The Australian government rode into the China-Japan-US crisis with diplomatic guns blazing. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said that the Chinese government’s decision to impose an air-defence zone over the East China Sea was “unhelpful”.

The Chinese government fired back, demanding Bishop retract her statement “so as to avoid damaging China-Australia relations”.

Retraction was not on the cards. Treasurer Joe Hockey said that Bishop had done “exactly the right thing”. The Chinese then condemned Australia’s “finger-pointing”.

The Abbott government’s hawkish stance is confirmation that it wants to ride shotgun with the US in its attempts to contain China.

Australia has long played an important role for the US, with the Pine Gap and North West Cape spy stations providing the US with invaluable intelligence for its military ventures across the region.

The Gillard government’s decision in November 2011 to offer the US its own base in Darwin as well as greater access to naval and air force facilities in WA and the NT further enmeshed the military plans of the two countries.

The Abbott government is now deepening Australia’s involvement in the US-led encirclement of China.

Some in the ruling class are uneasy about this. China accounts for a massive $123 billion in total trade, one-quarter of Australia’s total. Australia exports $42 billion in iron ore alone to the country, along with $7.5 billion in coal, $6 billion in gold and $4 billion in international education.

Any threat to this export bonanza, such as might arise from a Chinese partial embargo on Australian goods in retaliation for Australian support for US sabre-rattling, would have a big impact not just on the resources industry, but also on the education system and tourism. Rising Chinese investment in the resource and property sectors would be jeopardised.

This is why a range of business fat cats, such as Clive Palmer and Jamie Packer, and political figures such as Malcolm Fraser, are worried about Australia becoming too closely identified with the US containment strategy. The government and its backers think that Australia and the US can continue to squeeze China and that the latter will have to wear it.

This debate has nothing to do with concern for peace in the region. Both sides are driven by what they think is best for Australian capitalism.

Antagonism of the ‘Asian century’

These risings tensions between a dominant power, in this case the United States, and a rising power trying to muscle in, are inherent within the logic of capitalist competition. For all the talk of peaceful and cordial relations that mark great power summits, the threat of war is always lurking in the background and at times comes to front and centre.

Two years ago, President Barack Obama stood in the Australian parliament and announced a “pivot” to the Asia-Pacific. Soon afterwards his defence secretary declared that 60 percent of US armed forces were to be deployed to the region.

Military force has been supplemented by intense diplomatic activity as the US has sought to lash countries across the region into a broad anti-China alliance. These include not just traditional allies such as Japan, Australia, Thailand and South Korea but also India and Vietnam.

The US also aims to counter China’s strong suit – its rapidly rising economic power and investments in the region – with a trade and investment bloc of 14 nations, the Trans Pacific Partnership, to be led by the US and to exclude China.

The rise of China

The rise of China from the margins of the world economy to number two world power has been as swift as it has been unsettling for US imperialism. China is the world’s biggest producer of steel, cars and cement. It is the biggest importer of a wide range of raw materials and fuels and the largest export market for dozens of traditional US allies.

China’s economic growth has allowed the government to plough money into its military at a rapid rate. The navy has been its focus. Chinese trade is heavily dependent on free access to shipping lanes through the South China Sea and the Malacca Straits and thence across the Indian Ocean.

The government is determined to ensure that maritime access is not threatened by hostile acts by the US or one of its allies. China has few friends in the region – North Korea and Cambodia and, further afield, Sri Lanka and Pakistan – while the United States can count on many.

China is building up its navy to secure these trade routes. It is using its electronic know-how to develop missile systems that can knock out US aircraft carriers from 3000 kilometres. China is also rapidly developing its cyber warfare capacity to intercept US military communications and now has the ability to destroy satellites from space-based platforms.

US attitudes

US imperialism has a mixed attitude to the rise of China. Many US corporations have made fortunes offshoring production to China, where they rely on the authoritarian government to keep wages low. The US government has been kept afloat for years by China recycling its balance of trade surplus into purchases of US bonds.

But the rise of China is also a threat to US power – that is what is foremost in US minds today. It is not just that US companies are losing markets to Chinese businesses; it is that China is threatening its political hegemony over what is has long regarded as its domains in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

The world’s only superpower is now facing a rival again for the first time in more than two decades.

China is still well behind the US in terms of military strength, and the US is determined to ensure that it never catches up. This is what lies behind President Obama’s “pivot” and the policy of containment.

Hostilities

State power and capitalist enterprise are closely interconnected in both China and the US. These connections mean that competition between corporations, whether state owned or private, quickly spills over into competition between states as they go in to bat for their companies in contested markets. And states depend on the profitable operation of “their” corporations to generate the funds to expand their militaries.

For the most part, this competition between nations is peaceable, where tensions are masked by diplomatic protocol. However, even in peaceful times, states do their utmost to undermine their rivals, as the Snowden and Assange revelations have made clear. When military conflict does break out, the consequences can be catastrophic.

We have seen this logic play out in 1914, in 1939 and again today. In 1914 and 1939 the result was bloody imperialist warfare. Today a range of factors pull the big powers back from the brink of all-out warfare, but cannot stop the brinkmanship itself.