Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer
In recent years, Australia’s national security discourse has undergone a substantial transformation, characterized by a heightened sense of threat perception in relation to the regional strategic environment, most notably concerning the rise of China. Łukasz Fijałkowski’s case study meticulously interrogates this shift through the lens of securitization theory, foregrounding the discursive practices through which China is constructed as an existential threat within Australian political and security narratives.
The study is situated within a broader context marked by increasing geopolitical tensions in the Indo-Pacific region and a waning confidence in the efficacy of multilateral institutions to uphold a “rules-based international order.” While Australia has historically aligned its security orientation with the United States—viewed as the principal guarantor of its strategic stability—the emerging assertiveness of China, particularly in military and economic domains, has disrupted longstanding assumptions underpinning Australia’s regional security posture.
The paradox of Australia’s position is encapsulated in its structural dependency on China for economic prosperity juxtaposed with its reliance on the U.S. for strategic security, thereby generating a dual imperative to simultaneously engage and resist China. This duality fosters a unique policy ambivalence, wherein China is both desecuritized in the context of trade relations and securitized in strategic and political dialogues. Employing the Copenhagen School’s securitization theory, Fijałkowski demonstrates how political elites, predominantly from the ruling Labor Party and the Coalition, have discursively elevated China from a potential partner to a significant threat to national interests since 2017.
This discursive shift is evident in governmental white papers, parliamentary debates and public security declarations, wherein China is portrayed as undermining the liberal order through coercive diplomacy, cyber intrusions and regional military assertiveness, particularly in the South China Sea. The author argues that this securitization is not merely a reactive process but a proactive construction that serves to legitimize specific policy responses, such as increased defense spending, intelligence reforms and the strengthening of strategic alliances such as AUKUS and the Quad. This strategic recalibration marks a turn toward minilateralism, as Australia seeks more flexible and responsive frameworks that circumvent the limitations of broader multilateral institutions.
Fijałkowski also illustrates how securitization is not absolute but rather a dynamic and contested process, often influenced by domestic political calculus and global power shifts. The moment of rupture in 2017, following Australia’s public criticism of Chinese influence operations and the subsequent legislative pushback against foreign interference, is identified as a critical juncture that catalyzed the securitizing move. China’s retaliatory trade sanctions further intensified the securitization narrative, revealing the fragility of Australia’s economic interdependence and prompting a reevaluation of its foreign policy orientation. Despite this, the economic interlinkages have not been severed andAustralia continues to engage China in sectors such as education, mining and agriculture, demonstrating the selective nature of securitization and the ongoing negotiation between security imperatives and economic interests.
The paper thus contributes to a nuanced understanding of security politics by highlighting the performative dimension of threat construction, wherein the articulation of insecurity is instrumental in shaping public perception and state behavior. Moreover, Fijałkowski situates Australia’s securitization of China within a larger discourse of Western anxieties about the decline of U.S. hegemony and the reconfiguration of the global order, wherein China’s rise is interpreted as emblematic of systemic transformation. He contends that Australia’s security policy is caught in a structural contradiction, compelled to assert agency in a geopolitical space increasingly defined by great-power rivalry, yet constrained by its middle-power status and limited strategic autonomy.
Consequently, Australia’s security narrative reflects both a reaction to material shifts in regional power dynamics and a normative commitment to preserving a liberal international order. This dual imperative fosters a strategic posture that is simultaneously resistant and adaptive, drawing from realist assessments of power while normatively adhering to liberal institutional frameworks. The analysis concludes that the securitization of China is not merely a defensive strategy but an active reconstitution of Australia’s national identity and role within the Indo-Pacific, predicated on the perceived need to contain revisionist powers and uphold regional stability. In this regard, Fijałkowski’s work offers significant insights into the complex interplay between identity, power and security, revealing how states construct threats not only to protect their material interests but also to affirm their normative positions within a transforming international system. His case study of Australia underscores the importance of discursive politics in security studies and invites further research into how other middle powers navigate similar tensions in their foreign and security policies.
