Latest news with #ANZUS
Sky News AU
19-07-2025
- Business
- Sky News AU
Australia's strategic naivety must end and Albanese's six-day festival of flattery in China shows why
Whatever the failings of China's Communist government, its ability to roll out red carpets to foreign dignitaries is second to none. Mr Albanese got the full treatment this week, beginning with the motorcade from the airport, light poles adorned with the Australian flag, a private tour of the Great Wall, a lavish banquet, serenades of Australian rock anthems, glowing coverage in the state press, and countless other choreographed gestures to make him feel honoured. When China turns on the charm for foreign leaders, the recipients would be wise to maintain a healthy degree of scepticism. What appears to be gracious hospitality is in fact a carefully orchestrated performance, an exercise in image control for both domestic and global audiences. This is not just diplomacy - it is a ritualised assertion of symbolic superiority rooted in China's imperial past. To resist the choreography is to risk awkwardness, tension, or even diplomatic reprisal. What seems like an over-elaborate show of politeness is, in truth, a system of soft coercion. It is a stage upon which foreign leaders are cast in subordinate roles, encouraged to reciprocate not only with courtesy but with political restraint. It is both a performance and a test: imperious in tone, strategic in purpose and deeply psychological in effect. Let us hope the Prime Minister received a full and frank briefing from officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade before embarking on this six-day charm offensive. Let us hope, too, that he kept a cool head and did not mince his words behind closed doors. Maintaining a functional relationship with Beijing is a legitimate objective. But it must not come at the expense of Australia's vital national interests: the strength of the US alliance, support for Taiwan's democratic sovereignty and the security of our critical infrastructure. The timing of the trip was less than ideal. Accepting six days of Chinese hospitality ahead of a meeting with the leader of our closest ally sent mixed signals. Beijing's red-carpet rollout was an opportunistic move, aimed at exploiting the perceived awkwardness between the ANZUS partners. A more seasoned leader might have postponed the visit for a more auspicious moment. China's propaganda machine wasted no time. State media warned against "third-party interference" that could derail Australia's improving relationship with China - a thinly veiled swipe at the US. In an editorial reproduced in other Chinese media, the 'China Daily' gushed that 'today's China-Australia relationship is like a plane flying in the 'stratosphere' after passing through the storm zone'. Faced with this media wall of self-congratulation, the Prime Minister's task was to hold the line. He needed to explain, firmly and politely, why the relationship is not as cosy as Beijing wishes to portray. The unannounced dispatch of Chinese gunboats to conduct live-fire exercises off the Australian coast with Australia's exclusive economic zone is not the behaviour of a friendly nation. We know the Prime Minister raised the issue and that President Xi Jinping told him that China would engage in exercises just as Australia does. In other words, get used to it. Equally, it was incumbent upon the PM to reassert Australia's sovereign right to revisit the 2014 lease of the Port of Darwin to Landbridge Group. What appeared at the time to be a straightforward commercial transaction now looks like a concession of breathtaking naivety. Landbridge is no ordinary private investor. Its chairman is a member of a high-level Communist Party advisory body. The company has an internal CCP committee, a "people's armed militia" linked to the PLA, and a structure that offers little insulation from state influence. That such an entity holds the keys to a critical infrastructure node less than 25 kilometres from a US military facility would today be dismissed out of hand. To its credit, the Morrison government recognised the shifting strategic environment. It called for an inquiry into the origins of Covid-19, barred Huawei from Australia's 5G network, and enacted laws enabling Canberra to review and cancel foreign investments that threaten national interests. The Darwin lease may have escaped scrutiny, but future projects should not. What Australia needs now is a policy of clarity. The Darwin lease cannot be allowed to stand while China continues to act with strategic belligerence, attempting to secure dominance in the Pacific. Australia must be prepared to act decisively: by