The French President Emmanuel Macron has argued that Europe should reduce its dependency on the United States and avoid getting involved in any conflict between Washington and Beijing over Taiwan.
“The question asked of us Europeans is the following: is it in our interest for there to be acceleration on the topic of Taiwan? No. The worst thing we Europeans could do would be to be followers on this topic and to adapt to the American rhythm and a Chinese overreaction. Why should we go at a rhythm chosen by someone else?” Macron said.
China has changed since the 1990s. This assertion was made by the Albanese government in response to Paul Keating’s assertions that China is not a threat to Australia (unless provoked).
Kevin Rudd has described the changes that have occurred in China. Under President Xi the era of pragmatic, non-ideological governance in China has come to a halt. Xi has pushed China’s politics to the Leninist left, its economics to the Marxist left, and its foreign policy to the nationalist right.
There is also really no doubt that China has acted like a bully to its neighbours in the South China Sea and has refused to abide international law and the decisions of the relevant international tribunal there. These facts were emphasised by Defence Minister Richard Marles in his defence of the nuclear submarine deal.
But the threat to peace constituted by these actions should not be exaggerated. China is not the only great power to flout international law or the decisions of international courts and, as a trading nation, it continues to have a strong and abiding interest in maintaining freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.
Further the technical criticisms of the nuclear submarine set out by David Livingstone, former Australian diplomat, and international security analyst, in an article in ‘The Age, on 16 March 2023 have still not been answered by the government. The media has failed to hold the government to account.
As for the threat of a US-Sino war breaking out over Taiwan, the best strategy continues to be to do everything possible to keep the question of Taiwan re-integration with China in the long road-slow burn basket.
Jessica Chen Wise, Professor for China, and Asia Pacific Studies at Cornell University has written that fears that China will soon invade Taiwan are overblown. There is little evidence that Chinese leaders see a closing window for action. The United States should focus avoiding needless confrontation and identifying reciprocal steps that Washington and Beijing could take to lower the temperature. The hard but crucial task for U.S. policymakers is to thread the needle between deterrence and provocation. Symbolic displays of resolve, unconditional commitments to defend Taiwan, and pledges of a surge in U.S. military power in the region could stray too far toward the latter, inadvertently provoking the very conflict U.S. policymakers seek to deter.
Aiming to keep Taiwan in the slow burn basket is the best way to promote peace. We do not know for sure how things may change in China, Taiwan, or the US over the next twenty years, or over the next five years.
Things may look like they can only change for the worse, but assuming this is the only possible outcome promotes that as the result.
China might return to a less ideological, more practical stance, especially if economic conditions worsen internally. It has made this shift before (from Mao to Deng). More effective guarantees of ‘one government two systems’ might be developed. The US and China relationship might move to a more co-operative one focussed on combatting climate change, preventing pandemics and promoting sustainable development. As unlikely as these outcomes seem now trying to keep them open is also the best way to promote peace.
Moreover, the changes that have occurred in China since the 1990’s are only part of the problem. Behaviour of the USA is also a concern.
After the end of the Cold War the US had its unipolar moment. It moved away from the Cold War policies of containment and détente. These policies recognised that even dictatorships could have valid national security concerns and spheres of influence. During the unipolar moment the US pursued the policies of the Neo Cons asserting its right to intervene anywhere in the world to promote regime change and its version of liberal democratic hegemony as well as the pre-eminence of US dominated economic institutions.
Today the US is having trouble adapting psychologically to the realities of a multi polar world. Support for regime change might now be more circumspect. But it remains as a quieter, at least collateral, goal. More importantly the US continues to steadfastly ignore what other countries say about their security-related “red lines”.
Let’s leave aside the controversy over whether the eastwards movement of NATO and George W Bush’s 2008 promise of NATO membership were substantial causes of Putin’s decision to invade or whether he would have invaded anyway.
What cannot be disputed is that Russia had made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions to the US and NATO that Ukraine membership of NATO was a red line for it.
Also, beyond dispute is that George Kennan, former U.S. diplomat and a key architect of the Cold War policy of containment of the USSR, argued that the eastward expansion of NATO would be a mistake and would only serve to antagonize Russia.
Henry Kissinger also argued that the expansion of NATO would be seen by Russia as an attempt to isolate and encircle it, and that it would undermine the stability of Europe by creating a new dividing line between East and West. There were plenty of others who issued similar warnings.
There are only two conclusions reasonably open as to why the US ignored these red line warnings- either it didn’t believe them, or alternatively, it believed them but just didn’t care. Take your pick as to which of these two is the more dangerous.
Currently the US is adopting the same approach towards the issue of China’s redlines on Taiwan. While it maintains the One China policy (for the time being) it is not focused on “avoiding needless confrontation and identifying reciprocal steps that Washington and Beijing could take to lower the temperature.”
On the contrary the US seems intent on continuing to do what it can to annoy China under the delusion this somehow promotes “freedom”. This seemingly includes its own “freedom” to navigate its warships within 200 kilometres of China’s coastline.
Were China was to do the same to the US, this would be characterised as aggression and provocation. Indeed, the two countries would likely already be at war.
The current approach by the US to Taiwan is not in Australia’s national interest and the stakes for us are much higher than for Europe or New Zealand.
Europe could conceivably sit out a war between China and the US. So too could New Zealand despite its membership of ANZUS. But Pine Gap almost certainly means we would be an early military target for China.
During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Pine Gap played a key role in providing intelligence support to the United States military, including in the areas of surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting.
And if the Chinese attacked Pine Gap no Australian government could avoid involvement in the wider conflict between China and the USA.
Defence minister Richard Marles has claimed that, despite AUKUS and the nuclear submarines deal participation in a war between the US and China would be a decision for the government of the day. But the truth is that if there is war between China and the USA, we are in- Pine Gap assures it. AUKUS and the subs deal really only reaffirms it. The decision has already been made. The Albanese government knows it. Whether the Australian people do is another question.