By Stephen de Tarczynski
MELBOURNE, Sep 23 2007 (IPS)

The reinforcing of Australia’s relationship with the United States and Japan, combined with the country’s growing ties with China – highlighted by agreements made at APEC – have led some analysts to view Australia’s position in the region as akin to walking a tightrope.

&#39&#39It’s a tightrope, a balancing act and a very, very difficult diplomatic line to take," says Michael O’Keefe, a lecturer in politics at La Trobe University.

The 2007 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum held earlier this month in Sydney underlined Australia’s growing integration with regional powers.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard and U.S. President George W. Bush struck a deal at APEC to upgrade their countries’ defence relationship, improving Australia’s access to high-tech military equipment from the US.

Australia also followed up on its security declaration made with Japan in March, holding top-level talks aimed at strengthening the security cooperation between the two nations. Leaders of Australia, Japan and the US also met for trilateral security discussions at the APEC meeting.

But while Australia has been busy forging closer ties with democracies in the region, the country has also been increasing its integration with China.

Additionally, Australia and China are set to hold annual strategic dialogue meetings from 2008.

O’Keefe says that the level of cooperation which Australia has with China is different to the relationships Australia enjoys with the U.S. and Japan. "There have been some very minor attempts at building strategic dialogue with China very recently but it’s very clear as well that the United States and Japan are (Australia’s) security partners.’’

O’Keefe envisages the relationship between Australia and China to continue to grow. He told IPS that he expects the two countries to become "closer and closer, primarily based on economics."

According to Pradeep Taneja, a lecturer in Chinese politics at the University of Melbourne, Australia’s position in Asia is representative of the integrated economies in the region. "I think it’s a very unique position. It’s a new position because the clarity of the cold war is now over," says Taneja.

He also argues that Australia is now at a stage where it must walk a tightrope in order to balance its relations with the US and China. "Clearly, strategically, culturally, politically, the United States is a major ally of Australia…But at the same time there are commercial opportunities with China and Australia will have to walk a tightrope for a long time to come," says Taneja.

"I think whether it’s John Howard or (Opposition leader) Kevin Rudd or any other prime minister in Australia, they will have to walk the tightrope and continually assure both sides, the United States and China, that their relationship with the other is not aimed against them," Taneja adds.

Another Australian-based analyst, Craig Snyder from Deakin University’s School of International and Political Studies, does not agree with the "tightrope" analogy. Instead, Snyder argues that Australia has a "pretty wide road" upon which to walk.

"It’s not necessarily a zero-sum competition. There’s room for Australia to have good, strong relationships with both," he says.

Snyder says that his assessment is based partly on the region’s interlinked economies, but also on the area’s relative stability.

"The Asia-Pacific region in general is a much more benign place than it was five or ten years ago. The risk of conflict, especially in Southeast Asia, is dramatically reduced," argues Snyder.

But while the analysts might disagree on the relative precariousness of Australia’s position between the U.S. and China, there is consensus on the issue which is the potential deal breaker: Taiwan.

"The worst-case scenario for Australia is a conflict between China and the U.S. where Australia then has to make a decision between the two," says Snyder, describing Taiwan as the region’s number one potential flashpoint.

Citing the example of the run-up to the 1996 Taiwanese election – when China attempted to intimidate voters by firing missiles over and around the island and the US responded by sending warships to the area – Taneja argues that a deterioration in US-China relations now would make things difficult for Australia.

"If there were a repeat of that it would put Australia in a very difficult position," he says.

O’Keefe says that Taiwan is the key strategic problem in Northeast Asia. "Because there is an ever-present threat of Chinese military involvement to reclaim Taiwan, it puts China in the position of being a source of insecurity," he says.

O’Keefe argues that while Australia’s growing links with China can "support peace and security and stability in the region", it could potentially work against the nation’s interests.

He argues that Australia’s great concern is if it was forced to decide between the US and China. "If, for instance, China did behave aggressively towards Taiwan and the United States became involved and evoked the ANZUS Treaty (a military alliance involving Australia, the U.S., and separately, New Zealand) then we’re stuck in a very, very difficult position," says O’Keefe.

"If we back away from the United States we lose 60 or more years of security and economic and cultural links, or could threaten them. But on the other hand we have major economic ties with China which could be at risk too," O’Keefe told IPS.

He says that while Australia would hypothetically side with the U.S. now if tensions over Taiwan did increase, a major stabilising factor is the region’s economic integration.

"The world since the cold war, or even before, has changed dramatically," says O’Keefe.

"The level of globalisation and economic interdependence is such that to think China would risk a military confrontation with Taiwan and then therefore with the United States would mean that China’s economy and the United States’ economy, the regional economy and the global economy, would all be profoundly affected," argues O’Keefe.

Excerpt: