Confronting the aggressor
It is a common view that President Joe Biden is an old man and not completely in control of his mental faculties. This image has considerable evidence to support it: stumbling, mumbling Joe has been on display for the past two years. It has been a useful narrative for his opponents, especially when he was the Democratic Party’s candidate for the forthcoming US elections. But the real situation seems more nuanced than this stark appraisal of the man. Yes, there have been many occasions on which he has been unable to maintain his line of thought. He has stumbled, looked bewildered, and sounded incomprehensible. But, there have also been other occasions when he has appeared mentally fit and fully focussed and engaged with his tasks. The suggestion that he is competent for at least part of each day may well be closer to the truth. This is not to argue that he should have remained the Democratic Party candidate, but to suggest that there are times when he is in command of his faculties.
His unscripted comments about China and Taiwan over the past few years are an example. Usually his administration officials have endeavoured to ‘walk back’ from what the president has said, but I have long believed that he had been speaking his mind knowingly about the subject. He has repeatedly warned about China.
In an interview with 60 Minutes, President Biden was asked if US forces would defend Taiwan: ‘Yes, if in fact, there was an unprecedented attack,’ he replied. Since mid-2021 Biden has made similar public comments three times, suggesting that the US would get involved in a conflict once again. The comments reflect the US law that obligates the nation to defend the island state.
After the 60 Minutes interview aired, a White House spokesperson said: ‘The president has said this before... He also made clear then that our Taiwan policy hasn't changed. That remains true.’
During the recent Quad gathering in the US, Mr Biden was caught on a hot mike, telling his Quad summit partners that ‘China was testing us’ with aggressive tactics . The unscripted comments quickly displaced a carefully worded joint statement which did not mention Beijing by name. ‘China continues to behave aggressively, testing us all across the region, and it's true in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, South China, South Asia and the Taiwan Straits,’ Biden was overheard telling Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. ‘At least from our perspective, we believe Xi Jinping is looking to focus on domestic economic challenges and minimize the turbulence in China's diplomatic relationships, and he's also looking to buy himself some diplomatic space, in my view, to aggressively pursue China's interest,’ he added. Whatever his administration officials say, the President’s remarks present a realistic assessment of China’s intentions and behaviour and are supported on both sides of the congressional aisle in Washington DC. They are borne out by the escalation in Chinese military activities in recent weeks and months.
Which brings me to the recent spat over Aukus. Back in August, Paul Keating renewed his criticism of Aukus, claiming that it would result in conflicts started by an ‘aggressive ally’, that we will have US bases all over the country and we would become the 51st state of America. ‘Australia is quite capable of defending itself. We don't need to be basically a pair of shoes hanging out of the Americans’ backside.’
Former Foreign ministers Gareth Evans and Bob Carr came to Keating’s defence. ‘The notion that we will retain any kind of sovereign agency in determining how all these assets are used, should serious tensions erupt, is a joke in bad taste.’ said Evans. Carr concurred. ‘The $368bn (cost of Aukus) is the biggest transfer of wealth outside of Australia that has ever happened in our history and, with the retirement of the Collins-class (submarines), we could be left in the 2030s with no sovereign submarine capacity.’
When Kim Beazley and defence experts Peter Dean, Paul Dibb and Mike Pezzullo disagreed, Keating and co. doubled down. It was when another former foreign minister Alexander Downer accused the trio of being appeasers, a war of words erupted! ‘The likes of Keating and Evans seem to think a policy of appeasement will work. If deterrence and power balances are one of the lessons of history, then another is that appeasement does not work. In the 1930s it failed and it is not going to work today. . . If we stick with the appeasement strategy - the one favoured by Keating and Evans - that is the strategy that leads to war. For every inch we give these countries, they take a mile. If we give them no more inches they will understand the constraints within which they have to work.’
Evans hit back, claiming that the Virginia class submarines would be overpriced and unlikely to be delivered. They would come at the cost of not acquiring other weapons. We would be reliant on the US which may or may not come to our aid. The consequence will be a loss of sovereignty.
There are a number of flaws in the Keating/Evans arguments. The first flaw is that we can defend Australia. In any real conflict, we have neither the equipment nor the fuel to sustain any ongoing conflict. Now, that it a loss of sovereignty! How do Messrs Evans and Keating propose we defend the nation? By simply bowing to the CCP? Evans further suggests that the submarine base at Stirling in WA, the intelligence facilities at Pine Gap and the North West cape and the B-52 base at Tindal are likely to become nuclear targets.
China does not have to invade Australia to get its way. If it can cut off or disrupt essential trade routes - such as the South China Sea - it can turn us into a vassal state. The contest for control of the trade routes is already occurring, with China continuing to build military facilities on various shoals and attacking Philippine vessels in breach of international laws. Again, how do Messrs Evans and Keating propose to avoid this without Australia being part of group a of nations that push back against the CCP? Modern submarines are a vital part of that task. In particular, it will be too late if we delay resistance to the Chinese regime until its forces are on our doorstep. As President Biden said in a moment of clarity, China is testing its opponents now. The only thing totalitarian aggressors understand is force.
Finally, it was notable that Treasurer, Jim Chalmers called out the Chinese on their missile tests when in Beijing. This stands in sharp contrast to Prime Minister Albanese’s reluctance to mention PLA transgressions against our ships and planes. So much so that the Chinese regime contemptuously released footage of one of its military jets flying dangerously close to a RAAF plane. Mr Chalmers is in Beijing to promote Australia’s economic interests, but that didn’t stop him from criticising China’s unjustified aggression. Perhaps he is auditioning for the leadership, but he has shown a preparedness to confront an aggressor which is carrying on a propaganda, cyber and kinetic war against other nations including Australia, currently.
First published in the Spectator Australia.
