in confronting China

no clear recognitions of how much that

will cost and no clear statement of why

the United States has to commit itself

to paying those costs and I haven't even

mentioned Donald Trump but Trump is an

important part of this not because but

not just because of his own policies but

because of what his election tells us

about the attitude not of the foreign

policy elites in Washington DC but of

American voters because in the end a

national effort on the scale and cost

and risk required to confront a country

as powerful as China in its own

hemisphere is not something that can be

decided by a few people and think tanks

up and down Massachusetts Avenue it

needs to be decided by the American

people as a whole and what you see from

the election of Donald Trump what you

see from the willingness of the

Republican establishment to go along

with him and what you see on the

Democrat side of politics as the

Democrats try to redefine themselves in

a trump era is very little commitment if

any to preserving the US leadership role

upon which this whole model of American

engagement in Asia depends in the light

of all this Australians have to ask

themselves how confident can we be that

America today and in the decades to come

will commit to the costs and risks of

containing China and what if I'm wrong

how sure can we be that they will

succeed if they if I'm wrong and they do

decide to commit because if I'm wrong

if America really is committed then what

we'll see is escalating strategic

rivalry further steps up the trend a

very sharply rising trend that we've

seen in the last few months and years

now everyone in Washington and everyone

in Australia I guess will hope that that

in the face of that China would simply

back off

but I think that underestimates China

again the balance of resolve favors

China for the simple geographical reason

that the contest we're talking about is

one in East Asia if the contest was in

the western hemisphere I wouldn't give

China a chance but in China's backyard

where the balance of resolves is so

strong strongly shaped by geography I

think the chances of China backing off

before America does are very low that

means if America sticks to the to the

commitment the chance of war goes up

it's quite high in this scenario over an

issue like Taiwan in a sense what it

doesn't really matter what the issue

that starts it is what's important is is

that the US and China will find

themselves fighting a conflict whose

essential driver is a question as to

which of them as the primary power in

Asia a very old-fashioned conception of

a hegemonic war

if that happens America will not win

easily in fact I think the chances are

America will not win at all it won't

lose in a sense the PLA is not going to

march down the Constitution the

Constitution Avenue in the United States

but but it will not win and in and in

failing to win and failing the resolve

the old order in Asia will be destroyed

anyway moreover the chance of that

conflict escalating to a nuclear

conflict is quite high and the chance of

that becoming a full-scale nuclear

exchange is quite high

so if I'm wrong if America is committed

that leads Asha and Australia directly

to what looks to me like a very serious

catastrophe in neither case whether

America's committed or it isn't our

Australia's security interest served by

supporting and encouraging

current US policy so will we anyway I've

just explained what we should do what

will we do I don't know actually it's

it's very easy for us to keep trying to

slide along as we're doing at the moment

without making a choice on this being

actually systemically duplicitous

telling the United States that we are

supporting them and telling the Chinese

that we're not that is Australia's

policy today I think we'll we can

resolve that whether we can come out and

actually say no we're not going to go

down this path United States just is

that was talking about following it's

going to be hard it's very easy to slide

into supporting the United States

through timidity and a lack of

imagination it's easy to say we have no

choice as people keep on saying that's

simply wrong we do have a choice we do

have a choice we haven't yet made that

choice yet and but but but what is

notable to me is that Australian

government so far including the

president government have not have have

so far failed to endorse the American

designation of China as a strategic

rival they haven't done so yet not I

think because of a kind of strategic

argument I've just unfolded but for the

simple reason going back to mr. Pompeo

fear of China's anger and what it would

mean for our trade relationships but I

think what that shows is they still

hoping to muddle through and I think

this is true of both sides of politics

and that does remind me of the 1930s

because if you look at what Australia

did as things darkened in the late 1930s

Australia still Australian political

leaders recognized that the singapore

strategy that continuing dependence on

the United Kingdom to which we are so

heavily committed was not working but we

simply couldn't imagine doing anything

else

and so we slid into the fall of

Singapore and the biggest catastrophe in

our national history so what should we

do well two possibilities one is that we

should go back to the United States and

say we don't think the policy you're

working on at the moment is going to

work

but we can encourage them to develop one

that will and it is possible to imagine

a US policy which recognized China's

growing power which was sustainable at

an effort at a level of effort the

United States is prepared to commit it

would be a very different u.s. role in

Asia than one we have seen in the past

but it would be much better for us than

the United States withdrawing which

seems to be the most likely alternative

I think there was a time around about

2012 when Australia could have done that

could have gone out there and argued for

that different model and if you look at

for example of what leash and lung was

talking about his big speech in

Singapore on the 1st of June this year

that was the kind of thing he was

talking about and we could we could do

that and maybe we should but I'm here to

tell you I think the time has passed I

think the chances of that succeeding is

now very low so what should we do

instead prepare for how best we can

manage our security if that fails which

means prepare to stand alone thank you

very much thank you for those sobering

scenarios you now to our second speaker

John Mearsheimer is one of America's

leading foreign policy thinkers he is a

professor of political science at the

University of Chicago and he's the

author of the book the tragedy of great

power politics now at the end of the

Cold War during the Cold War era there

were three big ideas that dominated

debate there was Francis Fukuyama's end

of history there was the clash of

civilizations by Samuel Huntington and

then there was John Mearsheimer

tragedy thesis he is also the author

most recently of the great delusion

liberal dreams and international

realities which is all about the

American policy of pursuing little

liberal hegemony and its failure and

that book is also available in the hotel

lobby and I see that sales have also

been pretty

lift on that book - so without further

ado I'd like to invite professor John

Mearsheimer to come and address us thank

you very much for the kind introduction

it's a great pleasure and an honor to be

up here and it's a great pleasure to be

debating you this evening the question

that's on the table is what should the

Australia's foreign policy be in light

of the rise of China and what I'm going

to tell you is what I think it should be

and it's an honor Australian I'm being a

bit presumptuous here but I'll tell you

what I would suggest if I were an

Australian and I'm also going to tell

you what I think is going to happen

right because I'm quite confident that

what Australia you should do it will do

and the way I want to proceed is I want

