Follow us on social

google cta
Screen-shot-2021-10-29-at-1.31.28-pm

Ex-Australian PM Abbott hails AUKUS, China confrontation in DC

In wide ranging talk, the former Liberal Party leader said the world’s democracies need to do more to defend Taiwan.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

Speaking at an event sponsored by the Wilson Center in Washington Friday, former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott called for the United States to go beyond the commitments laid out in the AUKUS submarine deal in the face of what he characterized as Chinese belligerence in the Indo-Pacific.

Abbott, who served as Australia’s prime minister from 2013 to 2015, held office amid a buildup of Australia’s economic ties with China. In recent months, however, he hailed the AUKUS deal as a “historic decision” which would make Australia a “much safer and stronger country.” Abbott also traveled to Taiwan in early October, where he met with President Tsai Ing-wen and delivered a keynote speech calling for global solidarity with the island.

Abbott expanded on the importance of democratic solidarity with Taiwan and increased military posture from western democracies in the Pacific. “Taiwan is the frontline of freedom,” Abbott remarked. “We have to be absolutely ready for a continued escalation from China on Taiwan up to, and including, a full scale invasion.”

Abbott blamed China for increased tensions and worsening relations with Australia, and argued that he believes Xi Jinping thinks that China is “pushing on an open door” in terms of the risks involved with escalation in Taiwan. He rationalized solidarity with Taiwan by noting its democratic values and strategic importance to the first island chain. In the event of a Chinese takeover of Taiwan, Abbott argued, “Japan would be dangerously exposed.” 

On AUKUS, Abbott noted that the deal would only see Australian acquisition of operational nuclear submarine capabilities in two decades time. He stated that he has engaged in informal discussions to scout the possibility of Australian acquisition of a retiring US Navy Los Angeles-class or Royal Navy Trafalgar-class nuclear submarine to serve as a training vessel or as a direct addition to Australia’s fleet if necessary. “We need better, bigger, faster, and more wide-ranging submarines. Not in two decades time, but now,” Abbott said, stating further that the gap between Chinese and U.S. naval capabilities in the Western Pacific would only widen in the years to come.

Abbott painted an image of a China that was unwilling to engage in dialogue, even on matters of climate change. He expressed caution, contending that Western nations should not “turn their economies upside down to reduce emissions when China is not going to do so as well. It’s obvious that China will never do more than pretend to play ball on climate change. For China, at least under Xi Jinping, the main game is strategic domination.” 

The former prime minister only lightly engaged with concerns about the potential costs of intensifying Australia’s security alliance with the US to balance against China. Complicating tensions in Australia’s relationship with China is the significant trading relationship between the two nations. Abbott argued, however, that Chinese imports of Australian coal and gas served as a potent reminder that China’s economy would also be hurt by a disruption of trade, and added that “China has more to lose than [Australia] from a cessation of trade.”

Responding to a question about the dramatic increase in military spending Australia would need in order to acquire and support an augmented submarine fleet, Abbott merely noted that both the current conservative Morrison government and the opposition leader of the Labor Party have committed to increasing current levels of defense spending of 2 percent of  Australia’s GDP. Southeast Asia also came up almost as an afterthought in the event, even though the region is next door to Australia with its stability greatly at risk due to the emerging security competition. 

Abbott gave a jingoistic characterization of Chinese behavior, offering only perfunctory statements about the possibility of dialogue. His linkage between a Beijing-controlled Taiwan putting Japan at risk offered a 21st century version of Cold War domino theory, which rationalized U.S. interventions, semi-permanent domestic war mobilization, and global primacy. 

For Abbott, the answer to China’s growing presence on the world stage is evidently more military spending, increased rhetorical escalation, and solidarity among the world’s democracies in order to draw a battle line between freedom and Chinese hegemony. “The world needs the United States to be its policeman,” he added. “And if it is necessary for the US to act alongside partners, Australia will be there.”


Former Australian PM tony Abbott at the Wilson Center Friday (Wilson Center/Screenshot)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Colby: Israel is fighting a different war in Iran
Top image credit: Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby speaks at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. (Screengrab via armed-services.senate.gov)

Colby: Israel is fighting a different war in Iran

QiOSK

The U.S. is pursuing “scoped and reasonable objectives” in its military campaign against Iran and is not seeking regime change through force, argued Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby in a Tuesday Senate hearing.

When pressed about why the campaign began with the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Colby declined to comment directly. “I’m talking about the goals of the American military campaign,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Those are Israeli operations.”

keep readingShow less
US missiles
Top photo credit: . DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Vince Parker, U.S. Air Force.

Trump: We have 'unlimited' weapons to fight 'forever' war

QiOSK

In a startling Truth Social post overnight on Monday, President Donald Trump defied reality and claimed that U.S. weapons were "unlimited" and the U.S. could fight "forever" with "these supplies."


keep readingShow less
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.