중국의 패권 하에서 호주가 번영할 수 있을까?

[위종민]

미국이 저 꼴이 됐는데 중국이 지역 패권을 먹는 게 괜찮을 지도? 라고 주장하는 사람들이 호주에 있나 봅니다. 이런 글이 따로 나와야 될 정도면.. 

[행위자–행동–의도 정리]

| 행위자        | 한 행동                                   | 표면적 명분/설명                  | 기사에 드러난 효과 또는 의미             |
| ---------- | -------------------------------------- | -------------------------- | ---------------------------- |
| 앤드루 포레스트   | 중국이 지배하는 지역에서 호주가 번영할 수 있다는 주장에 설명을 요구 | 미 존재 없는 중국 중심 지역의 대안 제시 요구 | 미·호주 동맹 비판자들에게 설명 책임 제기      |
| 앤드루 포레스트   | 중국의 부상이 호주에 해를 끼칠 것이라는 견해 제시           | 주권 유지를 위한 전략적 판단           | 중국 지배 지역 회피 필요성 강조           |
| 앤드루 포레스트   | 미국의 역할이 중국의 힘을 균형 잡는 데 필수적이라고 주장       | 호주 주권 유지                   | 미·호주 동맹의 중요성 재확인             |
| 미국         | 아시아 지역에서 영향력 유지                        | 원문에 명시 없음                  | 중국의 부상에 대한 균형 요소로 제시         |
| 중국         | 아시아에서 미국을 배제하려는 의도를 가진 것으로 언급됨         | 원문에 명시 없음                  | 지역 질서 변화 가능성 제기              |
| 호주 정부(캔버라) | 미국과의 동맹 유지 여부를 검토하는 주체로 언급됨            | 국가안보 접근법 결정                | 장기적 선택의 비가역성 강조              |
| 분석가·관찰자 일부 | 미국과의 의존 축소를 주장                         | 미·중 군사 충돌 회피               | 동맹 축소 논의 제기                  |
| 도널드 트럼프    | 미국 대통령으로서 부정적 감정의 대상이 됨                | 원문에 명시 없음                  | 단기적 논의 왜곡 요인으로 언급            |
| 시진핑        | 중국 국가주석으로 언급됨                          | 원문에 명시 없음                  | 장기 구조적 도전과 분리해 사고해야 할 인물로 제시 |

중국이 지배하는 지역에서(그리고 미국의 존재 없이) 호주에게 번영하는 미래가 있다면, 나는 그것이 무엇인지 알고 싶다. 나는 그것을 상상할 수 없지만, 호주–미국 동맹의 많은 비판자들은 상상할 수 있는 듯하다—그렇다면 그것을 들려주길 바란다.

중국의 부상이 호주에 미칠 영향에 관해 말하자면, 나의 직관은 그것이 결국 우리에게 해를 끼칠 것이며, 시간이 지나도 진정으로 주권적인 국가로 남기 위해서는 중국이 지배하는 지역에 갇히는 것을 피해야 한다는 것이다.

호주–중국 관계의 부침에 따라 많은 사안들이 부각되거나 사라져 왔다. 그러나 호주의 주권을 유지하려는 그 목표는 나의 전략적 사고를 이끌어 왔고, 중국의 커져가는 힘을 균형 잡는 데 있어 미국의 불가결한 역할에 대한 나의 믿음을 강화해 왔다.

내 관점에서 보면, 우리를 미국과 연결하는 끈을 끊는 것은 캔버라가 가장 원하지 말아야 할 일이다.

이러한 사고방식은 솔직히 말해 다소 습관이 되었다.

나는 내가 틀렸을 수도 있다고 느낀다. 하지만 동맹을 비판하는 이들 역시 나만큼이나 깊은 분석적 관성에 빠져 있어, 나에게나 그들에게나 노선을 바꾸거나 다른 지역적 미래를 상상하는 일이 똑같이 어려울 수 있다.

우리 모두는 왜 각자의 입장을 갖게 되었는지를 더 잘 설명하려 노력할 필요가 있다.

오랫동안 중국 비판자들에게는 그들이 무엇을 그렇게 우려하는지 설명할 책임이 있었다. 반대로, 미국과 결별해야 한다고 주장하는 분석가들과 관찰자들 중 너무 적은 수만이, 그러한 근본적인 국가안보 접근의 변화를 위해 어떤 논거를 갖고 있는지(적어도 충분한 세부 수준과 충분히 긴 시간 범위에서) 설명하라는 동일한 압박을 받아 왔다.

문제의 일부는 미국 대통령 도널드 트럼프에 대한 부정적 감정이 호주–미국 동맹에 관한 공적 관심과 논평의 대부분을 현재 시점에 집중시키고 있으며, 그 상당 부분이 사소하다는 점이다.