to first describe the us-china

competition and then I want to turn to

talking about how Australia fits into

that bigger picture okay so let me start

by talking about Chinese foreign policy

and what's happening in China my basic

assumption here is that China is going

to continue to grow over time it's very

important to understand that that's an

assumption the China will continue to

grow and my argument is that it will

turn that economic power into military

power and it will try to dominate Asia

the way the United States dominates the

Western Hemisphere to put it in slightly

different terms where China is going to

want to do is be a regional hegemon like

the United States is in the Western

Hemisphere it's going to want to be much

more powerful than all of its neighbors

what China is going to want to do and

it's a smart thing from China's

perspective is maximize the power gap

between it and

Pan in India and Russia you want to be

as we used to say when I was a little

boy in New York City the biggest and

baddest dude on the block you want to be

really powerful that's the first goal

the second goal for China's perspective

is to push the Americans out of Asia

you know we Americans have what's called

the Monroe Doctrine we do not like the

idea of other great powers from places

like Asia or places like Europe coming

into the Western Hemisphere we want to

dominate the Western Hemisphere by

ourselves my view is that China is going

to want to dominate Asia especially East

Asia and it's not gonna want the United

States on its doorstep and I don't blame

them at all I think from China's point

of view this makes perfect sense the

best way to survive in the international

system is to be a regional hegemon so I

think as China gets more and more

powerful it's gonna push in that

direction and the question you have to

ask yourself is what is the United

States going to do the United States is

not gonna let that happen

or at least it's gonna try not to let

that happen we're gonna get right up in

China's face and we're gonna tell them

you cannot be a regional hegemon we're

going to pivot to Asia and we're going

to do everything we can to prevent that

from happening the historical record on

this issue is quite clear you alluded to

it in his comments the United States

went to great lengths to contain and

then put four different potential peer

competitors on the scrap heap of history

in the 20th century first Imperial

Germany second Imperial Japan third Nazi

Germany and for the Soviet Union we went

out of our way we went to great lengths

we paid a great price to make sure that

none of those four countries dominated

either Europe Asia or

eurasia we do not tolerate peer

competitors so you can rest assured that

as china attempts to dominate Asia and

mainly East Asia for starters we will go

to great lengths to prevent that from

happening and we will go to great

lengths to organize a balancing

coalition in this area of the world so

that others are with us now some people

believe and I think this is clear and

use comments that the United States is

not up for the task and there's sort of

two arguments here one is public opinion

in the United States

we're tired of global leadership and we

won't be here

we're worn out and in the second

argument is we just don't have the

wherewithal to do it we're dealing with

Godzilla and there's no way the United

States the poor pitiful United States

can deal with the power as great as

China first with regard to public

opinion there's no question the American

public is worn out tired of these what

we call forever wars in places like the

Middle East that's true for sure but the

fact of the matter is even though the

American public is worn out we continue

to fight those wars and we still are

operating all over the globe and our

commitments have actually increased

since President Trump took over and

there's no evidence that we're leaving

East Asia in fact if you look at our

arms sales with Taiwan in our political

relations with Taiwan these days we're

increasing the bonds between the United

States and Taiwan which is sure to

infuriate the Chinese but we just don't

care and if you look at the trade war

this is all an indication that the

United States is getting up in China's

face we're not leaving the American

people is not warrant or not worn out

and furthermore the forever wars are

different than dealing with a pure

competitor and furthermore you

want to understand that in the United

States it's not just a

military-industrial complex the usual

security experts who are interested in

containing China it's also a huge chunk

of the business community the high tech

industry they're scared stiff for the

Chinese so the high tech industry is

marching arm and arm at the Pentagon so

in terms of public opinion will be there

now with regard to the question of

whether or not we have the wherewithal

to deal with China I disagree with you

on this one

the United States is the most powerful

state on the planet at this point in

time militarily the Chinese would be

crazy to pick a fight with us we have

the finest military out there and

economically we have a dynamic economy

and if you look at per capita GNP which

I think is the principal indicator of

economic power we far outdistanced the

Chinese it may be the case in 20 or 30

years that they outdistance us but who

knows who knows what's going to happen

over the next 20 or 30 years

economically who knows how much the

Chinese economy is going to grow

relative to the American economy but for

the foreseeable future we definitely

have the wherewithal to play in this

game and furthermore you want to

remember we're going to have allies and

we're gonna have some rich allies and I

believe one of them will be Australia

but countries like Japan countries like

India they'll be with us so it's not

just the United States versus China it's

the United States and some powerful

allies versus China all right so I think

that you know we're in the game but

let's assume that you was basically

correct and China becomes much more

powerful or China is much more powerful

in the United States you want to

remember that during the Cold War when

the Soviet Union was at its height of

power it had only 30 percent of the

wealth that the United States had 30

percent of the wealth and we still had

an intense security competition from

1947 to 1989 so even if we have 50

percent even 30 percent of the wealth of

China
we'll be there we may ultimately lose

but most of you will be dead by the time

that happens and there's going to be a

lot of balancing in the meantime so the

idea right the idea that we're not going

to be there you can forget that right so

we're going to have an intense security

competition that is very quickly a lot

of people argue that there's a way out

of this we can have some sort of

condominium some sort of concert the

United States and China can get together

and they can divide up East Asia and

live happily ever after this is not my

understanding a family of national

politics works international politics is

a zero-sum game and the Chinese smartly

I'm going to be clear here the Chinese

smartly want to dominate Asia and they

want the Americans out we want to

maintain the status quo we do not want

trying to get any more powerful than it

is today

so there's not going to be a condominium

they're gonna push hard and we're gonna

push hard and we're going to go to great

lengths to undermine them it's not

simply gonna be containment during the

Cold War the United States was involved

in not only containment but rollback we

will be engaged in rollback and if you

look at what President Trump is doing

that's not just containment

that's rollback he's trying to rollback

Chinese power this is the way great

powers behave this is the way the United

States Babes you want to understand the

United States as a ruthless great power

it does not tolerate their competitors

now the question is what does this all

mean for Australia you're in a quandary