developing redundant military infrastructure or revoking the lease outright in the national interest. China respects strength and exploits ambiguity. To vacillate now is to invite pressure later. Our policy must evolve with the times. Strategic naivety can no longer be tolerated. Which brings us to Taiwan. The Prime Minister's insistence that sensitive topics be kept behind closed doors is problematic in the face of potential misrepresentation. Chinese state media claimed Albanese assured President Xi that Australia does not support Taiwanese independence. If accurate, this would be a grievous distortion of Australian policy. Australia's ambiguity on Taiwan stems from the December 1972 communiqué signed by Gough Whitlam, which recognised the PRC as the sole legal government of China, acknowledged Beijing's claim over Taiwan, and closed our embassy in Taipei. It contained no reciprocal commitments and no statement of Australia's independent view. By contrast, when President Nixon established ties with China earlier that year, the US acknowledged Beijing's position but also insisted on a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question. The difference between acknowledgement and acquiescence mattered then and matters even more today. That foundational ambiguity has persisted for five decades, feeding a dangerous cycle of strategic vagueness. In the 1970s, this may have seemed inconsequential: China was a marginal trading partner, Taiwan an autocratic backwater. But the world has changed. Taiwan is now a thriving democracy, a technological powerhouse, and a key player in global supply chains. China, meanwhile, has grown more authoritarian and assertive. A forcible annexation of Taiwan would shatter regional stability, weaken the US alliance system, and threaten Australia's own security. The shift towards more cautious engagement with Beijing that began under Morrison must now be completed. That requires speaking plainly. Taiwan's future must not be decided by force. Australia, alongside its allies, must be prepared to resist any effort to alter the status quo through coercion. Prime Minister Albanese's visit offered an opportunity to deliver that message. Let us hope that he took it, rather than allowing it to be subsumed by a six-day festival of flattery. Nick Cater is a senior fellow at the Menzies Research Centre and a regular contributor to Sky News Australia
Sydney Morning Herald
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
He's a sceptic. So what might Colby recommend to Trump on AUKUS?
Former Reagan administration official Hugh Hewitt didn't mince his words on the AUKUS nuclear submarine pact last week after it emerged Pentagon leaders wanted a guarantee from Australia that the vessels would be used to back the US in the event of conflict with China. 'Why, for example, would we help country A arm itself if country A would not render assistance in a fight?' Hewitt wrote on X. 'If we don't know what our closest allies are genuinely committed to do in the event of a crisis of the first magnitude, can we call them 'close allies'?' His words received backing from the US Defence Department's chief spokesman, Sean Parnell. One of Parnell's bosses, undersecretary of defence for policy Elbridge Colby, is leading the Pentagon's review of AUKUS to see if it fits President Donald Trump's 'America first' agenda. This masthead has reported Colby intends to urge major changes to the program, though the broader Trump administration is split on the best way forward. Those changes could include calls for Australia to lease the submarines rather than buy them; have US crews on board the nuclear boats; or give some form of guarantee to deploy them in conflicts involving the US. So how would those work? And what would that mean for Australia? Commitment to join a conflict US officials say Chinese President Xi Jinping wants the ability to invade the self-governing democratic island of Taiwan by 2027, and defence experts say a conflict over the disputed territory is increasingly likely as China expands its military capabilities. China views the island as a wayward province and an internal issue for the country. Colby believes Australia should provide some form of guarantee that US-made nuclear submarines will be used in a possible conflict with China, this masthead has reported. Australia already has a mechanism to join the US in conflict under the ANZUS treaty. The pact was signed by Australia, New Zealand and the US in 1951 in response to the spread of communism in the Pacific and the rearmament of Japan after World War II.
The Age
18-07-2025
- Politics
- The Age
He's a sceptic. So what might Colby recommend to Trump on AUKUS?