일부 분석가들과 관찰자들은 더 먼 미래를 내다보며, 호주가 미국과 중국 사이의 군사적 충돌에 휘말리는 것을 피하기 위해 무엇이든 해야 한다고 차분하게 주장하고 있다. 그들은 때로 이를 미국에 대한 의존을 줄여야 하는 이유로 제시한다. 그러나 하루의 헤드라인과, 국가로서 우리가 진정으로 무엇을 중요하게 여기는지와 그 이유에 대한 깊은 사고 사이에서 더 나은 균형을 잡는 것이 중요하다.

이 두 가지는 흔히 하나로 묶기 쉽지만, 서로 다른 문제다.

우리는 캔버라와 다른 역내 수도들이 트럼프와 중국 국가주석 시진핑이 무대에서 퇴장한 이후에도 오랫동안 중국이라는 도전에 씨름하게 될 것임을 상기할 필요가 있다. 우리가 진정으로 고민해야 할 것은 장기적인 구조적 도전들이다.

이 관점에서 보면, 우리가 모두 동의할 수 있고 또 동의해야 할 몇 가지가 있다.

우리는 모두 중국이 무력을 사용해서든 아니든 아시아에서 미국을 제거하고자 한다는 점에 동의할 수 있어야 한다. 만약 그것이 성공한다면 많은 것들이 바뀔 것이며, 그 변화가 모두 호주에 좋지는 않을 것이다.

또 다른 합의점은 중국과 미국 사이의 군사적 충돌이 지역 전쟁으로 이어질 위험이 현실적이며 증가하고 있지만, 그것이 반드시 발생하는 것은 아니라는 점이다.

그러나 이는 지역 분쟁이 발생할 경우 어떤 일이 벌어질 수 있는지, 혹은 미국과 그 동맹국들이 패배한 이후 어떤 일이 전개될 수 있는지를 상상하지 않아도 된다는 의미는 아니다.

내가 이전에 주장했듯이, 중국이 무력으로 아시아에서 미국을 제거했다면, 중국은 일정 기간 자신을 강하지만 대체로 온건한 지역 패권국으로 보이게 하려 할 가능성이 크다.

그 경우 그러한 안정의 시기는, 미국의 힘이 없는 지역에서도 호주가 번영할 수 있다고 생각하게 만드는 이유를 일부 사람들에게 제공할 수 있다.

그 시나리오는 상상 가능하다. 그러나 우리는 더 먼 미래까지 생각해야 한다.

대체로 도전받지 않는 중국이 지역의 인식에 더 이상 신경 쓰지 않게 되고, 보다 노골적인 방식으로 지배력을 행사하기 시작한다면 무슨 일이 벌어질까?

그것이 중국 지도자들이 캔버라가 무엇을 말하고 무엇을 하는지를 통제하려는 의지와 능력에 어떤 영향을 미칠 것이며, 양자 관계에서 더 큰 순응과 통제가 어떻게 나타날까? 그것이 우리에게 어떤 감정을 불러일으킬 것이며, 우리는 이에 대해 무엇을 할 수 있을까?

다시 말하지만 내가 틀렸을 수도 있다. 그러나 나에게는 이 지점에서 번영의 가능성은 빠르게 사라지고, 불편한 위치에 갇혀 있다는 현실이 자리 잡는 것처럼 보인다.

요지는, 호주–미국 동맹의 미래에 대해 견해를 가진 이들이라면 이러한 모든 질문을 던지고 답해야 한다는 것이다.

미국의 지역 철수—더 나아가 캔버라가 의도적으로 미국에서 벗어나 중국 쪽으로 향하기로 결정하는 일—는 되돌릴 수 없다.

저자
앤드루 포레스트는 총리실·내각부 국제국에서 중국 정책 자문을 맡았던 전직 정책 고문이다.

2024년 G20 정상회의에서 단체 사진을 위해 손을 잡고 있는 시진핑 중국 국가주석과 앤서니 앨버니지 호주 총리의 이미지: Eric Lee/AFP/Getty Images.

이 기사에는 AI가 어떠한 아이디어도 제공하지 않았다—앤드루 포레스트.

Critics of US need to explain Australia’s place in a China-dominated region | The Strategist

Critics of US need to explain Australia’s place in a China-dominated region | The Strategist

Critics of US need to explain Australia’s place in a China-dominated region

2 Feb 2026|Andrew Forrest

SHARE

Print This Post

If there is a flourishing future for Australia in a region dominated by China (and without a US presence) I want to know about it. I cannot imagine it, but it seems many critics of the Australia–US alliance can—let’s hear it.

When it comes to the effect that China’s rise will have on Australia, my instinct is that it will eventually hurt us, and that remaining a truly sovereign nation over time will mean avoiding getting stuck in a China-dominated region.

Many issues have come in and out of focus with the ebb and flow of the Australia–China relationship. But that aim of maintaining Australia’s sovereignty has guided my strategic thinking and reinforced my belief in the indispensable role of the United States in balancing China’s growing power.

From my perspective, cutting the cord connecting us to the US is the last thing Canberra should want to do.

This way of thinking has, admittedly, become a bit of a habit.

