[Abbott goes to Taiwan: an unofficial message of Australian solidarity?] It was a week of sound and fury signifying Beijing was seriously unimpressed with Tony Abbott’s trip to Taiwan where he delivered two high-profile addresses to a regional forum. China’s foreign ministry revealed it had lodged a formal protest with Australia over the “extremely absurd” and “selfish” remarks by Australia’s former prime minister, who had warned Beijing might “disastrously lash out” amid aerial shows of force against the democratically ruled island. The Chinese embassy in Canberra attacked Abbott personally as a “failed and pitiful politician”. The barrage prompted Taiwan’s foreign minister, Joseph Wu, to say Abbott “must be doing something right” because his speech in Taipei had upset China’s so-called “wolf warriors”. But stepping past the heated rhetoric, did the self-described “citizen Abbott” have a point about the increasing risk of conflict as Beijing ratchets up pressure against Taiwan? And does his visit signal a greater willingness by the Australian government to express its solidarity with Taiwan? ‘Beijing continues to close the gap, but this will take time’ Abbott’s warnings about the risk of war and the inability for the US and Australia to stand idly by were issued on Friday 8 October shortly after China flew 150 warplanes into Taiwan’s air defence identification zone in the space of four days. Brendan Taylor, a professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, says: “While I very much agree with Abbott regarding the deteriorating strategic environment and the growing risk of conflict in Asia, I think the timeframe that he identifies is incorrect.” Taylor disagrees with Abbott’s suggestions that conflict is imminent and that China could lash out very soon. “My view is this is only likely to happen if China is completely backed into a corner by, for example, a Taiwanese declaration of formal independence following a referendum,” Taylor says. “That’s highly unlikely under the Tsai Ing-wen government, who under difficult circumstances, given pro-independence forces within her own party, has been quite careful and pragmatic as far as cross-strait relations are concerned. She will remain in power until the end of her second, and final, four-year term in 2024, and I don’t anticipate Taiwan doing anything prior to that point that will really force Beijing’s hand.” “Reunification” with Taiwan is a core part of the Chinese Communist party’s ideology although the CCP has never ruled the island and China’s president, Xi Jinping, has not ruled out taking it by force if necessary. China has told countries like Australia not to meddle in China’s “internal affairs”, while Taiwan has encouraged Canberra and like-minded partners to participate in greater security and intelligence-related exchanges. Taylor argues the threat of conflict will start to loom much larger eight to 10 years from now when the US-China military balance begins to tilt more decisively in China’s favour. “Beijing continues to close the gap, but this will take time. I do not see Xi Jinping moving capriciously in the meantime to attempt what would be a difficult and challenging invasion and before he can be confident of its success.” Unofficial trip? Against this high-stakes backdrop, Abbott’s trip a week ago has triggered intense speculation about whether the former PM may have been carrying an unofficial message on behalf of the Australian government. Experts, however, say his language differed from Canberra’s line in a number of ways. “The tone of Tony Abbott’s speeches in Taiwan were a far cry from the careful diplomacy of the Tsai government in Taiwan, or even Australian official rhetoric about China,” says Natasha Kassam, the director of the Lowy Institute’s public opinion and foreign policy programme and a former Australian diplomat. “It is impossible to imagine an Australian leader describing Xi Jinping’s China as the ‘cult of the red emperor’, for example. But Abbott did frame his outreach in Taiwan as based on values and protecting democracy, which is aligned with recent language from the Australian government.” Kassam observes that Abbott’s visit comes at a time when Australian leaders are signalling their interest in boosting relations with Taiwan. After the latest Ausmin talks in Washington, Australian ministers described Taiwan as “a critical partner” and a “leading democracy”. Under Australia’s one-China policy, it does not recognise Taiwan as a country in the international system but pursues cooperation with the island in areas such as trade, culture and education. Abbott’s office says his travel to Taiwan was “privately funded” and that he did not seek or receive approval from the Australian government about the contents of the speeches. Nonetheless, he was accompanied by Jenny Bloomfield, the Australian representative in Taipei, for a meeting with Tsai. Abbott who says much has changed in terms of China’s behaviour since he signed a free trade agreement with China in 2014 is not the first former Australian PM to address the Yushan Forum. Malcolm Turnbull did so last year, but via videolink from Australia, meaning it wasn’t accompanied by meetings with dignitaries in Taipei. Nonetheless, Turnbull updated the foreign influence transparency scheme register to disclose his speaking spot. Asked whether the trip was funded by the thinktank that organises the Yushan Forum, and whether Abbott would update his entry on the register, a spokesperson for Abbott says: “Abbott is aware of his obligations under the FITS and will make any appropriate updates in due time.” Shift in sentiment Coalition MPs speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of the topic think it is hard to imagine Abbott went to Taiwan without at least some