for sure everybody knows everybody knows

what the quandary is and by the way

you're not the only country in East Asia

that's in this quandary you trade a lot

with China and that trade is very

important for your prosperity no

question about that and security-wise

you really want to go with us it makes

just a lot more sense right and you

understand that security is more

important than prosperity because if you

don't survive

you're not gonna prosper survival's of

the utmost importance because you can't

pursue any other goals if you don't

survive right so Security's got to be

number one

so you'll sacrifice prosperity for

security right that's what will happen

that's why you'll be with us now some

people say there's an alternative you

can go with China right you have a

choice here you can go with China rather

the United States there's two things

I'll say about that number one if you go

with China you want to understand you

are our enemy you are then deciding to

become an enemy of the United States

because we're again we're talking about

an intense security competition you're

either with us or against us and if

you're trading extensively with China

and you're friendly with China you're

undermining the United States in this

security competition you're feeding the

beast from our perspective and that is

not going to make us happy and when we

are not happy you do not want to

underestimate how nasty we can bei just

ask Fidel Castro to take this a step

further let's assume that you side with

China let's assume that you is correct

and that the Chinese when you help China

win by siding with China you think

you're gonna be happy in that world you

don't think they're going to interfere

with your sovereignty you want to come

over to the Western Hemisphere go down

to Central America but down to South

America and ask those countries down

there how they like living with the

United States of America we have a rich

history of doing horrible things in

South and Central America okay I'm glad

from an American perspective that we're

a hegemon but I'll tell you from the

perspective of our neighbors doesn't

look like a happy story and I'll tell

you something you already see evidence

of this if China dominates this region

they're gonna violate your sovereignty

time after time and it's not gonna be a

happy story you're gonna be with us and

then finally there's this argument that

you can sit on the sidelines

all right you can just sort of sit on

the side

whoa are you gonna trade but the Chinese

well you sit on the sidelines yes you

are you're not going to just sit there

and be an isolated country fortress

Australia you're going to be trading

you're highly dependent on trade with

China that's just another way of saying

you're not going to be neutral you're

gonna be in bed with the Chinese and

again that's not gonna make the

Americans happy and if it does work out

in China wins you're gonna regret it

till the day you die and you of course

know that and that's why you'll side

with the Americans and I'm not saying

that's siding with the Americans is a

day at the beach it's not but it's the

least bad of two alternatives and this

is what international politics is often

about is you know it's picking among bad

alternatives and siding with the

Americans may be a bad alternative but

it's a heck of a lot worse decide but

the Chinese were operate under the

illusion that you can be neutral not

gonna happen not gonna happen right so

what's my bottom line here my bottom

line is that you should all hope that

China does not continue to grow you

should hope it does not continue to grow

I should the Americans but if it does

continue to grow you should and I

believe you will side with uncle sugar

thank you thank you

thank you professor John Mearsheimer and

professor Hugh white what a debate now

my name is Tom Switzer on from the

Center for independent studies and thank

you so much for being here this is our

first event in Canberra and judging by

the crowd I hope it's not our last so

thank you so much for being here let's

talk first about these schools of

thought so you've got the the hue wide

argument which is saying that Americans

are tired of the world they're suffering

from foreign policy fatigue and that in

this increasingly intense strategic and

economic competition Australia should be

prepared to stand alone the Mearsheimer

school of thought of course is that the

US will maintain serious economic and

military presence in the region

and Canberra must support Uncle Sam

going forward so there's two schools of

thought

simply put let's first talk about the

the big news of the day

Andrew hasty the Liberal MP he wrote an

op-ed today in The Sydney Morning Herald

and the argument is that Australia is

facing an unprecedented economic and

national security test he like in the

world approach to containing China to

the quote catastrophic failure to

prevent the rise of Nazi Germany Hugh

white what do you make of Hasty's

remarks well he's come a bit late to the

party and identifying the rise of China

and the escalating strategic rivalry

between the US and China is the biggest

strategic challenge Australia faces some

have been talking about that for a

decade I'd for more but welcome it's

also good to see that he's noting that

it's more important than the war on

terror good I'm glad he's caught up with

that argument I don't think the

appeasement metaphor the Nazi Germany

metaphor is very helpful

historical metaphors can sometimes be

valuable but they can also be a little

bit distorting the Munich metaphor has

been used in relation to almost every

international strategic crisis since

1938 and often it's produced very dumb

outcomes so I don't think that helps us

very much and I gotta say from my

reading of the op-ed he didn't actually

offer much in the way of advice as to

what we should be doing about it I don't

think he actually make it and we should

stress so that we're catching up with

the news of the day that China's

government has come out through its

embassy to strongly deplore hates these

comments extreme overblown and unwelcome

but John Mearsheimer isn't there quite a

bit of truth leaving aside the Nancy

analogy a lot of truth to what hasty

saying and what you're saying yeah I

just want to be clear to sort of build

on what you said that I think comparing

China to Nazi Germany was a foolish

thing to do

China is an authoritarian system and it

has all sorts of aspects to its

political system that somebody from a

liberal democracy like me doesn't like

at all

but China is not

Nazi Germany and I think it was not

helpful at all as you said to make that

analogy I think what's good about the

essay is that he points out that the

policy of engagement which the West

pursued this includes Australians and

especially Americans towards China over

the course of the post-cold war period

effectively helped create this monster

the idea was that we were going to trade

extensively with China make it rich

embed it in international institutions

and it was going to become in Robert

Zoellick swards

a responsible stakeholder well what we

did was we helped accelerate the growth

of China it didn't become a responsible

stakeholder as people like me predicted

and instead it's good to do when I said

it was good to do which is try to

dominate Asia so it was a remarkably

foolish policy and we were as Secretary

of State Pompeo said asleep at the

switch because we were pursuing this

foolish policy now the question is what

do we do and as you said he's not too

good on the solutions because as most

people understand there are no really

terrific solutions here as I said at the

end of my comic have a high seat neshama

and watch a broadly an agreement on the

threat that China poses is increasingly

assertive on the world stage especially

in our own region however there is a lot

of Scott there are a lot of scholars who

believe that there are some serious

weaknesses and limitations in China I

want to put two Hugh white the views of

the distinguished American Scientologist

