Australia, hammered, continues to run in the direction of confusion.
The Australian media actually discussed, “Should not and the U. S. military together to defend Taiwan, against the PLA”! Doesn’t it realize what a crazy idea it is?
Australian Prime Minister Morrison was also asked about the issue yesterday, presumably because of tension, when he said he supported China’s “one country, two systems” and said he was considering supporting Taiwan with the United States. He means everyone can understand.
Obviously, yesterday China’s hammer has not woken up this inexplicable country, it did so, the next hammer will certainly wait for it on the road.
That starts with the Australian Financial Review’s front-page headlines and editorials on June 6.
The newspaper devoted a large section of its front page to an exclusive interview with Taiwan’s “foreign minister”, Wu Wei, accompanied by an editorial that read” “Australia must beware of the War in the Taiwan Strait”.
The interview’s headline, “China’s threat is approaching, Taiwan needs allies,” is the main meaning That’s what Wu wants to say.
He was naked: “Democracies should ally themselves and defend Taiwan’s interests” because Taiwan shares common values.
He seems to have the illusion that Australia Chinese mainland for Taiwan.
To illustrate the urgency of this support, Mr Wu has resorted to a plausible statement that the mainland is “increasing its military threat to Taiwan” and appears to be preparing a “final attack” on Taiwan.
By contrast, his two views have received little attention.
One is that he does not think that “China will take immediate military action against Taiwan”. Second, he called on Australia and Taiwan to strengthen economic ties and restart negotiations on a free trade agreement.
That’s very understandable.
Australian public opinion has recently been busy exaggerating the claim that “if the Taiwan War breaks out, Australia will support the United States involved”, and Wu’s interview plays the role of feeding them.
It is clear to all that Wu is trying to play up the so-called “military threat” of the mainland to Taiwan in order to gain the support of anti-China forces. A spokesman for China’s State Taiwan Affairs Office today responded sternly to this, saying that Wu’s flow was “an attempt to deceive the islanders and mislead the international community by turning upside down and weaving lies”.
But there is no need for some Australian media to be misled.
“Although Australia pursues the one-China policy, the Australian government has stated that Australia will provide support if the United States resists China and defends Taiwan, and if the Taiwan War breaks out, Australia may fulfill its obligations under the 1951 Anglo-Australian Security Treaty to support the United States,” the Australian Financial Review said in an editorial. ”
In fact, the first half of this passage is very questionable.
For now, the U.S. has maintained a strategically ambiguous stance toward Taiwan, and Australia, which has an alliance with the U.S., has adopted a similar approach.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s latest response also leaves some room for ambiguity.
In an interview on the 6th, the host quoted the Australian Financial Review interview with Wu Wei’s article, twice asked “Australia will support Taiwan”, Morrison did not give a positive answer. “We always abide by all the agreements in the Indo-Pacific region, especially our alliance with the United States,” he said. He added, “We have always defended freedom in the region.” ”
More attention, however, is Morrison’s statement on The Taiwan issue:
“We have always understood the principle of ‘one system, two countries’ and we will follow our policy there (in Taiwan). …… I should say ‘one country, two systems’. ”
Some media said that Morrison wanted to express what appeared to be a China policy, but “accidentally supported Beijing’s position”, is a “wrong show.”
Australian opposition figures have also criticised Mr Morrison, saying: “A few days ago his government was still ‘beating the drum’ for the Taiwan conflict, and now he has abandoned Taiwan.”
Indeed, the Australian side has recently been playing the “war drum” about the war in the Taiwan Strait.
Yesterday’s article already referred to statements made by Australian Defence Minister Michael Dutton and Australian Home Office Secretary Patsy Pessou.
Pesu, in particular, has publicly stressed that the “war drum” has been sounded and that “Australia and its liberal allies must be prepared to fight for freedom”.
Not only that.
Mr Pyne, Australia’s former defence minister, has also said that war is now “more likely” in Asia and that Taiwan is “most likely to be the next flashpoint”.
The news from the United States also seems to confirm the near-sightedness of the “Taiwan War”. The United States and Australia are discussing how to deal with the War in the Taiwan Strait as China’s military power expands, a senior U.S. military official said.