tactic approval from the government. The only caveat is if Abbott had sensed that the government would prefer not to know well in advance, for reasons of plausible deniability. But it’s notable that no senior members of the government have distanced themselves from any aspects of Abbott’s speeches, beyond saying he was there in a private capacity. The foreign minister, Marise Payne, reiterated that Australia had been “concerned by tensions across the Taiwan Strait sharpening in recent months” and added that conflict was “in no one’s interests”. There’s also a growing sense that China’s more assertive conduct on the world stage and its trade actions against Australia and its freeze on talks with ministers has solidified bipartisan consensus in Canberra. While there may be differences in how this is expressed, the Coalition and Labour broadly agree on Australia holding firm in asserting its values rather than over-emphasising trade with China similar to the shift in sentiment that has been well documented in Washington. Labour’s foreign affairs spokesperson, Penny Wong, who is no friend of Abbott, said this week that she wanted to “register my disappointment with some of the comments by Chinese representatives about Abbott’s speech”, adding that China had displayed “some really worrying behaviour” in recent times. Wong said Australia should echo Tsai’s calls for upholding the cross-strait status quo. ‘Trustworthy trade’ Away from the back-and-forth about the risk of military conflict, Taiwan’s representative in Australia was setting out the island’s case for closer economic ties. Elliott Charng, representative of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Australia, spoke to a parliamentary inquiry as he set out Taiwan’s case for joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). He dismissed the response from China which has submitted a rival bid and has vocally opposed Taiwan’s accession as simply being in line with expectations. Charng told MPs and senators on Tuesday that Taiwan should be “your first choice to support”. If Australia backed Taiwan’s entry into the regional trade grouping, he said, it would send a strong message to business “that your government is determined to help them explore new markets such as with Taiwan”. He said Taiwan was a “trustworthy partner for Australia” as a democracy and with a commitment to transparency and predictability on trade and investment sketching out a none-too-subtle contrast with the recent bumpy trade relationship between Australia and China, its largest trading partner. Charng also signalled that Taiwan was also interested in exploring a bilateral trade deal with Australia, in addition to the CPTPP bid. He noted the UK had applied to join the trade pact at the same time as it conducted a bilateral free trade agreement negotiation with Australia. “So, for us, we do have the same mindset.” Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is cautious when asked about the idea of a trade agreement between Taiwan and Australia, and of vocally backing Taiwan’s CPTPP bid, as Abbott did in Taipei. A spokesperson suggests it isn’t a priority but doesn’t rule it out: “Australia is focused on negotiating FTAs with the UK and EU as well as scoping studies for FTAs with Israel and the European Free Trade Association.” “As with any accession application, Australia will work with the CPTPP membership to consider Taiwan’s application on a consensus basis, in accordance with the CPTPP Accession Guidelines,” they say. Kassam says it would benefit Taiwan and the broader region now if Australia was more willing to step up in other arenas, “including by advocating Taiwan’s CPTPP application, high level exchanges between Taiwan and Australia, and looking for more opportunities for Taiwan’s inclusion in multilateral forums”. Risk of being drawn into ‘destructive’ conflict Taylor says Canberra has already shown much greater willingness over the past two years to send a stronger message of support to Taiwan than it had been previously but he is “not sure there is much Australia can genuinely do to deter Chinese coercion toward Taiwan given our lack of strategic weight relative to the bigger parties to this flashpoint”. In the event of conflict, Taylor says, Australia would almost certainly become involved if the US joined and requested support from its security ally “but our contribution would likely be niche and largely symbolic”. “It would include use of our submarines to assist with blockading the South China Sea choke points through which China’s energy imports flow, along with our maritime patrol and surveillance, electronic warfare and, possibly, fighter aircraft,” Taylor says. “But our contribution would not be decisive. Indeed, a Taiwan conflict would very likely be one in which there were no winners given its unimaginable destructiveness.” Taylor says the deterrent potential of the new Aukus partnership with the UK and the US at least as much as it relates to Taiwan has been “wildly overstated”. “By the time our first nuclear-powered submarines hit the water most likely in the 2040s Taiwan’s fate will likely have been sealed.” He argues Australia could make a far more meaningful contribution on the diplomatic front, by working to reduce “the risk of events spiralling out of control”. That could include encouraging new and better use of crisis management and avoidance mechanisms, such as hotlines. There is precedent for this. “We’ve played such a role before, including during the Taiwan Strait crisis of 1954-55 when the Menzies government worked with London, Ottawa and Wellington to attempt to reduce tensions and the risks of war.” https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/16/mr-abbott-goes-to-taiwan-an-unofficial-message-of-australian-solidarity
