Australia Is Right Not To Commit To Hypothetical Taiwan Conflict

Latest stories

Was East Asian air cleanup behind recent global warming showtime?

China accelerates its maglev train to catch up with Japan

Hegseth's drone dominance policy needs offshore production help

This spans not just tariffs , but also increased defense spending . American policymakers appear oblivious of or unconcerned about the blowback they are generating.

It is this context that makes the US demands for a broad-ranging and largely open-ended commitment over the defense of Taiwan , in advance of any conflict, so extraordinary and unhelpful.

Australia has long had a fear of abandonment. Ever since the searing experience of the fall of Singapore in 1942, officials have been eager to burnish ties with US counterparts. Conversely, there has always been a strong element in the community that has feared entrapment in yet another US-led war in Asia.

The experience in the Korean and Vietnam wars, let alone Afghanistan and Iraq , left many guarded about the efficacy of hitching the wagon to US-led military campaigns.

In essence, though, Australian policymakers have long sought the Goldilocks solution: not too enthusiastic to trigger entrapment and not too lukewarm to trigger abandonment.

No guarantees

Now Australia, Japan and others face a surprising new push by American officials for a commitment to a hypothetical conflict, under open-ended circumstances.

The irony is that American demands for a commitment fly in the face of the loosely worded ANZUS alliance – which stipulates an agreement to consult, but little more than that.

The AUKUS agreement includes no such guarantees, either. The overt and confronting nature of Washington's demands means the prime minister effectively has no option but to push back:

Defense Industry Minister Pat Conroy was adamant Australia would not be committing forces ahead of any“hypothetical” conflict:

A further irony is Australia, like Japan, is already hugely invested in its US military relationship, particularly through its military technology.

The purchase of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, for instance, was meant to help enable the generation of interoperable forces, yet no such demand has been made when it comes to an advance commitment over their use in support of US ambitions.

So why invoke AUKUS in such a way?

Evidently, the way the US is trying to stand over Japan and Australia is harmful to its own interests. Such adversarial and unduly transactional behaviour could provoke a popular backlash in Australia and elsewhere.

The government has rightly rebuffed the calls saying it would be up to the government of the day to make such a decision. It is likely this will not be well received by the Trump administration. The PM is right though, to say it's hypothetical and not worthy of a public endorsement.

Strategic ambiguity

Yet a further irony is that this is mostly a moot point.

The key benefit of alliance collaboration is already in place – and that relates to the efforts to deter China from ever acting on its desire to change the status quo in the first place.

As former PM, now ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd explained in his book, The Avoidable War , geopolitical disaster is still avoidable, particularly if the US and China can find a way to coexist without betraying their core interests through managed strategic competition.