It strikes me that I may be wrong, but critics of the alliance may be in an equally deep analytical groove, making it as hard for them as it is for me to change track or imagine different regional futures.

We all need to try harder to explain why we hold the positions we do.

The onus has long been on the China critics to explain what it is they are so worried about. Conversely, too few analysts and observers arguing in favour of breaking away from the US have come under the same type of pressure to make the case (at least in sufficient detail and over a long enough timeframe) for such a fundamental change to our national-security approach.

Part of the problem is that negative feelings about US President Donald Trump draw most public interest and commentary on the Australia–US alliance to the here and now, and much of it is petty.

Some analysts and observers are thinking well ahead and arguing soberly for Australia to do whatever it takes to avoid being drawn into a military conflict between the US and China. They sometimes cite that as a reason to reduce our reliance on the US. However, it’s important to strike a better balance between the headline of the day and deep thinking about what we truly care about as a nation and why.

As tempting as they are to conflate, these are two separate things.

We need to remind ourselves that Canberra and other regional capitals will be grappling with the China challenge long after Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping have exited stage left. What we really need to think about are long-term structural challenges.

From this vantage point, there are some things we can and should all agree on.

We should all be able to agree that China wants to remove the US from Asia, by force or otherwise. If it were successful in doing so, many things would change, and not all of those changes would be good for Australia.

Another thing we can all agree on is that while the risk of a military exchange between China and the US leading to a regional war is real and increasing, it is not certain to occur.

But that is not a pass for imagining what could happen if a regional conflict were to break out, or what may unfold after a regional conflict that the US and its allies lose.

As I’ve previously argued, a China that has forcibly removed the US from Asia would probably for a time want to portray itself as a strong but largely benign regional hegemon.

In that event, such a period of stability would give some people reason to think that Australia could flourish in a region without US power.

That scenario is imaginable, but we need to think further ahead still.

What would happen if a largely unchallenged China stopped caring about how the region perceives it and started asserting its dominance in a more overt fashion?

What affect would that have on the desire and capacity of China’s leaders to control what Canberra says and does, and how would greater compliance and control in the bilateral relationship manifest itself? How would that make us feel and what could we do about it?

Again, I might be wrong, but this to me is where the potential for flourishing quickly evaporates and the reality of being stuck in an uncomfortable position sets in.

The point is that these are all questions that need to be asked and answered by those with a view on the future of the Australia–US alliance.

A US withdrawal from the region—much less a decision taken by Canberra to wilfully walk away from the US and towards China—cannot be undone.

Author

Andrew Forrest is a former policy adviser on China in the international division of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Image of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese holding hands for a group photo at the 2024 G20 Summit: Eric Lee/AFP/Getty Images.

AI contributed no ideas to this article—Andrew Forrest.

[백선호]

여기도 핀란드화를 걱정할 지경이네요...

[위종민]

어찌보면 중국 치마폭이 따뜻할까, 를 고민할 여유가 있는 증거인 것 같기도... 우리는 그런 고민하기도 사실 어려우니.

[ssn688]

호주야 영토 침해나 레짐 체인지 당할 걱정도 없으니 해볼 만한 생각이네요. 한국도 저런 생각을 해보자면... 북한이 있기 때문에, 중국에서 레짐 체인지 해볼 레버리지가 있다는(물론 미국의 군사개입이 없다는 전제) 게 문제 같습니다. 한반도가 김씨왕조로 통일되거나, 실패해도 현대차 삼성전자 하이닉스가 거덜나면 중국엔 개꿀이겠네요.

[위종민]

한국이 먼저 중국이랑 손잡고 김돼지 일가 레짐체인지를 시도해야 할 지도...

[백선호]

참고로 1차대전 때 독일은 이기면 영연방 오스트렐리아에서도 레짐 체인지를 해서 독일 공작(귀족 계급)이 다스리는 '공국'을 세워주겠다고 독일 기업가들을 꼬셨다고 합니다.

https://cafe.daum.net/NTDS/5q4/759

[강준구]

삼성전자, 하이닉스가 거덜나면, 서방 측 전체 메모리 수급에 문제가 생기고, 중국 메모리에 대한 의존이 심화되기 때문에.. 그런 기미가 보이기도 전에 미국이 손을 써놓지 않을까요.

[강준구]

중국과 손을 잡고 북한 레짐 체인지 하기 전에, 미국이 일본이랑 손을 잡고 한국 쪽 레짐 체인지를 해서, status quo를 만들지 않을까요?

[백선호]

2021년 8월 일본총연이 만든 자료인데 대만의 반도체 생산이 1년 멈추면 일본의 GDP는 0.7% 줄고, 중국은 1.5%, 우리나라는 1.4%, 미국은 0.9% 줄어드는 것으로 예측했습니다.

https://cafe.daum.net/NTDS/50q9/2441

[여행자김씨]

우린 핀란드화를 넘어서 나라가 중국화가 될 까봐 걱정입니다.