Albanese avoids committing to military role as US presses Australia over potential Taiwan war
Prime minister Anthony Albanese said that his country did not support 'any unilateral action' on Taiwan and that its spending on both defence and aid was 'about advancing peace and security in our region'.
'We have a clear position and we have been consistent about that … We don't want any change in the status quo,' he said on Sunday, his first day of visit to China.
His remarks come shortly after Australian acting defence minister Pat Conroy said that Australia prioritises its sovereignty and 'we don't discuss hypotheticals', speaking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on Sunday, highlighting that such military decisions cannot be made in advance.
'The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance but by the government of the day,' he said.
His remarks come in the wake of pressure from Elbridge Colby, the US undersecretary of defence for policy, on Australia and Japan to clarify their military commitments in the event of a conflict over Taiwan.
In May, US secretary of defence Pete Hegseth reiterated the Pentagon 's timeline for a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan. He warned that China was 'credibly preparing' for military escalation to upend the balance of power in Asia, with an invasion expected by 2027. He also vowed that the US was 'here to stay' in the Indo-Pacific region.
US intelligence reports say that Chinese president Xi Jinping has instructed his military to be ready for an invasion by 2027, should he give the order.
Beijing claims Taiwan as a breakaway province, and Mr Jinping has threatened to ' reunite ' the island with the mainland, by force if necessary. The Taiwanese people largely favour the status quo, which gives them de facto independence.
Mr Conroy said Australia was concerned about China's military buildup of nuclear and conventional forces and wanted a balanced Indo-Pacific where no single country holds dominance.
'China is seeking to secure a military base in the region and we are working very hard to be the primary security partner of choice for the region because we don't think that's a particularly optimal thing for Australia,' he said, referring to the Pacific Islands.
Mr Colby's push is seen as the latest effort by the Trump administration to persuade its Indo-Pacific allies to prepare for a potential war over Taiwan. According to the Financial Times, he has been pressing the defence agenda in meetings with Japanese and Australian officials in recent months, citing five sources familiar with the discussions.
The top US official also took to X and said the Pentagon was implementing US president Donald Trump's agenda of 'restoring deterrence and achieving peace through strength'.
'As the Department has made abundantly and consistently clear, we at DOD are focused on implementing the President's America First, common sense agenda of restoring deterrence and achieving peace through strength,' Mr Colby wrote on X.
'That includes urging allies to step up their defence spending and other efforts related to our collective defence. This has been a hallmark of President Trump's strategy - in Asia as in Europe, where it has already been tremendously successful,' he said.
According to a US defence official, the 'animated theme' of the discussions between Mr Colby and Australia and Japan was 'to intensify and accelerate efforts to strengthen deterrence in a balanced, equitable way'.
'We do not seek war. Nor do we seek to dominate China itself. What we are doing is ensuring the United States and its allies have the military strength to underwrite diplomacy and guarantee peace,' the US official told FT.
A close defence partner to the US, Australia is already set to open its largest war-fighting exercise with the US, involving 30,000 troops from 19 countries on Sunday on Sydney Harbour.
The Talisman Sabre exercise will span 6,500 km (4,000 miles) from Australia's Indian Ocean territory of Christmas Island to the Coral Sea on Australia's east coast.
Meanwhile, the Australian defence industry minister said it was possible China's navy would be watching the exercise to collect information, as it had done in the past.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Australia has no duty to protect Indigenous group from climate change, court finds
Australia 's Federal Court ruled the government owes no legal duty to protect Torres Strait Islanders from climate change, dismissing a landmark case. Justice Michael Wigney stated that decisions on carbon emissions and climate protection fall within government policy, not judicial oversight, despite accepting scientific evidence of "devastating" impacts. The case was brought by two Torres Strait Islander elders, Paul Kabai and Pabai Pabai, who argued the government was negligent in failing to safeguard their ancestral lands from rising sea levels and other climate harms. Experts said the ruling exposed critical gaps in Australia's laws, with the judge noting current law provides no effective avenue for individuals to claim relief for climate inaction. The claimants expressed profound disappointment but are considering an appeal, while legal experts emphasised the need for Australian law to adapt to the realities of climate change.
Finextra
3 hours ago
- Finextra
Can reducing fossil fuel subsidies advance global climate goals?
