As Scott Morrison trips over his own contradictions, Keating's views on China have remained steadfast
Keating's big call
Meantime, that other bloke from Sydney's West, Keating, was being utterly consistent in the views he has held on Asia for decades in his first appearance at the National Press Club in almost 26 years.
As always, there was much to absorb. The cutting barbs, certainly, but of course the substantive points which stretched from the Quad to Indonesia and ASEAN, from the Americans to the French but, overwhelmingly, about China.
Former Australian PM Paul Keating says "Taiwan is not a vital Australian interest"
Keating's critics have painted him as a China apologist, and/or as having an out of date and too benign view of the world's new superpower.
His comments about Taiwan on Wednesday were the real lightning rod.
Taiwan, he said, "is not a vital Australian interest".
"We have no alliance with Taipei," he said. "We do not recognise it as a sovereign state — we've always seen it as a part of China.
"My view is Australia should not be drawn into a military engagement over Taiwan, US-sponsored or otherwise."
This was a big call given the current political consensus.
Keating's critics have painted him as a China apologist, and/or as having an out of date and too benign view of the world's new superpower.
His comments about Taiwan on Wednesday were the real lightning rod.
Taiwan, he said, "is not a vital Australian interest".
"We have no alliance with Taipei," he said. "We do not recognise it as a sovereign state — we've always seen it as a part of China.
"My view is Australia should not be drawn into a military engagement over Taiwan, US-sponsored or otherwise."
This was a big call given the current political consensus.
His comments were immediately characterised as advocating that Australia should abandon a democracy of 24 million people. Which, frankly, they do.
The only problem is: what do those who dismiss Keating's position say is the alternative argument? Whether you take a benign view of China's intentions, or an alarmed one, Taiwan and China are now becoming a very, very complex problem for everyone, including Australia.
Both Morrison and his Defence Minister Peter Dutton have said that in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, Australia would support the US and its other allies.
The American position since 1949 has always, unambiguously, been that it would defend Taiwan.
But it is now doing that in a world where it is not guaranteed the prospect of winning.
The only problem is: what do those who dismiss Keating's position say is the alternative argument? Whether you take a benign view of China's intentions, or an alarmed one, Taiwan and China are now becoming a very, very complex problem for everyone, including Australia.
Both Morrison and his Defence Minister Peter Dutton have said that in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, Australia would support the US and its other allies.
The American position since 1949 has always, unambiguously, been that it would defend Taiwan.
But it is now doing that in a world where it is not guaranteed the prospect of winning.
Shifting powers
Earlier this week, the Pentagon released its annual Report on Military and Security Developments involving the People's Republic of China.
It notes that the People's Liberation Army's "evolving capabilities and concepts continue to strengthen the PRC's ability to 'fight and win wars' against a 'strong enemy' [a likely euphemism for the United States], coerce Taiwan and rival claimants in territorial disputes, counter an intervention by a third party in a conflict along the PRC's periphery, and project power globally."
In particular, it notes the escalation of China's nuclear weapons, including lower-yield weapons for deterrence, and, for the first time, confirmation that the superpower now has a "viable sea-based nuclear deterrent".
Earlier this week, the Pentagon released its annual Report on Military and Security Developments involving the People's Republic of China.
It notes that the People's Liberation Army's "evolving capabilities and concepts continue to strengthen the PRC's ability to 'fight and win wars' against a 'strong enemy' [a likely euphemism for the United States], coerce Taiwan and rival claimants in territorial disputes, counter an intervention by a third party in a conflict along the PRC's periphery, and project power globally."
In particular, it notes the escalation of China's nuclear weapons, including lower-yield weapons for deterrence, and, for the first time, confirmation that the superpower now has a "viable sea-based nuclear deterrent".
A Pentagon report this week said the People's Liberation Army's "evolving capabilities and concepts continue to strengthen the PRC's ability to 'fight and win wars' against a 'strong enemy'". (AP)
Given that a succession of senior defence and military figures have acknowledged the US no longer has clear maritime superiority over Chinese forces in the region, it should be particularly sobering stuff for those mindlessly strutting around saying "yeah, well come out here and say that" without actually articulating what the implications of this would be.
