By IPS Correspondents
MELBOURNE, Sep 11 2007 (IPS)

Analysts here say that while China does not welcome the ‘Democracy Partnership’ announced by United States President George W. Bush at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Sydney, last week, it is not overly alarmed either.

“China plainly doesn’t like it when this sort of thing happens and it’s a bit of an emerging theme that has been articulated in slightly different ways,” says Nick Bisley, senior lecturer from the faculty of business and economics at Melbourne’s Monash University.

The announcement of the partnership – which Bush hopes will support democratic institutions and values, as well as assist “those who are working to build and sustain free societies across the Asia-Pacific region” – coincided with a massive joint military exercise in the Bay of Bengal involving the navies of host nation India, the United States, Australia, Japan and Singapore.

It also comes several months after a series of agreements and bilateral deals – as well as quadrilateral talks – among the U.S., India, Japan and Australia.

Additionally, a new treaty agreed upon during APEC strengthens the US-Australia alliance, while Japan and Australia endorsed an ‘Action Plan’ in order to implement the ‘Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation’, signed by the two countries in Tokyo in March.

The joint declaration compliments the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue arrangement between the US, Japan and Australia.

“I think there is a sense that it (China) feels a bit targeted and persecuted, but I think in general it’s sufficiently confident about it’s strategic position that it doesn’t feel that this is anything more than some rhetorical flourishes,” says Bisley, who rejects the notion that this planned partnership is in some way representative of an Asian NATO.

“The differences amongst the democracies in their attitudes towards China are pretty significant,” argues Bisley, comparing the close relationship between China and South Korea – another regional democracy – to the enmity that exists between China and Japan.

Pradeep Taneja, a lecturer in Chinese politics at Melbourne University, argues that India – which is not an APEC member but is becoming increasingly close to regional players, the US, Japan and Australia – does not want to be involved in any “contain China” policies.

In an interview with IPS, Taneja argued that while India wants to develop better relationships with the other democracies it is doing so in order to benefit itself.

“India is quite willing to develop closer ties with the U.S., Japan and Australia…but that doesn’t mean that India is willing to become a party to the containment of China, if that’s what the objective of this partnership is,” Taneja said.

He added that India’s growing friendship with the U.S. and other democracies – the recent US agreement to provide India with civilian nuclear technology and Australia’s deal to export uranium to India are just two examples – must be put into context. “India, in my view, is unlikely to become too involved in this partnership. India will look at its own national interest,” says Taneja.

While India continues to follow an independent foreign policy, Australia has sought to allay any Chinese concerns over the mooted alliance.

Prime Minister John Howard denied that Australia’s trilateral talks with the U.S. and Japan at APEC were “anti-Chinese”, while Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said that the democracy partnership should not be seen as a security alliance.

According to Ron Huisken from the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University, the proposed partnership will be viewed sceptically by China.

“It ought not to alarm them unduly but they would strongly suspect, I think, that it is part of the generalised warnings to them that a powerful coalition can be brought to bear against them if they choose to be troublesome,” says Huisken.

Taneja says that China is far more critical of Japan than it is of the U.S., Australia or India. “Their criticism seems to be focused more on Japan because they are saying it is Japan which is inviting these countries to form these alliances. And to a certain extent they’re right,” says Taneja.

But he argues that China’s rapid growth has given rise to the idea that “there is not a lot we can do about China.”

“China is an economy which is now integrated into the global economic system,” says Taneja, pointing out the heavy trade that China conducts with the US.

He said that China is very different to the U.S.’ cold war adversary, the Soviet Union. “The Soviet Union didn’t have the same economic linkages that China has developed with the western economies, with the democratic societies. So, I think they are coming to the conclusion that it’s difficult to contain China,” says Taneja.

According to the Melbourne academic, the U.S. grand strategy in the Asia-Pacific region is to develop multiple centres of power.

“If China’s influence grows to such an extent that it challenges the U.S. presence in the region or U.S. interests in the region, the U.S. would be able to depend on, to count on, other major powers in the region,” argues Taneja.

He says that while the U.S., Japan and Australia have enjoyed a close relationship for some time, India is now being wooed by these regional powers.

Taneja highlights the 2005 visit to the U.S. by Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh. “George Bush explicitly stated that the U.S. would help India become a great power and he meant this both strategically and economically.”

“Although he didn’t state it, implicit in this statement was that India would be a great power as a counterweight to China, along with the force of Japan and Australia and other powers in the region,” says Taneja.

Excerpt: