We’re a pretty complacent bunch in Australia. Not surprising really — we had a bit of a scare in 1942 when Singapore fell to the Japanese, but we haven’t been invaded in modern history. During world war two, we had the Americans to help us. However, it looks like we can’t rely on American support in the Western Pacific for too much longer.
One of the sayings about getting old is that the age we perceive ourselves to be lags our actual age by about ten years. I think a similar adage applies to world events: Reality tends to outpace our awareness. Consider the collapse of the British Empire: in 1940, most people would have considered Britain a world power, by 1948 they were a very diminished people and had lost most of their colonial possessions. Of course, events such as Indian independence and the fall of Singapore didn’t just happen in 8 years — the seeds for this were sown earlier (though most people didn't notice).
It seems likely to me that we will see similar shifts in fortunes in the first half of this century as American power wanes. Both China and India are expected to have larger economics than the U.S. by 2050.
(This article is not an attempt at scaremongering — I think that an increase in power/wealth for other countries needs to happen and this means a commensurate decrease in power/wealth for Western countries. However, I would like Australia to maintain an independent parliamentary democracy while this happens -- I would rather live in a poor democracy than a wealthy tyranny)
Let’s think about what it will mean when we can’t rely on the U.S protecting Australia’s interests in the Western Pacific.
Australia is a country of 25 million. 2500 km to our North is Indonesia, with a population of 250 million (ten times bigger than Australia) and projected to be the world’s 4th largest economy in 2050 (with a projected GDP 4 times larger than Australia's). The Philippines and Vietnam are expected to be the 19th and 20th biggest economies (both economies larger than Australia). China and India will be number 1 and 2.
In other words, Australia will be a large, wealthy, (relatively) underpopulated country rich in natural resources in a region of heavily populated much larger (and much richer) countries. The world will be greatly resource-constrained by 2050 — our neighbours will need what we have. Note also, that though Australia's economy will be similarly-sized to the Philippines and Vietnam, a lot of Australia's GDP is tied up in unproductive activities such as home renovations and car modifications -- thus, the industrial output of Vietnam and the Philippines is likely to be substantially larger than Australia even if the GDP is similar.
What happened in the past in similar circumstances?
In the 18th and 19th centuries, Britain was the rising world power and wanted natural resources. They established the British East India company (the basis for British colonialism) which basically had license to do anything required to obtain resources. Such “trade” usually occurred at the point of the sword — it really was theft/conquest and nothing more.
For example, the Chinese Emperor banned opium in 1839, so Britain attacked China. In the end, the Chinese were forced to accept a treaty allowing the British to import opium into China. Another example: before British colonialism, India was one of the wealthiest countries in the world. When they became independent they were one of the poorest. Today, a tour of British museums and estates shows gold and jewels from the subcontinent -- the plunder of empire.
Which brings us to today. This year, the Australian government said it would restrict gas exports to maintain domestic supply. This is a policy that makes sense, in much the same way as the Chinese Emperor’s banning of opium. However, the Australian companies that this law affects have long term contracts with Chinese customers, and this law is definitely not in Chinese interests. Basically, it could cause Australian companies to renege on deals with Chinese companies.
If it was the 19th Century, and this was done to the British East India company, I would expect them to sail their warships into Sydney harbour and bombard the city, to teach the impetuous Australians a lesson in humility (pretty much exactly what Britain did to China in the First Opium War). The treaty we would be forced to sign would likely include the appointment of a British Governor who had authority over the Australian government. One does not break contracts with an Imperial power. [1]
Remove U.S. force projection from the Western Pacific, and there is little to stop China, India or Indonesia from doing the same to us.
Which brings us back to population. I am not a proponent of a “Big Australia”, and I think that Australia’s population probably already exceeds its long-term carrying capacity. Having said that, I think that Australia’s population could well hit 100 million this century whether we want it or not. There is simply too much opportunity here. If we try and prevent it, we will likely be invaded by larger, more powerful neighbours (once the U.S. can no longer protect us). It's worth underlining that we are ethnic/cultural outsiders in Asia, and that our ancestors (or people very similar to us) conquered pretty much every Asian country and stole their wealth (I guarantee that no one except Westerners has forgotten this).
Australians need to understand and accept that we are a very small fish in a very big ocean. Our delusions of Australian specialness and superiority will bring us a world of pain. We have a deep belief, based on centuries of cultural/military dominance, that we are superior. That dominance is ending, and with it needs to go our arrogance. The sooner we see our geopolitical neighbours as equals (and show then appropriate respect) the easier our future is likely to be.
How can Australia pull this off?
We need to increase our population and industrial/agricultural output without putting additional strain on the biosphere or economy (a tall order for a country already in overshoot). This means a significant cut in discretionary consumption to free those resources for the needed expansion (see other articles on this blog for suggestions here). I suggest a targeted program of skilled immigration, coupled with large programs to build agricultural, educational, scientific, and industrial capacity. We can't afford so much waste and unproductive capital.
Such cuts in discretionary consumption might seem an undesirable thing to do -- but it's worth remembering that in the past, wealthy societies that have failed this sort of test have been overrun by other societies.
I'm sure most Australians want to avoid that.
-------------------
[1] Over the years, I have heard many people say things like "China is not expansionist" or "Asian people are less assertive" and therefore Asian people are less likely to seek geopolitical power in the same way that Europeans did. I think this is very naive. For the case in point, see Japan in the early 20th century. They had been inward focused for centuries before their imperial expansion from 1905 to 1945. Asian history is just as bloody as European history. The main reason that Asian people might have seemed submissive or non-aggressive to us is that they were a conquered people. As they gain power, I think it logical to expect they will behave exactly like other people who gain power -- they will become more assertive and, at times, aggressive.
