In a recent diplomatic engagement, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reaffirmed the nation’s stance on the “One China” policy during a pivotal trip to China. This policy, which includes not formally recognising Taiwanese independence, is in step with Australia’s traditional diplomatic stance of strategic ambiguity. Yet it is released at the moment when tensions over Taiwan have careened to dangerous extremes. China’s President Xi Jinping has consistently emphasized his commitment to accomplishing “reunification” with Taiwan. He has gone so far as to suggest that the threat of military action should be on the table.
The geopolitical landscape surrounding Taiwan is becoming increasingly volatile. Indeed, Xi Jinping is personally driving efforts to have his military prepared for a possible invasion by 2027. This unexpected development has set off alarm bells in Australia. Still, officials say they worry the strategic cost of keeping these northern military bases—hardened and reinforced in recent years in anticipation of the possible conflict over Taiwan.
Diverging Perspectives on Taiwan
The issue of Taiwan has become cause of deep divisions within Australian political establishment. Angus Taylor, the then shadow defence minister, brought a new angle to the debate. He argues passionately for Australia and the United States to develop a tripwire defense for Taiwan. He makes the case that this kind of security commitment should be front and center, and should undergird the AUKUS pact.
“We should have a joint commitment with them to the security of Taiwan,” – Angus Taylor
This new emerging position marks a serious change in direction for Australia on how far it will go with its alliances and security commitments in the region. We have to thank Prime Minister Albanese for his unequivocal rebuff of Taylor’s ideas. He cautioned that Australia needs to send a strong signal to the US that fighting in any potential conflict over Taiwan is not in Australia’s interests.
Albanese emphasized the importance of maintaining Australia’s current diplomatic position, stating, “for a long period of time … and [it] is still a bipartisan position in Australia.” His comments reflect an understanding of the broader implications of military commitments and the necessity for careful navigation of international relations.
Bipartisan Tensions
After decades of bipartisan agreement on the subject of Taiwan, recent conference discussions detail the cracks beginning to form within this Baltimore bloc. Shadow Finance Minister James Paterson welcomed the measure’s broad support, including for Taiwan. Differences over bigger bets—like the direction in which to take big programs of national significance—are beginning to percolate.
“I do agree with the prime minister that Australia could never publicly pre-commit to a particular course of action in a particular conflict,” – James Paterson
Fortunately for their country’s future, Australian leaders of all ideological stripes are playing it pretty safe. They appreciate the difficulty of issuing bright line rules on future collisions. Andrew Hastie voiced his concerns, deeming it “unreasonable for Australia to declare a position for a hypothetical,” underscoring the need for prudence amidst escalating tensions.
Hugh White is one of our most respected defense analysts and Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies. It’s a much needed fresh perspective on the often myopic Taiwan debate. He ominously cautions that a war over Taiwan might be even more catastrophic. In either case, China or the US would need to deal with dire consequences.
“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,” – Hugh White
White’s observations are a sobering reminder of what military engagement can entail. It is that attitude, he argues, which Australia should take heed of and move towards a more precautionary stance.
Implications for AUKUS and Future Security
As Australia builds up its military footprint especially among its northern bases, the strategic implications of these developments are hard to ignore. The AUKUS pact deepens trilateral cooperation between Australia, the UK, and the US to develop next-generation military capabilities. This joint action has been catalyzed in large part by the growing prospect of conflict with China over Taiwan.
Albanese is clearly committed to maintaining Australia’s longstanding diplomatic status quo. This promise runs counter to increasing calls to boost security guarantees for Taiwan. Australian politics has entered a new, heightened era of unpredictability. This continues an important discussion about how best to address international problems while defending U.S. national interests.
The situation remains fluid. As both domestic and international dialogues continue to evolve, Australia will need to carefully assess its position concerning Taiwan and its broader implications for security in the Asia-Pacific region.