Former Reagan administration official Hugh Hewitt didn't mince his words on the AUKUS nuclear submarine pact last week after it emerged Pentagon leaders wanted a guarantee from Australia that the vessels would be used to back the US in the event of conflict with China. 'Why, for example, would we help country A arm itself if country A would not render assistance in a fight?' Hewitt wrote on X. 'If we don't know what our closest allies are genuinely committed to do in the event of a crisis of the first magnitude, can we call them 'close allies'?' His words received backing from the US Defence Department's chief spokesman, Sean Parnell. One of Parnell's bosses, undersecretary of defence for policy Elbridge Colby, is leading the Pentagon's review of AUKUS to see if it fits President Donald Trump's 'America first' agenda. This masthead has reported Colby intends to urge major changes to the program, though the broader Trump administration is split on the best way forward. Those changes could include calls for Australia to lease the submarines rather than buy them; have US crews on board the nuclear boats; or give some form of guarantee to deploy them in conflicts involving the US. So how would those work? And what would that mean for Australia? Commitment to join a conflict US officials say Chinese President Xi Jinping wants the ability to invade the self-governing democratic island of Taiwan by 2027, and defence experts say a conflict over the disputed territory is increasingly likely as China expands its military capabilities. China views the island as a wayward province and an internal issue for the country. Colby believes Australia should provide some form of guarantee that US-made nuclear submarines will be used in a possible conflict with China, this masthead has reported. Australia already has a mechanism to join the US in conflict under the ANZUS treaty. The pact was signed by Australia, New Zealand and the US in 1951 in response to the spread of communism in the Pacific and the rearmament of Japan after World War II.
Sky News AU
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Australia has a commitment to ‘collaboratively develop' its military alongside the US
Former home affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo explains how the US and Australia should react under the ANZUS treaty. 'Under ANZUS, we are obligated to do the following: to work together to collaboratively develop our militaries. Talisman Sabre is an example of that," Mr Pezzullo told Sky News Australia. 'To consult in the event of adverse security challenges ... and critically, article four is to act together to meet the common danger should one or both parties be subject to an armed attack.'
Sky News AU
14-07-2025
- Business
- Sky News AU
Anthony Albanese warned over 'cagey' Taiwan stance, with Sky News' Peta Credlin claiming it will lead to US 'reckoning'
Sky News host Peta Credlin has warned Prime Minister Anthony Albanese his "cagey" stance on Taiwan risks placing further strain on Australia's alliance with the United States. Credlin said Mr Albanese's noncommittal answers to questions about sending troops to defend Taiwan would encourage the US to question if Australia were really committed to the alliance. She added that if "America does defend Taiwan, Australia will have to be involved. There are no ifs or buts here." Noting the Albanese government refused to send a frigate to the Red Sea in December 2023, marking the 'first time since ANZUS was finalised in 1951 that we have declined a US request for military assistance', Credlin claimed questions about Taiwan were a telling indicator on whether Australia would back its ally. 'Every previous Australian government has recognised that the alliance is a two-way street. We can't expect the Americans to support us in our military campaigns if we're not prepared to support them in theirs,' she said. 'This is where the travelling press pack with the Prime Minister miss the point. The question is not would Australia help Taiwan, it's would Australia help the United States?' Credlin added Mr Albanese was spending a 'remarkably long' time in China and would meet President Xi Jinping for the fourth time on Tuesday, while still not having met President Donald Trump and continuing to refuse calls to increase defence spending. The Sky News host echoed the words of former prime minister Tony Abbott, who said defence spending needed to be 'swiftly' increased to three per cent of GDP. 'If we want the Pax Americana to survive, this unprecedented era of global peace in general terms, then we cannot expect the Americans to do all the heavy lifting on their own,' Credlin said. 'There's a reckoning on the way and few Australians really appreciate just how grave things are.' Credlin said Mr Albanese needed to get some of 'our eggs out of the China basket' given Beijing's aggression economically and militarily, characterised by the rising tension around Taiwan and recent trade boycotts 'only just lifted' against Australia. 'There were $20 billion worth of boycotts placed on our annual exports to China – just because we had the temerity to ask for an independent investigation of the Wuhan virus,' she said. 'For China, trade is politics by other means. Trade is something to be turned on and off like a tap to secure its strategic objectives. 'It's not just the folly of making Australia more economically vulnerable to China. It's the folly of turning trade into a climate crusade.' Credlin said the 'inconvenient truth' was China relied heavily on billions of dollars of Australian iron and coal. The Sky News host said Mr Albanese was mistaken if he thought China shared his 'emissions obsession', when in fact it had not committed to net zero and is building two new coal-fired power stations every week. 'How about that inconvenient truth?' she said. 'So not only is Anthony Albanese missing the point on national security, he's missing it on economic security too.'
