Login
iscover
Despite increased posturing in recent years from their cousins on the mainland, Taiwan is paid relatively little lip-service in Australian policy circles. In the months that have followed an election that saw the island’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) sweep to power, analysts can’t stop talking about it.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
The rise of China in recent years – with particular respect to the country's assertive position over the South China Sea – has formed a central tenet of international relations in recent years. Coupled with an appreciation of the unbridled hegemony the US has exerted over the so-called 'Indo-Pacific' since the fall of the Berlin Wall, there can be no more pressing question for diplomats, journalists and IR professors alike than the balance of power between the two superpowers.
Fans of ancient history may have encountered 'Thucydides' Trap'. The geopolitical phenomenon describes a situation in which a rising power (in the eponymous example, Athens) looks to displace an established one (Sparta). Though not the first to draw the comparison, political scientist Graham Allison – who actually coined the term – described the rise of China in this context, pointing out that the historical record shows these situations are, statistically speaking, overwhelmingly likely to lead to war.
This has long been cause for concern in Canberra, and largely explains why our politicians are so keen to keep an eye on flashpoints such as Hong Kong and the South China Sea. If conventional warfare were to erupt between our largest ally and our largest trading partner, we would (needless to say) find ourselves between a rock and a hard place.
Conflict in the region would have significant consequences around the east Asian region, including other crucial trade partners such as Japan and South Korea.
It is considered settled that, given our trade dependence on the region, Australian standards of living would take a considerable nosedive regardless of whether we even became involved in such a war.
January's elections
The DPP has typically been associated with an economically neoliberal, socially progressive agenda. One that is heavily critical of human rights abuses on the mainland, and defines Taiwanese nationality in stark contrast to that of the PRC. As of January, the party controls both the presidency (Tsai Ing-wen) and 62 of 113 seats in the unicameral Yuan.
The landslide election has been attributed largely to the party's anti-Beijing stance, coupled with ongoing unrest in Hong Kong. In February, a Taiwanese university also determined that 58.5 per cent of the voting public identify themselves as exclusively "Taiwanese" (against 34.7 per cent for "Chinese", the rest split between "neither" or "both").
While many would be quick to chalk this up to a win for Western influence in the region, many commentators are less optimistic, suggesting the flashpoint could heat up over the coming months or years. Just days before the Taiwanese election, the Lowy Institute's Brendan Taylor wrote:
"In the likely event that President Tsai is re-elected in January, Beijing faces three choices: it could maintain the current icy relationship with almost no official contact across the straits, it could quietly normalise relations, which Tsai has said she is open to, or it could continue, and intensify, its aggressive behaviour towards Taiwan. The most likely scenario is the third one, of ongoing pressure from Beijing on multiple fronts."
Differing approaches
Taylor makes the case that Australian policymakers have an ongoing role to play in ensuring Sino-Taiwanese tensions are not permitted to boil over, and that there are steps not currently being taken in order to secure this goal.
He advocates for general "crisis management and avoidance mechanisms"; citing, for example, the hotline that existed between Washington and the Kremlin during the throes of the Cold War. Systems such as this act as a sort of pressure valve in high-intensity situations, allowing for direct communication and de-escalation.
Though such moves may appear uncontentious at first, it's worth noting that taking any sort of stance on what Beijing considers to be internal matters may draw ire from the CCP.
Co-operation with regional governments has also been cited heavily as a suitable approach towards an increasingly autonomous Taiwan. Taylor's suggestion taken into consideration, it makes sense to approach the Japanese and Singaporean governments for diplomatic support in pushing this agenda, as well as other strategic partners in east and south-east Asia.
And as others have noted, whether or not the US would come to Taiwan's aid does not mean Australia will necessarily be dragged along kicking and screaming into a war with China under the terms of the (non-binding) ANZUS treaty.
In 2005, the then-foreign minister Alexander Downer made an off-the-cuff remark to a journalist to this effect. Though the gaffe was quickly qualified by then-prime minister John Howard, and received rebuke from Washington, the effect was lasting. Many analysts have argued that what is needed is a reframing of this treaty, moving past a vague requirement to consult to a more robust mutual defence pact.
Your thoughts
Very little is clear on the future of Taiwan, or indeed that of the broader South China Sea region. With January's landslide, however, we can expect to hear a lot more about the island democracy over the coming months.
As Cam Hawker, president of the Australian Institute for International Affairs, noted in 2015, the interplay between ANZUS and Taiwan poses a sort of geopolitical paradox to the Australian public.
Noting that the majority of the voting public (at that time) expected Canberra to refrain from military action if push came to shove over Taiwan, he then points to the necessity of the US-Australian alliance in terms of intelligence sharing, nuclear deterrence and myriad other reasons.
In response to Downer's 2005 comments, US officials did not mince their words. Ambassador Tom Schiffer revealed that Australian forces would fight alongside their allies if it ever came to war. Deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage's compared the alliance to a menu; stating that it was not an a la carte one from which Australia could pick and choose.
Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia's future role and position in the Taiwan flashpoint. We would also like to hear your thoughts on the strategic approaches Australia should pursue in the comments section below, or get in touch with
