The Australian Financial Review reported on April 16 that the Australian government has dramatically upgraded its internal preparations for possible military action in the Taiwan Strait. The report said it was part of a broader show of force by the U.S. and its Australian allies to force the Chinese Communist Party to abandon violations of Taiwan’s airspace and isolate its economic partners.
The Australian Defence Force is planning for a potential worst-case scenario if the U.S. and China clash over Taiwan, sources told the weekend edition of the Australian Financial Review, sparking debate over the scope and scale of Canberra’s contribution to an unprecedented conflict in the region should it arise. Options include allied efforts with submarines, maritime reconnaissance aircraft, aerial refueling aircraft and possibly Super Hornet fighters operating from U.S. bases in Guam or the Philippines and even Japan.
Seasoned Taiwan watchers welcomed the enhanced approach as long overdue, the paper said. They warn that “Beijing’s growing aggression toward Taiwan and a renewed U.S. determination to help Taipei defend itself could spiral out of control into a catastrophic open conflict.” Concern is growing across the region, with Taiwan accusing the People’s Liberation Army of sending 25 military aircraft into its air defense identification zone this week, a new record so far this year.
Australian Defence Force Chief Angus Campbell, attending the Raisina Dialogue in India on April 15, warned that conflict in the Taiwan Strait would be “catastrophic” and urged Beijing to resolve its differences with Taiwan through dialogue. He said. Conflict over Taiwan would be a disastrous experience for the people of the region, something we should all try to avoid,” he said. There is a path to the future through peaceful dialogue, but it is a difficult path that requires effort.”
Notably, at the same forum that day, the Indian and Japanese military chiefs were asked if they were collectively planning to confront China in Taiwan as members of the Quadripartite Dialogue mechanism. No one answered the question. Sources and academics said that while military conflict remains unlikely, Australia wants to send a signal to Beijing “that further incursions by Mr. Xi Jinping’s forces into Taiwan territory will not be tolerated,” the newspaper said.
The newspaper quoted a diplomatic source involved in the Canberra effort as saying, “There’s a lot of development and scenario planning going on and it’s designed to signal that you’re not going to blink. It’s designed to show that you don’t lack commitment.” The push dovetails with Beijing’s desire to “normalize the invasion of Taiwan and discourage people from investing there,” the paper said. Taiwan is one of the world’s most important sources of chips, and it is currently in the grip of a global supply shortage.
Following last month’s historic Quadruple Dialogue leaders’ summit between the leaders of Australia, Japan, India and the United States, analysts believe Canberra is under greater pressure to anticipate collective harm to the group’s members. Michael Shoebridge, director of the defense program at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said, “One of the big things for Australians to realize is that the U.S. and Japan have said they have common problems with us.” In turn, he said, “we have to share their problems.” That includes Japan’s direct sovereignty concerns in the East China Sea.
Shoebridge said, “The only way we can push back against Beijing is not to divide and not to see the problems of the Americans and the Japanese as their problems. We can’t expect partners like the U.S. and Japan to support us if we don’t stand with them.” An Australian defense official confirmed to the newspaper that plans are already underway, describing the prospect of conflict over Taiwan as a very complex issue for the government.
The source said that while the Australian Defence Force was capable of contributing to a crisis in Taiwan, the composition of the forces committed would be determined by the military effect the government was trying to make or contribute. “A lot of thought has gone into this situation and other contingencies, but nothing you wouldn’t expect from the Department of Defense as part of prudent military planning,” the source said. A former Australian defense official said there would be questions in the department and the government about whether the Australia-New Zealand-U.S. Security Treaty (ANZUS Treaty) would apply when Taiwan is hit.
Integrating Royal Australian Navy (RAN) air warfare destroyers into U.S. carrier strike groups and deploying Collins-class submarines to limit Communist Chinese naval operations may be an option, but the Australian side may be somewhat hesitant to commit naval assets because of the threat posed to them by the Communist Chinese Navy, the newspaper said. Australia is more likely to contribute air cover, such as maritime reconnaissance aircraft, air-to-air refueling aircraft, Wedgetail radar early warning aircraft and Super Hornet fighters, operating from U.S. bases in Guam or the Philippines, the former official said.
A former senior Australian diplomat said that while the likelihood of conflict is not zero, it is unlikely. Its view is that because Beijing is not ready for it. Occupying Taiwan would also turn the entire world against China. “And if your ambition is to cross the middle-income trap and consolidate the Communist Party, that could be a dramatic step,” the source said. Mark Harrison, a senior lecturer in China studies at the University of Tasmania in Australia, said that while China is unlikely to launch a full-scale military invasion and would signal it weeks in advance, there are risks if the U.S. and its allies push the Chinese side into a corner.
Harrison said, “Beijing could also use the threat of war itself as a multiplier for more limited action and possibly try to extract incremental concessions from Taipei from it.” He said, “Beijing and Taipei have very complex politics at play, a very heavy history, and policymakers in Canberra need to look at all of these issues holistically.” Also on the topic, Campbell responded at Thursday’s event that militaries engage in “all kinds of planning” but “rarely talk about it.”
Campbell said building defense relationships with like-minded nations and understanding other nations’ interests and worldviews “is as much about reducing the likelihood of conflict as it is about responding more effectively to conflict when necessary.” Another goal of such planning, he added, is “to create a more sophisticated conflict calculus in the minds of adversaries about what happens when we don’t act alone, but work together.
Recent Comments