In a sea of global uncertainty, the one thing that stood out from the Prime Minister’s visit to China this week was its predictability.
There were no real surprises on either trade or security. Which is exactly what both leaders wanted.
This stands in stark contrast to the rolling shocks and surprises coming from the court of Donald Trump.
Whether it’s constantly changing tariff threats, off-again on-again support for Ukraine, or uncertainty over what Australia will be asked to do to keep AUKUS alive, it’s difficult to know what to expect from Washington.
Capitalising on the current anxiety of US allies, Xi Jinping is hoping to present as a paragon of certainty and stability. He’s hoping memories of the trade punishments and “wolf warrior” diplomacy dished out to Australia only years ago, fade.
Loading…
China doesn’t want to rock the boat
That doesn’t mean disagreements aren’t still there.
In his lengthy meeting with the Chinese president, Anthony Albanese raised concerns about the lack of notice before Chinese warships conducted live firing exercises and a lap of Australia in February. He also raised, once again, the plight of detained Australian citizen Yang Hengjun.
What Xi Jinping’s private lunch with Anthony Albanese really means
There’s no sign China will change its approach on either front.
Beijing has its own complaints about Australia, primarily over foreign investment rules.
But in a clear sign Xi wants nothing to derail the strengthening relationship, he didn’t even raise the Albanese government’s pledge to end Chinese ownership of the Port of Darwin. Nor was it raised by Premier Li Qiang in a separate two-hour meeting.
China, it appears, doesn’t want to kick up too much dust as it presents a friendlier face to the major US allies in this region: Australia, Japan and South Korea.
Loading…
Bipartisanship holds
There is, of course, a much bigger point of difference that looms far larger than naval exercises or port ownership: The fate of Taiwan.
China’s president has repeatedly pledged to achieve “reunification” with Taiwan, by force if necessary. Xi wants his military ready for a potential invasion by 2027.
Australia is holding onto hope that won’t come to pass. The government’s formal position is to support a “One China policy” (which means not formally recognising Taiwan’s independence), while also calling for “no change to the status quo”.
Albanese repeated this position yesterday, while standing on that great symbol of enduring Chinese power and national identity, the Great Wall.
Beijing has its own complaints about Australia, primarily over foreign investment rules. (AAP: Lukas Coch)
He also pointed out this position has been held by successive Australian governments “for a long period of time … and is still a bipartisan position in Australia”.
This long-held position, however, is now being tested. Bipartisanship over Taiwan is showing signs of cracking.
Reports over the weekend that Trump’s hand-picked Defence Under Secretary Elbridge Colby wants Australia and Japan to “pre-commit” to joining any US conflict over Taiwan drew a swift rejection from Albanese. This rejection appeared to be bipartisan, at least initially.
Two of the Coalition’s leading national security figures backed Labor’s response.
“I do agree with the prime minister that Australia could never publicly pre-commit to a particular course of action in a particular conflict,” Shadow Finance Minister James Paterson said. He strongly argued no current government could “bind the hands” of a future government on such matters.
Shadow Home Affairs Minister Andrew Hastie agreed “it’s unreasonable for Australia to declare a position for a hypothetical”.
Loading…
Taiwan position tested by Taylor
Angus Taylor, however, had a different view.
Taylor, who’s relatively new to the national security space as shadow defence minister, put forward an entirely new position for the Coalition.
He argues both Australia and the United States should commit to protecting Taiwan.
“We should have a joint commitment with them to the security of Taiwan,” Taylor told 7.30.
This is not something previous Liberal leaders Scott Morrison or Peter Dutton ever suggested. Quite the opposite.
Nor has the idea of Australia committing to protect Taiwan’s security been something current leader Sussan Ley has mentioned either.
For the record, Trump hasn’t gone there either. His position on providing any military support to defend Taiwan remains unclear, in line with the US position of “strategic ambiguity”.
But Taylor was adamant. While arguing this wouldn’t necessarily “codify every scenario” when it comes to a potential conflict, he insisted a security commitment for Taiwan should be a “priority” and should “underpin what we’re doing in AUKUS”.
Most observers would agree that much of the AUKUS plan appears motivated by the potential for a conflict with China over Taiwan. So too, the build-up of Australia’s northern bases.
But neither the current Labor government, nor its Coalition predecessors ever explicitly said this. They have maintained their own strategic ambiguity.
Taylor is now advocating something new. And he’s doing so at a time of growing doubt over how committed a Trump-led America would be to going to war over Taiwan.
Loading
Predictability reigns
Long-time defence analyst and Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies Hugh White sits on the other side of the Taiwan debate. He argues Australia should be bluntly telling the US that Australia will not be involved in any conflict over Taiwan, because it’s plainly not in our interests.
In his most recent Quarterly Essay, the former Defence Department deputy secretary cuts through the hypotheticals to lay out what’s at stake.
“The conflict would quickly escalate into a very intense and highly destructive conventional — non-nuclear — air and naval war, with massive losses on both sides. After a few weeks, if not before, it would be clear to both Beijing and Washington that neither had any chance of winning,” he argues. “Both sides would soon consider using nuclear threats.”
While some China hawks in his administration may have other ideas, White does not believe Trump is at all interested in taking such risks over Taiwan. Rather, he argues “America’s withdrawal from Asia has accelerated”, as has the shift from a US-led to a multi-polar world order.
Albanese, for his part, isn’t taking up Angus Taylor’s suggestion. Nor is he following Hugh White’s advice. The prime minister is sticking to Australia’s long-held position. Predictably.
David Speers is national political lead and host of Insiders, which airs on ABC TV at 9am on Sunday or on iview.