0 This content has been selected, created and edited by the Finextra editorial team based upon its relevance and interest to our community. Research from ZEW Manheim found that worldwide climate targets can be met by reducing subsidies for fossil fuels. The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to below 2°C to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Targets range from achieving net zero by 2035 to 2070 depending on the country, with most settling in the middle at 2050. The UK is aiming to become net zero by 2045 and pledged to reduce emissions by 69% by 2030. What are fossil fuel subsidies? Many governments have direct and indirect subsidies in fossil fuels – the former being direct payments, and the latter allowing significant tax breaks to allocated businesses and institutions. In 2022, fossil fuels received $7 trillion in subsidies. Countries with the largest subsidies in fossil fuels are producers of oil, such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kazakhstan, Iran, and Algeria. Countries such as Venezuela, Finland, Australia, and Ireland also have large subsidies in fossil fuel industries, according to 2021 research from Our World in Data. Governments fund subsidies as a privileged form of financial aid, to support sectors of a nation's economy with the ultimate goal of maximising profit and protecting domestic jobs. Other forms of government subsidies are individual subsidies, like student loans and unemployment benefits. In the US, subsidies have historically supported the agricultural, financial, oil, and utility industries – the motivations behind this can be political and economic. Some socioeconomic theories suggest certain industries require protection from global competition to ensure profitability. There have been arguments against government subsidies that inspire a free economy vs. mixed economy debate; defenders of the free market argue that the free economy cannot exist with government intervention, whereas those who are pro-subsidies state that protecting certain industries allows people to thrive and jobs to remain intact. 'Many governments still help to keep fossil fuels cheap for consumers. For example, explicit subsidies are used to cover part of the supply cost, or external health costs associated with the use of fossil fuels are not included in prices because of implicit subsidies,' stated Professor Sebastian Rausch, head of the ZEW Research Unit 'Environmental and Climate Economics'. How can reducing fossil fuel subsidies lead to achieving climate goals? US subsidies in fossil fuels amounted to $757 billion in 2022, $3 billion in explicit subsidies, and $754 billion in implicit subsidies. Subsidies exceeded the federal government's tax revenues from natural gas and petroleum by $2.1 billion in 2022. Under former President Joe Biden, the US pledged to phase out from fossil fuel investments abroad by 2040. However, since then, the new US administration has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement and instated anti-ESG laws, allowing climate-killing fossil fuels to continue to thrive. According to the IMF, reducing fossil fuel subsidies can promote economic growth by limiting uneven division of resources, reduce pollution and climate change, and encourage better social spending by reductions in taxes. The research from ZEW revealed that a third of all countries could meet their climate goals by reducing subsidies in coal, oil, and natural gas – which could lower carbon emissions enough to meet climate targets without additional policies. The argument against fossil fuel subsidies is not a new one; discussions at 2021 and 2022 UN climate change conferences have been pushed for policies to retract tax privileges from oil and gas industries. A report from the University of Cambridge published in May outlined that to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement, three climate actions are essential. Reducing emissions by moving energy production away from fossil fuels that generate greenhouse gas emissions; Reduction of energy use in sectors to ensure greenhouse gas removal; and Optimising land management through solar radiation modification. The removal of both implicit and explicit fossil fuel subsidies is essential. The report states: 'many countries continue to heavily subsidise fossil fuels, both explicitly (by undercharging supply costs) and implicitly (by failing to account for the non-market costs associated with local externalities of fossil fuel use).' The figure below outlines the differences between explicit and implicit subsidies based on 2022 data from the IMF, and what approaches are being taken to reduce them. Source: Our World in Data Reducing all direct fossil fuel subsidies would not successfully tamp down on global emissions, however identifying hidden costs of fossil fuels in energy prices could cut down global emissions by 32%, whilst improving welfare in nations. Tim Kalmey, researcher at ZEW and also co-author of the ZEW study, commented: 'Phasing out explicit subsidies, such as tax exemptions on kerosene or gas price ceilings, would only have a limited effect on CO2 emissions. It is crucial that also the local externalities of fossil fuels, i.e. the harmful effects on health caused by local air pollution, are factored in. We estimate that this would reduce global CO2 emissions by 32%.' Only reducing explicit fossil fuels will not fulfil the climate goals outlined by the Paris Agreement, but eliminating implicit fossil fuel subsidies will allow one-third of countries to overachieve their climate targets. With effective energy pricing, the cost of achieving climate goals can be lowered for all countries, and adding effective energy pricing on top of carbon pricing to meet the Paris Agreement goals will increase welfare by 120%. By retracting government intervention in gas and oil industries, not only will it protect the planet, but the welfare of individual nations that will take part. This new data is key for policymakers, who can use it to make real progress towards mitigating climate change.
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
Australia PM Albanese, at Great Wall, defends foreign investment screening
SYDNEY, July 16 (Reuters) - Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Wednesday his government's screening of foreign investment was not country-specific, after Chinese Premier Li Qiang raised "problems" faced by Chinese companies seeking access to Australia. On the fifth day of a China visit where the Australian leader is balancing trade and security, Albanese visited the Great Wall to draw a comparison with former prime minister Gough Whitlam who walked the wall in 1971, opening dialogue with communist China before Australia's ally the United States had done so. "Foreign investment is viewed not on the basis of any one country but on the basis of an objective assessment of our national interest," he told reporters during the visit on Wednesday. At a roundtable of Chinese and Australian company executives on Tuesday evening, Li had said he hoped Australia would "solve the problems encountered by enterprises in terms of market access and investment review", a readout of the meeting by Chinese state media outlet Xinhua showed. Australia has blocked some Chinese investments in critical minerals, and company executives have told Reuters that security screening of renewable energy and key infrastructure has also stepped up. Australia supplies around half of the world's lithium as well as other minerals including rare earths used in batteries for electric cars and defence, and is seeking to boost trade with the U.S. amid a global push to diversify supply chains away from dominant producer China. Albanese said on Wednesday that it was in Australia's interest to have a positive relationship with China and not be defined by differences. To underline the point, Albanese said he was following in the footsteps of the Labor leader Whitlam, who made "a decision that took courage" to visit and recognise the People's Republic of China in a changing world. "It's important that we build stability and security in our world, and part of that has to be positive engagement," he added.
