Underlying the critics concern about AUKUS and the purchase of nuclear sub-marines is that these developments increase the likelihood that Australia would participate with the US in a war with China over Taiwan.
Defence minister Richard Marles has denied that AUKUS and the submarine deal carry these implications, insisting that participation in such a war would be a decision for the government of the day.
In July 2021 the Australia Institute published a discussion paper on the issue of whether Australia should participate in a war between the US and China over Taiwan.[1] Its most important points are:
“For Australia, involvement in a Taiwan Strait crisis would be a war of choice. Participation is not inevitable.
It is not sufficient to say that Australia should automatically follow the US. But it is also not sufficient to say Australia should not do so based on past imperial wars. The decision must be made on the merits of the specific case…
The ANZUS treaty would not be automatically invoked by a crisis in the Taiwan Strait. This was publicly recognised by Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer in 2004…
Any decision to be involved will be made at the time and will depend on a host of factors. The honest about Australia going to war over Taiwan would be that we do not know what we would decide until the circumstances requiring a decision are clear…
War, particularly one that might conceivably raise the spectre of nuclear annihilation, is not a rational option where there are alternatives. Australia’s national interests – which at the very least include the security of the nation, the prosperity of its people, the stability of the region and the pursuit of constructive internationalism as a means of maintaining global stability – are not served by clarion calls to war.”
There does not seem to be a vast number of scenarios that might spark a war over Taiwan. The two main ones are a unilateral decision by China to intervene militarily irrespective of any action taken by Taiwan or a Chinese military intervention sparked by a declaration of independence by Taiwan. The latter might be somewhat less likely to lead to Labor supporting Australia participating in a war against China because Labor supports the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.
In any event a major shortcoming of the Australia Institute’s paper is that it does not discuss the existence of Pine Gap and other likely military targets for China within Australia if war was to break out between China and the USA.
Pine Gap is a joint intelligence facility that provides critical support to the US military, including in the areas of missile defence, signals intelligence, and satellite tracking. It acquires information from US satellites that detect heat from aircraft, missiles, drones, and space vehicles as well as military and civilian communications. The data is processed into useable intelligence that is deployed against US enemies.
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. This intelligence was used to track and locate insurgent forces, as well as to identify and target high-value individuals.
In the event of a war between the US and China, respect for international law is unlikely to significantly constrain the conduct of the parties. Nevertheless, it is worth noting Pine Gap would be a legitimate military target for China under international law, even if Australia is not directly participating in a war against it, provided any Chinese attack on it also met the principles of necessity and proportionality, under international humanitarian law.
Speaking on ‘Insiders’ Greg Sheridan stated that in the event of war between China and Australia Pine Gap would be a likely military target for the Chinese. Similarly, former NSW premier and Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr has written:
“A French diplomat told me recently that great powers can use surrogate targets. We offer half a dozen, with Pine Gap and the Tindal RAAF base topping the list. Like taking out Guam, this would be a less catastrophic decision for China than picking a target on the US mainland.”
It is possible that if Australia did not participate directly on the side of the US in a war over Taiwan and was advocating in favour of a peaceful solution to the conflict that China might refrain from trying to attack Pine Gap. But you wouldn’t want to bet on that.
The text of the ANZUS treaty does not compel our participation in a war over Taiwan. On the other hand, AUKUS and the nuclear subs seem to signal greater readiness to support the US in a war against China. China certainly seems to view it that way.
But it is also likely that even before AUKUS and the nuclear subs deal that our decision had already effectively been cast; The role of Pine Gap in US military conflicts likely mean that, from China’s perspective (in this context the only one that matters) we would be already involved on the side of the US in any war that breaks out between it and China.
[1] https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/P1102-Should-Australia-go-to-war-with-China-in-defence-of-Taiwan-WEB.pdf