Australians and Americans are much alike, not exactly the same, but they have more in common than not. Both are nations of immigrants, have robust and sometimes brawling democracies, and hold similar values on human rights and dignity.

In particular, they rely on each other for national security. Australia, a nation of 23 million people next door to a potentially troubled Southeast Asia, has long looked to the U.S. as its main ally. In turn, the U.S., far across the Pacific from Asia, looks to Australia as its main ally and well-informed partner in Southeast Asia.

In a gathering in Honolulu last week, a score of Australian and American specialists on security ranged over the current political, economic and military issues in Asia, with the rise of China hovering in the background or popping up to become the focal point of discussion. Under the rules of the conference, speakers could not be identified.

Differences of opinion, some stark, others subtle, cropped up in the Australian American Leadership Dialogue, an Australian initiative, at the East-West Center, the Congressionally funded research and educational center here. But those differences were as much within the Australian and American ranks as between them.

Early on, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's views on China came under scrutiny because he had studied Chinese at Australia National University, then in Taiwan, and later, as a diplomat, in Beijing. The Chinese, some saying Rudd speaks their language without an accent, were audibly pleased when he became prime minister in December 2007.

An Australian in the conference contended, however, that Rudd "has a realistic view of China." Another asserted: "Rudd and his government can say 'no' to China." After China detained four executives of an Australian mining company in Beijing on charges of espionage, Rudd was quoted: "We share enormous common interests with our friends in China, but we have continuous differences."

An American who has dealt with China at some length, mostly agreed: "You can't be afraid to stand up to them," he said. But, he added, "Not with silly stunts." He referred to some members of Congress who had made vague accusations about the Chinese government not based on fact.

An Australian had a similar caution about Rudd: "I think the PM is personally too much involved."

In some contrast, an American, asked to sketch out President Obama's foreign policy, including that on China, grumbled: "What foreign policy?" He argued that the administration, which has been in office for eight months, has gotten so wrapped up in the war in Afghanistan, the struggle over health care and the debate over the economy that Obama has not focused on foreign policy.

An Australian chimed in to say he worried about what he saw as "the lack of a constant approach" on China by the U.S. An American sought to ease the Australian's fears, pointing out that U.S. presidents for years had come to office staking out a hard right or hard left position on China "but then they all oscillate back to the middle."

Another Australian said he was taken aback by the focus on China he said he had seen in U.S. military thinking in Asia. Even with that attention to China, however, he suggested a shift in the balance of power had begun with China's military modernization and wondered what the U.S. would do to retain its preponderance of power in the Pacific.

An American and an Australian both expressed concern of what the American called "the expanding Chinese capacity for covert operations." He said the Chinese had "hundreds of thousands of people" spread around the world seeking to influence the politics of other nations, to manipulate economic affairs, and to collect all sorts of information.

Richard Halloran, formerly a New York Times correspondent in Asia and in Washington, is a writer in Honolulu.