professor David sham bar from George

Washington University and he says when

he talks about China's weaknesses an

economy saddled with a large and growing

debt burden endemic corruption

environmental concerns you think about

the air and the water pollution very

extreme demographic challenges you know

John Howard's fond of saying that China

is likely to grow old before it grows

rich a humid are you exaggerating

China's capacities

well it's just worth bearing I got a lot

of time for David Shambo old and dear

friend very fine china scholar but it's

just worth making the point that

precisely that list of points that you

read out have been said about china

every single year since it started

growing and as I said in my remarks

earlier we have consistently

underestimated China's capacity to work

through its problems and to keep the

economy growing and I think one of the

reasons as john said one of the reasons

why people have underestimated china as

a strategic challenger and one of the

reasons why I've taken a different view

for a long time is that they've tended

to convince themselves that somehow

China would solve our problem for us by

screwing it up and they haven't so far

well that's not to say they won't it's

not to say they won't in future all

sorts of things to go wrong in China but

I will just make this observation the

strategic weight the economic weight

that gives China the capacity to pose

this very significant challenge to

American leadership in Asia is not

something that's predicated on its

future development it's already today

far bigger relative to the United States

than any country has ever been it's it's

PP its GDP measured in PPP terms is

already bigger than America so even a

shot of flat lines from here which is

very unlikely to do it will still be in

a position to pose a more serious

challenge to United States than any of

those previous peer competitor okay but

it's not just David shamba there's a

sense of history here Owen Harry's a

head of policy planning in the

Department of Foreign Affairs in the

Fraser era a big figure in Canberra four

decades ago and former senior fellow

here at CIS he points out than the past

century China has experienced the

collapse of a traditional regime

warlordism civil war invasion a famine

that killed millions in master terror in

the form of the Cultural Revolution and

of course the dramatic socio-economic

changes of the last four decades John

Mearsheimer surely such a power is not

wanting to be expansionist because it's

got so many of these challenges at home

and the history there which respond to

Ellen Harris now the point is that China

when it was weak and it was suffering in

the various ways that Tom just described

was victimized by other great power

the Chinese talk about the century of

national humiliation China was a very

weak country and when it was weak it was

victimized by the United States the

Japanese and the European great powers

the lesson that the Chinese have taken

from that which I believe is the correct

lesson is that you want to be extremely

powerful and you don't want any rival

great powers in your region of the world

and that's why I believe the Chinese as

they now begin to grow economically are

bent on establishing regional hegemony

you know I'm an American the United

States is the only regional hegemon in

modern history how many Americans do you

think go to bed at night worrying about

being attacked by Canada or Mexico the

answer is none we have the ideal geo

strategic situation we have Canadians to

the north Mexicans to the south fish to

the east and fish to the west that's

what you want right

the last thing you want to do is live

next to other gorillas because they may

invade you and if those economic

problems that you describe do manifest

themselves you can rest assured that

your neighbors will take advantage of

you so I think it makes perfect sense

for the Chinese to try to dominate Asia

but you want to remember it makes

perfect sense for us and for you to go

to great lengths to not let that happen

okay so just assume you're both rod that

China's rise will continue on about and

that's the consensus here I'm an

agnostic on that I want to be clear if

it yes rights but just assume you're

right on this question that China's rise

will continue unabated the consensus in

Canberra both major parties for some

time now believe that we can ride two

horses simultaneously we can continue to

have the security umbrella with the

Americans and to trade and definitely

autumn I ask you because this wasn't

spelled out in your talk you why can't

we just continue to have the best of

both worlds in this increasingly intense

strategic competition between Beijing

and Washington well because for exactly

the reason that John explained they're

not gonna let us mmm the proposition we

don't have to choose between America and

China expresses

hope not a reliable prediction whether

or not we have to choose two pens on

them if either of them says we have to

choose then we have to choose and what

we heard what what you heard from

Pompeii over the weekend was the

Americans saying you have to choose and

what we heard from Beijing's reaction to

what he'd had to say and for that matter

Beijing's reactions Hasty's article

today was also you have to choose so the

fact is we are under increasing pressure

- from both sides - in in America's case

to support them as they push back

against China in China aside for us not

to support the United States as they

push back against China so I think it's

a very it's going to be extremely

developed impossible really for us to

satisfy both at once and that that's the

reason why they all sort of you know

ride both horses model is not going to

work yeah and on that night John a

choice is inevitable that's an agreement

here but you know as Hugh and he's not

alone it's the common view in business

circles in this country that China buys

double what our next largest customer

Japan buys from us the Chinese economy

will grow much bigger than America's in

coming years I think you points to

federal treasury predictions that say

that China's economy will be 80% bigger

than America's in 12 years that's from

the Commonwealth Treasury our China ties

this is a wildly held view saved us from

the global financial crisis more than a

decade so a lot of Australians the

choice would seem clear but your point

is that security Trump's try to explain

well I mean when you're dealing with the

business community especially which

makes a lot of a lot of money dealing

with the Chinese on the trade front of

course they're going to want to maintain

the status quo or maybe even lean

towards China but the point that I tried

to make before is that in virtually

every case I know in international

history when a state is forced to choose

between prosperity

and security it ups for security because

survival has to be the highest goal this

is in a way a tragic situation

for Australia I fully understand that

Australia wants to maintain the status

quo to put it in slightly different

terms that my mother would use Australia

wants its cake and eat it too but the

fact is that world is going away and as

you said you're gonna be forced to make

a choice the United States is gonna lean

on you like you wouldn't believe and the

Chinese are gonna lean on you like you

wouldn't believe and it has nothing to

do with you know the United States per

se or China per se or Australia per se

it's just the way international politics

works and great powers push hard on

minor powers or middle range powers and

that's what's happening here and I

believe that you're opted to side with

the United States and if you don't as I

said in my formal presentation you

should understand you'll be an enemy of

the United States and adding to John

we've shown this point Hugh I'd I mean

there's a lot of anxiety about China I

mean there is a allegations been made

about Beijing's interference in our

politics fears that have been pressures

