Follow us on social

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

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)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. speaking wit… | Flickr

Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten

Media


Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

keep readingShow less
Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

Peter Thiel attends the annual Allen and Co. Sun Valley Media Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, U.S., July 6, 2022. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

QiOSK

The trouble with doing business with Israel — or any foreign government — is you can't really say anything when they do terrible things with technology that you may or may not have sold to them, or hope to sell to them, or hope to sell in your own country.

Such was the case with Peter Thiel, co-founder of Palantir Technologies, in this recently surfaced video, talking to the Cambridge Union back in May. See him stumble and stutter and buy time when asked what he thought about the use of Artificial Intelligence by the Israeli military in a targeting program called "Lavender" — which we now know has been responsible for the deaths of an untold number of innocent Palestinians since Oct 7. (See investigation here).

keep readingShow less
Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Committee chairman Jack Reed (D-RI), left, looks on as co-chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) shakes hands with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on President Biden's proposed budget request for the Department of Defense on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., April 9, 2024. REUTERS/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Military Industrial Complex

Now that both political parties have seemingly settled upon their respective candidates for the 2024 presidential election, we have an opportune moment to ask a rather fundamental question about our nation’s defense spending: how much is enough?

Back in May, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, penned an op-ed in the New York Times insisting the answer was not enough at all. Wicker claimed that the nation wasn’t prepared for war — or peace, for that matter — that our ships and fighter-jet fleets were “dangerously small” and our military infrastructure “outdated.” So weak our defense establishment and so dangerous the world right now, Wicker pressed, the nation ought to “spend an additional $55 billion on the military in the 2025 fiscal year.”

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest

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.