Recently, the Morrison government has been constantly commenting on the possibility of Australian military engagement in a future US-China war over Taiwan. However, this was met with harsh criticism from former prime minister Kevin Rudd and numerous scholars. Is the Morrison government clear about the consequences of war? Why is Canberra standing close by Washington to confront China instead of striking a balance between the two like most other countries do? Global Times (GT) reporter Wang Wenwen talked to James Laurenceson (Laurenceson), director of the Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney, over these issues.
GT: How is the Morrison government's hype of war dangerous and damaging? Do you think the hawkish officials from the Morrison government are clearly aware of the consequences of a military clash with China to Australia? Or is talking about war just an easy gesture to make for political expediency?
Laurenceson: Former prime minister Rudd's criticism of war talk was mostly because he regarded it as being deployed by members of the current Morrison government for domestic political gain. But in the process, the chest-thumping rhetoric further damages Australia's already dysfunctional relationship with China, nor did it inform the Australian public just how catastrophic the costs of such a war would be.
This political tactic of hyping an external "threat" to induce a "rallying around the flag" effect occurs in other countries too, including China and the US. That said, the risk of a kinetic conflict over Taiwan has increased compared with, say, five years ago. This means it is appropriate for sober-minded analysis and planning within the Australian government's Department of Defence, and in communicating to the public just what is at stake in terms of Australia's national interests and values. But the priority must be avoiding a military conflict, not hyping the risk for domestic political gain, or regarding it as inevitable and now starting to treat China as a de-facto enemy. China is far more a friend to Australia than an enemy.
GT: Most analysts would not deny that Washington can no longer expect a quick and easy victory in a war with China in the Western Pacific. Why has Australia under Morrison been boasting following the US and taking the risk?
Laurenceson: Within the Australian government, there is a significant gap between the key decision-makers and those more on the fringe. The reported hawkish comments by Minister for Defence, Peter Dutton, for example, were more qualified when you read the full transcript of what he said rather than just the version presented in the headlines...
GT: Although Australia and the US are allies, how much confidence do Australia's political and strategic circles have toward the actual support and protection Washington will (or can) offer to Australia?
Laurenceson: I think there is a high degree of confidence within political and strategic circles that the US would support Australia in a military conflict. Of course, there are a lot of scenarios between where things are now and one where Australia is being attacked in a military conflict. And along that spectrum, my view is that Australia should be realistic and not be "doe-eyed" about what it can expect from America.
Bookmarks