caught from Beijing proxies undermining

academic freedom we keep hearing about

these Confucius Institutes and whatnot

here's a poll from the Lowy Institute a

year ago three-quarters of Australians

say Canberra allows quote too much

investment from China especially in real

estate and agriculture so aren't those

concerns absolutely legitimate and

understandable oh well I don't put a lot

of weight on people's anxiety about

foreign investment because the go back

for the really through they the the

records people are being interned about

Japanese foreign investment and that

matter American foreign investment at

different stages in our history so I

don't think that's the key but I do

think there was a genuine anxiety that

as China's power grows and it goes back

to something that John said living in an

Asia dominated by China is not going to

be a picnic it's going to be very

different and very scary and so I think

those concerns

are entirely legitimate the question is

what do we do about it

and I think the default position in a

position of some of those who have been

prominent in raising these concerns has

been well that's just fine we rely on

the United States to deal with China

Flores then my whole argument is I don't

think that's going to work I think we

are going to end up most likely living

in an Asia which is dominated East Asia

which is dominated by China and

therefore we have to make some tough

decisions about how we protect our

independence our sovereignty

how we draw lines around how far that

influence is going to go in a way that

we can enforce by ourselves rather than

having to rely on others and that's one

of the reasons why I think we have to be

much more energetic and I might say much

more innovative about the way we've

positioned ourselves in the region

diplomatically

and I also think we have to be much more

imaginative and much more energetic

about the way we build the armed forces

which will constitute for us the final

arbiter of how hardly how hard we can be

pushed around which is what my recent

books about one final segment before we

go to questions John you're obviously

very confident about Americans staying

power in the region that was self

evident from your talk but you didn't

mention soft power

what about soft power what about

American soft power trump era I make two

points I think that since I've been

studying American foreign policy

American soft power has been one of our

great virtues I think that the coming of

Donald Trump and the Trump

administration more generally has done

quite a bit to damage our soft power and

I think this is regrettable and I hope

the situation changes my second point is

I think the Chinese are not good at soft

power at all and the one thing the

Americans have going for them these days

even though President Trump is kind of a

blunder puss when it comes to soft power

is the fact that the Chinese seem

than him and I think moving forward from

an American perspective it would help a

lot if we had a president or an

administration that paid serious

attention to soft power as well as hard

power yeah what about that point Hugh

what about the China soft power America

not standing the controversies of the

Trump administration China America has

pretty a lot of soft power if you like

and it's exporting it a lot over the

world especially in the post-war era

China's soft power yeah look I'm a I

just put me down as a skeptic about soft

power generally it generally I mean I

just I'm gonna forget the books but I've

just never seen where it actually makes

a difference to the way states behave

when when the chips are down hmm sure I

prefer American movies to Chinese and

sure I prefer the American Constitution

to the Chinese Constitution I mean

that's it being a bit flippant I mean a

America is a country that I admire

enormous Lee in a million different ways

there are things I admire about China

too but fewer but I don't think in the

end that is going to determine how

countries are going to align in in the

contest that we're seeing at the moment

I'm much less confident than John is I

think that other countries in Asia that

Japan's the India's the Singapore's the

South Korea's or the Australia's are

going to align with the United States

and when they decide to or not is not

going to be influenced much by what

normally called soft power okay I would

just say Tom this is the first time I've

ever been on a panel and my wife where I

was defending so I'm gonna take that and

we should stress that today John we

Shauna gave the Department of Foreign

Affairs and Trade which was well

received it was called mr. hard

our please don't let that get out secret

is safe for that and now it's time for

Q&A and our first question comes from

Peter Varghese the former head of the

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Peter thank you very much

and to John and Hugh thank you for a

characteristically erudite and

articulate and almost persuasive you

describe being you right I just want to

explore the space between balancing

China and containing China there's a lot

of color and movement in American

policymaking at the moment but I'm not

sure we know where the settling point

actually will be and I'd be interested

in your views on this so Australia has

adopted a position of engage and balance

and part of that is a judgment that we

can't stop China's growth but we may be

able to constrain its behavior through

building up a balance of power United

States Japan India Australia maybe one

or two others which wouldn't mean that

China didn't have carte blanche in its

behavior the United States has strayed

from engagement but in my view has yet

to fully embrace containment although I

think both you and John spoke of the

containment policy if the United States

goes all the way to full-blown

containment by which I mean the

decoupling of the US and the Chinese

economies the bifurcating of global

supply chains and the proposition that

anything you do which strengthens the

Chinese economy is contrary to core

strategic interests is that the point at

which Australia and our ally part ways

because it will in my view be quite an

unacceptable policy framework for

Australia to have to follow

mmm very good question of course I I'm

not quite sure I by your

characterization of Australian policy

because I think I think you

characterized it as something in balance

engage in balance

I think Australia's policy has been

engaged and pretend that is pretend that

China is not really a serious strategic

strategic rival of the United States I

don't believe you're spinning Australian

government has ever articulated a clear

policy in which we envisage a new order

in Asia in which the US and China have a

more equal and more balanced

relationship and I say that because

that's a position that I have been

arguing for which I have never received

any support from anyone in the

Australian government more so I think

the foundation of Australian policy has

been that we would hope the United

States would contain China and therefore

allow us China would back off from its

challenge and would allow us to continue

to rely on China to Kate make us rich in

America to keep us safe

the second point is I'm not sure I share

your characterization of the US policy I

think I agree there's a lot of color and

movement in United States policy at the

moment on the one hand we see coming out

of the foreign policy establishment a

very clear suggestion I'm not gonna use

a stronger word than that cuz I don't

think it's yet a policy really of which

i think is containment and i mean it's

not it's not a coincidence that the

phrase the new Cold War has received

such prominence in the way in which

that's discussed and if you look at the

language for example well used by Pompeo

& Co in Sydney the big pent speech at

the Hudson Institute in October last

year this this is this looks to me like

a containment policy and if that is what

the United States pursues as I said I

think it'll be extraordinarily hard for