Is the Prime Minister suggesting Australia would actually commit to a war with China?
To putting "all" of our navy power to sea to combat a navy that includes two aircraft carriers, 48 frigates, 56 diesel attack submarines and nine nuclear attack submarines?
From the current Prime Minister came an entirely domestic political response: "You've got to be strong. You've got to be able to stand up for [Australia's interests]." The government was working with allies "to make sure we aren't pushed around".That a press release promising a nuclear submarine in 20 years changes the strategic balance here, when US strategists note 2027 as a key focus of pressure from China on Taiwan?
Keating was talking this week about some really serious, troubling issues.
You don't have to agree with him. But the topic deserves more than fatuous slogans.
Labor does not want to be differentiated on national security issues from the government, or much else it seems, months from an election, so was also distancing itself from its former leader. You can be confident he is untroubled by what others think.
Meanwhile, a strategist despaired this week that Labor at present does not even have a three-word slogan to which voters can refer to define the opposition, as it did in 2007.
Well, yes it does: we're with them.
Given that a succession of senior defence and military figures have acknowledged the US no longer has clear maritime superiority over Chinese forces in the region, it should be particularly sobering stuff for those mindlessly strutting around saying "yeah, well come out here and say that" without actually articulating what the implications of this would be.
Is the Prime Minister suggesting Australia would actually commit to a war with China?
To putting "all" of our navy power to sea to combat a navy that includes two aircraft carriers, 48 frigates, 56 diesel attack submarines and nine nuclear attack submarines?
From the current Prime Minister came an entirely domestic political response: "You've got to be strong. You've got to be able to stand up for [Australia's interests]." The government was working with allies "to make sure we aren't pushed around".That a press release promising a nuclear submarine in 20 years changes the strategic balance here, when US strategists note 2027 as a key focus of pressure from China on Taiwan?
Keating was talking this week about some really serious, troubling issues.
You don't have to agree with him. But the topic deserves more than fatuous slogans.
Labor does not want to be differentiated on national security issues from the government, or much else it seems, months from an election, so was also distancing itself from its former leader. You can be confident he is untroubled by what others think.
Meanwhile, a strategist despaired this week that Labor at present does not even have a three-word slogan to which voters can refer to define the opposition, as it did in 2007.
Well, yes it does: we're with them.
An enactment of the trapping of Connecticut under the SCS by the Chinese navy.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/VeJLwUfLcEU
Wakakakaka…
Scottie's nuclear sub gameplay is going to turn turtle while leading dingoland to be a missile target site if ever Oz joins force with US to interfere in the war of Taiwan unification.
Oz will be making the same mistake if they abandon Taiwan from Bullyland's annexation.
ReplyDeleteOz abandoned East Timor when Little Bully Indonesia annexed them in 1976. All the Oz PMs in the 70s and 80s and 90s (including Keating) diam diam buat tak tahu.
Fortunately there was international intervention and East Timor eventually got independence decades later, with John Howard's Liberal gomen sapot.
But if Taiwan is annexed by Bullyland there will no no chance they will be liberated later.
Taiwan annexed by China?
DeleteWhat r u smoking?
Foul caseous leaking from the fart filled well!
The People's Republic of China needs to be deterred from attempting to take Taiwan by military or other coercive means. The people of Taiwan have a right to to determine their own future.
ReplyDeleteMorrison's views are necessarily evolving, because China itself is fast changing into an aggressive, bullying nation.
Keating's views are ossified in time from a PRC China of 20 over years ago , which was not actively threatening its neighbours or actively claiming its neighbours territories and seas.
That military superiority is no longer guaranteed over China is no excuse for rolling over and writing off Taiwan.
Recouping back a renegade province is China's internal affair!
ReplyDeleteOnly the Chinese have the say about Taiwan. The people of Taiwan have a right to to determine their own future. So do the people of China!
Only a blurred mfer would call that a bullying tactic.