As a result, the Australian media took pains to discuss the topic of “if the Taiwan War breaks out and the United States is already involved, australia should not support it”.
U.S. news CNN 5, “Why do Australian officials suggest war against China?” “One of the most prominent words in the whole article is “lub.”
It’s Chinese, absurd, ridiculous, ridiculous, or stupid.
Instead of analyzing the complex factors such as regional situation and economic and trade ties, the two co-journalists listed two points directly:
One is that military power is far apart. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Australia’s military spending will be about $27 billion by 2020, equivalent to only one-third of China’s.
In addition, “China is a nuclear power.” And Australia is not.”
Are senior Canberra officials serious about “suggesting war on China over the Taiwan Strait” so often?
Before answering this question, let’s look at Australia’s role and position on the Taiwan Strait issue.
Newsweek called the Taiwan Strait “the hottest danger zone in India.” In an article on the 6th, Newsweek reporters compared Australia’s Taiwan-related statements with the United States.
The logic is probably this progressive:
The U.S. “fuzzy strategy” toward Taiwan makes it Chinese mainland there is no clear or necessary defense obligation in the event of an armed attack. The Taiwan Relations Act allows Washington to sell defensive weapons to Taiwan, but does not provide for military assistance to Taiwan Province in the event of war in the Taiwan Strait.
It’s okay to make money or take advantage of the “Taiwan independence” forces, but the real knife and gun risk huge losses to help Taiwan out, and Washington has never made a commitment in the sense of “law”.
Australia, for its part, interferes in Taiwan affairs on the basis of a military alliance treaty with New Zealand and the United States in the 1950s. Under the tripartite security treaty and subsequent military covenants, Australia’s responsibility lay with “co-defence of the United States”.
But even Washington has not explicitly promised to send troops to defend Taiwan, and Australia, as a “related party”, is now so-called to go to war with China for Taiwan, it is even more “talking.”
Take a step back, australia could temporarily remove the ladder even if the U.S. does get involved.
In 2004, then-Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the Taiwan issue did not fall within the scope of the Australia-US alliance. That said, if there is a real conflict in the Taiwan Strait and the United States is involved, Australia’s participation also depends on how it interprets the Australia-US alliance.
It should also be noted that Australia participated in almost all of the wars waged by the United States after World War II, and that the Australia-US alliance has been considerably strengthened over the past few decades. Coupled with the now declining Sino-Australian relationship, Australia’s involvement in US military operations is still relatively high.
But now that Canberra’s drumbeat over Taiwan is still just “solidarity”, and it is clear that China-Australia relations will be made worse by this, why is the Morrison government insisting on doing so?
In a recent interview, former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd criticised Canberra’s call for war with China as “completely unnecessary fuelling.” At the same time, he also revealed the Real Purpose Of The Australian Government To Do So: To Shift The Domestic Focus.
The Morrison government has done too badly in many areas of the country. When it comes to access to vaccines, climate change and even dealing with political sex scandals, that’s not the case. So Canberra wants to “reset the domestic political agenda” and focus voters on what they see as “safer areas.”
A China scholar at the Australian National University supports Mr Rudd’s view.
The U.S. pull is certainly one reason, but Canberra’s frequent intervention in Taiwan’s issue has largely served domestic political needs.
“It is often very effective to establish an external enemy in uniting popular sentiment to support the government.” The Australian academic said. But she also made it clear that the Australian government was very irresponsible in doing so, after all, “war is such a serious matter.” ”
This afternoon, the editor-in-chief of the Global Times, Hu Xijin, tweeted:
“China should develop a plan for retaliatory punishment for Australian military intervention in the Taiwan Strait, including long-range strikes on Australian military installations and related critical facilities when Australia actually sends troops to fight the PLA off the coast of China,” he said.
He warned Australian hawks: “If they dare to co-ordinate the US military intervention in Taiwan and send troops to fight the PLA in the Taiwan Strait, they must know what kind of disaster they are inflicting on their country.” ”
Yes, Australia must remain sober to Chinese hawks and extremist forces!