Australia to follow it I also think it

will be disastrous because unlike John I

don't think it's gonna work and I think

it is likely to lead

to a a very divided Asia but be a high

chance of a catastrophic catastrophic

war so I think that there there is a

place for Australia to to change its

policy to argue to the United States

that it should adopt a balanced model

but I think that's not something we've

done yet and I think it's going to prove

to be extremely hard to sell that to the

United States I've tell you from

personal experience if you stand up in a

in a seminar room in Washington DC and

say that the United States needs to

treat China as an equal you get look

gasps of disbelief or throwing the shown

the door this isn't it's just not just

something and I think that's on that's

on an American political spectrum and I

think in a way you know John's feisty

presentation of American strategic

psychology demonstrated that and so I

think it's much more likely the United

States will either try and contain or

withdraw and I think because I don't

think it's serious about containment I

think it is like that it would draw

which is why I think we have to think

how I can manage on Mishima yeah I think

that engagement in containment are two

mutually incompatible strategies and

what we who did up until 2017 was pursue

engagement and not containment after

Trump was elected and came into the

White House and got his sea legs

he abandoned engagement and he moved to

containment and in fact as I said in my

comments it's more than just containment

it's actually roll back as well

Australia on the other hand doesn't want

to engage in containment you want your

cake and eat it too and you want to

continue to engage with China and your

basic view is if you're unhappy with the

United States because the United States

is now addicted to containment

well you'll part ways with the United

States and you'll side with China

against us and as I make clear before

good luck okay next question and please

identify yourself before you ask the

question thanks so much

my name is Joseph farm I'm a PhD

candidate at the Australian National

University College of Law I 3 my

questions from the Chinese perspective

from the Chinese perspective is now our

prime minister Australian Prime Minister

recently stated their term in a court

the u.s. is our friend China our

customer for Chinese such a statement is

deeply offensive why because the

considered customers dear friends too my

question is do you think it is wise

foster alia to take in a friendly

position against China given that it is

yearly GDP growth is equivalent to

Australian economy in its entirety and

its future significant influence in the

world economy now we know Hugh Watts

answer to that I think it's fair to say

here we've got a guy for a few questions

well I just don't think that it makes

sense to even worry about language

involving friends and customers right

the question Australia has to ask itself

is does it make sense to side with the

United States and a containment policy

you'll still continue to trade with

China but the terms of those deals will

change because the Chinese are going to

be really angry with the Australians but

this is really what it's all about you

know in talking about customers and

friends and so forth and so on it

doesn't mean much in my mind the

Australians and the Americans in my

opinion are going to come together not

because their friends not because they

have the same values I mean that will

matter a bit the reason that Australia

is gonna side with the Americans is

because it's in your interest and it's

in our interest to have you on our side

and it's not in your interest to be on

the side of the chai

against the Americans next question

hello my name's Colin from the

Australian public service for a long

time the Australian government had asked

a canina to dealing with both China for

economic reasons and the u.s. military

reasons for how long can this continue

and at what point is Australia going to

having to make a decision and John

you've answered this Hugh who will

Australia choose Hugh white but well it

ended now I mean I would say it ended

some time ago but like the proverbial

cartoon character running off the cliff

Australian Government's of both

political persuasions have kept on

saying we don't have to choose long

after they started to make the choice

and we hope you're making choices so far

our choice has been to try and play both

sides against the middle I don't know

how they're going to resolve it down the

track I you can if you ask people in

Canberra they'll say that the aim is to

continue to walk this narrow path

avoiding the choice that they're really

trying to avoid for so long but when for

example the United States comes and

gives the kind of very stark

presentation that we saw last weekend it

was language we have sent out of Beijing

that makes it very difficult so the

answer my answer to you is that depends

on how hard we're pressed from both

sides in the end we will make no more

choices than our two primary partners

impose on us and the and the tough of a

more strongly they impose on us that the

stack of choices will have to be I but

for what it's worth I don't know how

we're going to go but I think we're

going to end up deciding for the reasons

that I spelled out there without siding

with America and a containment policy

against China is not just bad for us

economically but it's bad strategically

because it's not going to work so you'd

think we're going to that Australia is

going to side with China no no is that

all the difference in it's very

important point a very all the

difference in the world between siding

with China and not siding with America

now I know who are you gonna side will

side with ourselves that's the point

that's the whole point of the story but

you said that the United States and

China will both put tremendous pressure

on you two pixels and you think you can

avoid picking sides oh yes I think we

can but but the other thing remember the

core of my argument is I think the

United States are going to bug out the

big difference between this okay is that

I think the United States is gonna

withdraw and so it's not question as to

whether we choose to side with China

it's the question as to whether we can

depend on the United States to play a

significant strategic role in agile I

don't think we can much more pessimistic

about you right along next question okay

my name's Chris Thompson I'm a student

at the Australian Defense College my

question is for professor miu-sama wrote

some 15 years ago and you touched on it

again this evening that you're expecting

at some stage some of China's neighbors

to form a balancing coalition you know

countries like South Korea Vietnam India

Japan Russia that was 15 years ago and

it hasn't happened yet what gives you

such confidence that a balancing

coalition might emerge in the future

well this gets to one fundamental

difference between me and you you thinks

that China right now is an incredibly

powerful country and I think it's

nowhere near as powerful as he makes it

out to be but might be over time that's

the argument I would make is that we are

early in the game there's all sorts of

evidence of the balancing coalition

beginning to form it's not like it's

completely absent if you go home and you

google India Japan relations you see

that the Indians and the Japanese have

been doing all sorts of dealings with

each other to deal with China so it's

beginning to form and the Americans are

out here Pompeyo was in Australia for

exactly this reason but my view is it's

early in the game and that's why you

don't see a concrete balancing coalition

in place yet but I do believe it will

form half only one from Chris's question

though Thailand which is one of the

five US treaty allies am i right in

saying it's been boiling Chinese

submarines so that kind give you much

confidence following on from Chris's

question well there are a number of

other examples that make one nervous if

