Australian Prime Minister Albanese has batted away public demands from US de facto Defense Secretary, Elbridge Colby, that Australia state it would defend Taiwan. This undiplomatic American baiting comes as Albanese visits China for 6 days to discuss trade. Albanese responded that Australia supports "the status quo" in regards to Taiwan.
This US demand on Australia is hypocritical given the US has practiced strategic ambiguity since the 1970s, refusing to say whether it would defend Taiwan.
The official US Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, an inexperienced, rightwing Yes Man, is mute. It is increasingly apparent to Australians and poor US citizens, that aggressive neo-fascism reigns in Trump's isolationist America. Neo-fascism? -Trump's ultranationalism, love of military parades, inciting a mob to storm the Capitol, setting troops on unremarkable protesters, hounding and expelling peaceful minorities, disdain for judicial processes and giving authoritarian Putin a 50 day invasion incentive while Trump repeatedly pressures democratic Zelensky.
Undersecretary of Defence, Elbridge Colby, took to social media (24 hours ago) attempting to coerce Australia and Japan into stating their positions on Taiwan's defence. This comes while the US is deserting or antagonising its allies, except for Israel.
Russia has a special place in
Trump's heart. See the importance of Russia in financing Trump over the years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization#Financing
China is shaping up to be a more
reliable ally for Australia, especially in economic terms, than Trump's US.
Australia could only make an impact on Taiwan's defence if Australia had SSNs that are fast enough to get to Taiwan in about a week. Colby is likely to demand higher gifts (than the current A$800 million per year) for Australia to then buy, at increasing prices, used Virginia-class SSNs in 7 to 15 years. It is highly unlikely that America, will deliver on Biden's AUKUS promise because the USN is desperately in need of all Virginias through to the 2040s.
More see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-13/albanese-taiwan-us-defence-demands-china-visit/105526626
7 comments:
America's "its US or them" under Trump means that you have to create enemies to position your rhetoric against. There is no middle ground.
Granted, the anti-PRC movement in America has been there for decades.
To other nations, China has not yet crossed international red lines, while countries that do, for example Russia invading Ukraine, is almost blamed on the Ukrainians.
Yes, the PRC has large and elaborate spying network, so do the Americans.
Trump's appointing a golf-buddy and Mar Largo member as Ambassador to Singapore, and he was blasted by senator Tammy Duckworth in his confirmation hearing: https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/tremendous-opportunities-for-growth-in-us-singapore-ties-says-trumps-ambassador-nominee-sinha
Hi Pete,
I understand it's been a while since I posted here. I had lost access to my Google/Gmail account for a short while but everything is ok now and I got your email.
I see that Australian PM Albanese is visiting China with trade on the agenda. I was not following the tariffs story with much keenness as it seems Trump takes a decision on Monday & turns everything on its head by Wednesday. I thought I'd just wait a few months to see where the dust settles, but it seems that with someone like Trump in office, it never will.
Cheers, cobber!
Thanks for logging this story Pete. I find it hard to imagine how Colby could have done more to undermine AUKUS (and ANZUS). His remarks only prove the harshest critics of AUKUS (Keating, Evans, Carr, Turnbull) correct. There will be no RAN subs without strings attached. Yet that was precisely the point previously denied (that AUKUS would not impinge on Australian sovereignty).
US demands for Australia and Japan to commit to defending Taiwan are galling in the absence of any US commitment to do the same. This is even more the case when it is remembered that Australia asked for a binding NATO style treaty when ANZUS was signed in the 1950s but was rebuffed by USA.
IMO there are three conclusions:
1. The more conditional US security support becomes, the more USA’s Asian partners will contemplate their own nuclear deterrents.
2. The strategic theorists are proven correct once more. Nations decide their strategic policy based on their interests, not history and shared values.
3. In using AUKUS to hold its Indo Pacific defense strategy together, USA may have only hastened the end of its historic alliances..
Hi Shawn at 7/14/2025 1:15 AM and 7/14/2025 3:24 AM
Yes China comes out quite mild compared to Trump's uncompromising aggressive approach to international relations and trade.
This US ("will you defend Taiwan") demand on Australia is hypocritical given the US has practiced strategic ambiguity since the 1970s, refusing to say whether it would defend Taiwan.
Also Australia doesn't have the power projection forces (by land, sea or air) to do much to defend Taiwan. A plausible force would be 2 destroyer/frigates and a supply ship. But our supply ships only cruise at 13 knots meaning our force would take about 3 weeks to get to Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-class_replenishment_oiler . Even then it would be vulnerable to PRC aircraft, missiles and subs.
Indeed, all countries indeed need intelligence organisations - in line with the size of their national economies.
On https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/tremendous-opportunities-for-growth-in-us-singapore-ties-says-trumps-ambassador-nominee-sinha Trump's aggressive micromanagement leaves no room for diplomatic approaches. Trump's real estate investor Ukraine-Russia negotiator, Steve Witkoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Witkoff#Involvement_in_negotiations_with_Russia is/was even more ill-equipped.
Cheers Pete
Hi Gessler at 7/14/2025 4:39 PM
Its good you're back :)
Yes even White House staffers would be gobsmacked by Trump's daily tariff reversals. Trump's doing Putin's bidding of destroying the Western alliance for Putin.
Cheers Pete
Hi Anonymous at 7/14/2025 11:37 PM
You make some excellent points:
1. South Korea, with its KSS-III conventional ballistic missile submarines (SSBs) can replace the missiles' conventional warheads with nuclear warheads in a matter of months. Japan has all 3 components of a nuclear deterrent - look up "Epsilon" in my blog's search box. If SK and Japan went nuclear Australia would follow in a year or two.
2. I think Australia was offered SSNs under AUKUS to cancel or delay our secret conclusion that we had to develop a nuclear deterrent. But the practicality of receiving SSNs before the 2040s is proving elusive. See https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2024/05/australias-nuclear-weapon-sshns-2030s.html
3. Yes, the oncoming failure of AUKUS Pillar One (SSNs) can be seen as the US being powerless to dominate the western Pacific compared to China.
Regards Pete
Post a Comment