all you have to do is look at the

Philippines and how the Philippines have

been behaving towards Chinese towards

the Chinese I mean you want to

understand that it was much easier for

us to put together a balancing coalition

in Europe against the Soviet Union and

even in Asia against the Soviet Union

because of the geography in Europe the

forces were really concentrated in the

center of Europe because the central

Front was what really mattered and it

was quite easy for us to put together

NATO and when we put together the

alliance structure in Asia it was not in

East Asia it was in Northeast Asia the

two countries that mattered to us in the

Cold War in Asia mainly were Japan and

Korea South Korea Northeast Asia is what

mattered the problem that we face moving

forward in terms of putting together a

balancing coalition in Asia is that you

have countries like India and Japan and

Australia and I believe ultimately

Russia that are spread out over great

distances and putting together that

balancing coalition is going to require

great skill but what do we have we have

Donald Trump in power and if anything

his dealings with allies

you know leads to trouble not good

outcomes so the United States is gonna

have to you know up its game greatly and

put together a balancing coalition next

question hi I'm Jay and I work in the

Australian Government so what can the

Australian government do to help

deescalate tensions the current tensions

between the United States and China now

we've had a lot this week over the

currency in the trade issue

what can Canberra do to deescalate help

deescalate tensions between Beijing and

Washington you want nothing

don't laugh I mean this is the what

drives Ramallah this is this way wait

great you took the word word and out of

my mouth I mean you know what drives

escalating rivalry between the US and

China are the two strongest countries in

the world are competing over who's going

to be the primary power in the world

struck world's most important region

this is as big as power politics gets

and the idea there's somehow just a

little bit of a you know I mean I'm not

disrespecting you Chris it's perfectly

good question

but the idea that some sort of little

diplomatic maneuver we can do which

somehow you know it's all just a

misunderstanding

no no the point is it's not a

misunderstanding

I would exactly agree with John

formulation of it each of them wants to

be the primary regional power in East

Asia and that's just mutually exclusive

and so no we can't we can stop this

happening we're going to have to learn

to manage it and the debate is how best

do we manage it it's question James

Curran from the University of Sydney

thanks Tom it's question more for John

yes I think we're agreed the United

States will not define itself ever as a

normal nation exceptionalism flows

through so freely through the

bloodstream there Hugh why hasn't heard

anyone talk about China as an equal in

Washington but if you think back to some

of the challenges that the initiated or

ignited great patriotic unity in the

United States last century and this one

Pearl Harbor Sputnik the Japanese

challenge in the 1980s and then 9/11

wouldn't you say that the challenges

that could bring about that kind of

unity again a much more subtle and

multifaceted today in other words what

I'm interested in is what is the

foundation for your optimism that

America will mobilize to contain China

if they won't define themselves as a

normal nation are we going to see more a

process a gradual process of exceptional

normalization in America and how are we

seeing a certain hardening of the

arteries in terms of American

exceptionalism to power

just to be very clear I don't believe

America is an exceptional nation in any

meaningful way other than the fact it is

the only regional hegemon in the world I

believe that virtually all powerful

countries think they are exceptional my

experience going to China and talking to

Chinese elites is that they think that

they are exceptional that they have a

history that they have a culture that

makes them special there's Chinese

exceptionalism I don't believe in this

sort of thing but nevertheless it is

very important for elites to talk about

exceptionalism

for the purpose of mobilizing the masses

to support foreign adventures and what

is going to happen here this is

embellishing on my earlier points about

public opinion is that the elites in

Washington and New York will go to

enormous lengths to portray the Chinese

as the greatest threat the world has

ever seen and they will say that we are

weak and we are vulnerable and we have

to do X and we have to do Y and they

will play the exceptionalism card like

you wouldn't believe

for purposes of mobilizing public

opinion and this is one of the reasons I

don't think there's any reason to worry

about America's staying power from the

perspective of the public it's easy to

manipulate the public with all of these

ideas like exceptionalism okay let me

put to you John Robert Gates the former

defense secretary in the Obama and the

Bush administration he says quote I

think the greatest national security

threat to this country America at this

point is the two square miles that

encompasses the capitol building and the

White House now to the extent that those

attitudes prevail

to the extent that those attitudes

prevail doesn't that undermine a

regional confidence in American staying

power but I think that you have to

distinguish between foreign policy and

domestic politics there's no question

that there's a huge red blue divide that

you've all heard about inside the United

States but it applies mainly to domestic

politics it doesn't apply to foreign

policy it's not like the foreign policy

of liberal hegemony that we pursued from

1990 up to 2017 was a Democratic Party

policy or it was a Republican Party

policy both administrations pursued the

policy the Republican Party and the

Democratic Party is Tweedledee and

Tweedledum when it comes to American

foreign policy and Donald Trump you want

to remember he ran against that foreign

policy in the Republican primaries where

he swept the table and then he ran on

that platform against Hillary Clinton

where he defeated her he was arguing

that the foreign policy that both the

Republicans and the Democrats had

supported liberal hegemony was bankrupt

we had a consensus and we're going to

have a consensus on China in large part

because it's not just the

military-industrial complex that wants

to get in China's face it's also the

high-tech industry you cannot

underestimate the importance of that

basic fact the Chinese a number of years

ago came out with this blueprint called

China 2025 and they said that when 2025

comes around we are going to dominate

things like telecommunications

artificial intelligence and so forth and

so on this scared the living bejesus out

of Silicon Valley

the high tech people understood this

would be disastrous for them furthermore

this has huge national security

consequences it's imperative that we the

United States of America beyond the

cutting edge not the Chinese of

all the leading technologies in the

world so we have this entire high-tech

industry working arm-in-arm with the

Pentagon to deal with China it's an

interesting observation because in

Australia that business community is

broadly United but you're saying in the

business community in America they

divided over this question yeah well in

in the United States the finance people

want to do deals with the Chinese so the

finance people are not heavily in favor

of containment and here in Australia you

have a huge finance community and not

much of a high-tech community and not

surprisingly those people in finance

want to do deals I commit the Chinese

next question you made it very clear

where you stand on Australia and being

neutral in this in this topic but in

your words Australia would still be in

bed with China but isn't that what we're

sort of doing at the moment so what's to

say that like the you that were already

not one of the enemies of the US as you

said and that we just are their fingers

they won't turn on us and that we

shouldn't at all entertained the idea of

standing I'm not sure what the question

is that you're saying that what is

Australia's position today my question

is more that like instead like as you

said if we are to be neutral that we

would still be in bed with China yes

isn't that what we're sort of doing

because we engage so much yeah yeah what

this economic interdependence II that we

have now will more likely continue and

to the extent that it does continue

doesn't that mean that eventually will

will cause it to the strategic orbit

John the United States is going to force

you to the sides and the Chinese are

gonna force you to choose sides

you can't Maya this is my argument you

can't remain neutral you you I fully

understand that

what Australia would like to do is

maintain the status quo forever and the

last thing that China

I assume you that Australia wants to do

is get caught in the middle of a

security competition between two

guerillas it makes perfect sense but my

point is you can't have your cake and

eat it too

you're gonna be forced to choose and I

believe that Australia wisely from its

point of view will side with the

Americans and I want to be clear here

this doesn't mean there's then going to

be no more trade between Australia and

China that's not going to happen there

will be continued trade but it won't be

under the same conditions and it won't

you know involve the same volume that it

has up to now in all likelihood I got

time for one more question at least a

Christian woman from the nine newspapers

thanks both of you for this evening I

just want to question something which

Tom raised Rhys briefly and that is

there was a different front in this war

and that's in front and we have same

document over a long period of time now

foreign interference inside Australia's

borders it goes across the academic

institutions across the political

institutions and it affects very largely

the Chinese diaspora in Australia we

have 1 million Australian Chinese

citizens so when you're talking about

this international strategic competition

what does Australia do and the United

States do on the home front you what

well the first thing to recognize is

that my opinion is to recognize that the

1 million Chinese of Australians of

Chinese extraction are a massive asset

to Australia in managing our trajectory

in the Asian century and one of the

things we can get wrong is to not

recognize that the second point to

recognise and here I think John I might

agree is that sure China is going to

throw its weight around it's throwing

its weight around already that's what

great powers do we don't want to be too

amazed and surprised that a country of

China's weight and ambition starts try

to influence Australian politics of

course it does the third thing is I

think we need to be a bit realistic

about the means that uses most of the

intention and anxiety that's been

West in Australia over the last couple

of years has been about the idea of

covert Chinese influence I'm not saying

that doesn't happen but the idea that

the best way the Chinese can find to

influence Australian politics is to pay

relative that the legal fees are

relatively insignificant Australian

parliamentarians rather than to ring up

the Prime Minister's office it seems to

me to be fanciful the real fact there is

China is gonna be incredibly influential

over Australia because it's going to be

the most powerful country in our region

we're gonna have to learn how to manage

that and that is a real challenge

because for a long time we've had the

luxury of thinking and knowing that the

world around us the Asia around us has

been framed and made safe and congenial

for us by American power my argument is

we're not going to enjoy that in future

we're going to have to send much more on

our own and that means we're going to

have to decide with what boundaries we

wanted we want to draw around China's

growing influence we are going to need

to draw those boundaries I don't think

we've done it very effectively so far

but we need to be realistic about the

fact that where we draw those boundaries

is going to cost us and we have to

decide what cost we have appeared to pay

final thoughts John me Shana yeah I

would just say generally speaking great

powers make a habit of interfering in

the domestic politics of middle range

powers and minor powers and here you

have a situation where China cares

greatly about breaking up the balancing

coalition that the United States is

trying to put together the Chinese are

not fools they understand what's

happening here

the Chinese have a deep-seated interest

in making sure that Australia does not

side with the United States and if

anything sides with China and one set of

tools that they're going to use to

achieve that goal is to interfere in the

politics the domestic politics of

Australia

so what is happening now is hardly

surprising the problem with the Chinese

is that they're heavy-handed they're not

sophisticated at employing soft power

the United States when it comes to

dealing with most countries is more

adept at manipulating those other

countries domestic politics than China

is so I think what you can expect is

more interference over time and of

course this will lead to more pushback

from Australia and in the end I believe

it will lead to significant amounts of

alienation among the Australian people

toward China John thank you and thank

you Hugh now for the vote of thanks

Anastasia Lin is a Canadian actress

based in New York she's been a regular

critic of the Chinese government and she

writes regularly in many prestigious

publications most notably The Wall

Street Journal in 2015 she won the Miss

Canada world title beauty pageant and

she spoke in harsh terms about the

Chinese government's human rights record

in response Beijing denied her a visa to

compete in the world

Miss World competitions in China of that

year in 2015 within days she was a

front-page story in the New York Times

she received many favorable editorial

treatment in the Washington Post and

there are several feature articles in

The Wall Street Journal

Anastasia Lin is the CIS 2019 scholar in

residence and I'd like you all to

welcome her to give the vote of thanks

thank you Tom as the great 19th century

liberal John Stuart Mill's once said he

who knows only his own position knows

little of that tonight we have witnessed

two intellectual heavyweights

fascinating exchange on this question

that is crucial to determining

Australia's future

we heard powerfully and coherently from

Professor John Mearsheimer why Australia

why it is in Australia survival

interests to side with the United States

and from Professor Hugh white why

Australia has a choice in the struggle

between the two giants now someone who

has lived under that authoritarian

regime and whose family continued to

suffer because I've exercised my right

of freedom of speech as a canina citizen

I would like to remind everyone that

exchange we have seen tonight for

Chinese people for people in that world

it is a luxury and it is a freedom that

is worthy of being distinct preserve we

have of cis I like to thank both of you

for coming here tonight to provide this

fascinating exchange and here's a

question for the audience would you like

to see see is hosting more events like

this in Canberra in the future yes

in these increasingly polarizing time it

is important for organizations like the

see is to provide a safe space for the

rigorous exchange of ideas thank you for

being here ladies and gentlemen just

fine I say on behalf of cis it's been a

pleasure being here in Canberra we will

be back and if you'd like to be a member

I think there are there are forms to

fill out if you're interested and you

can always see our videos online I'm Tom

Switzer from the Center for independent

studies again thank join me Shama

and Hugh it--and thanks to all of you

[Applause]

you