^^ I believe there many in your administration and ours who think it is a given because of the ANZUS Treaty. Your depody Defence Secretary was a bit upset. Heck - since when has Australia missed a good shoot out by the USA ?
However since China is perhaps the largest market for our exports it would be economic suicide for us to join the USA in any conflict against China unless China preemptively invaded Taiwan - it is not in our national interest to upset the Chinese. I can't see the USA being too quick either as China is a huge market for them too. It is likely that Taiwan could be sacrificed to the gods of the holy $.
- Quote:
-
Q: Mr. Roth. I would like to ask you about Taiwan. Back in 1972 when Nixon and Kissinger formulated the Shanghai Communique, the geopolitical picture was quite clear, the enormous Red China and a tiny little outpost of democracy. Many people would see the situation to be quite similar now, except that instead of being the last gasp of Chinese democracy, Taiwan can in fact, might be seen as the first step for the Chinese democracy. Doesn't that make the Taiwan situation much more complicated than it was a generation ago, and what would the U.S. expect from Australia as an ally if it came to conflict with China over the Taiwan issue?
ROTH: I rarely resort to the standard bureaucratic line of refusing to speculate about hypothetical situations. But I really don't think that it's particularly useful to talk about that latter scenario. The more important point is to emphasize the success of the fundamental policy which both Australia, the United States, and I should say every major country on the planet, has done with respect to a one-China policy. What is absent from the question, I think, is a recognition that everybody has benefited from normalization of relations including particularly the people of Taiwan, that you've had three sets of winning bilateral relationships.
In 1979 when normalization occurred, there was still firing of artillery shells between Taiwan and China. You've had an unbroken strand of peace that took place really until the Lee Teng-hui visit in 1995; essentially, the one-China policy has worked and is still working in preserving the peace. It has certainly facilitated a major improvement in U.S.-Taiwan relations even if that's now an unofficial relationship. I can recall when I began my career when Taiwan was one of the human rights violators on my list, and we had Congressional resolutions and hearings, allegations of murders of opposition figures in the United States, martial law on the island, and Taiwan was a pretty dismal place. As opposed to the flourishing of democracy that has taken place in the peaceful environment that resulted from normalization and the prosperity of the economy that has taken place. The transformation of Taiwan over this twenty years is nothing short of extraordinary. So Taiwan has benefited, and obviously U.S.-China relations has benefited, and that is good, not just for the United States and China, but for the peace and stability of the entire Asia-Pacific region. So, I don't think a one-China policy should be viewed from a negative prism. I think it needs to be viewed from a positive prism of what it has accomplished. I think Australia and the U.S. are right to seek to maintain that one-China policy.
Q: When people talk about the outcome of the election and they talk about the fear of violence breaking out, one of the scenarios that is starting to emerge is, the kind of violence that's not directed at people, rather it is directed at the infrastructure as it exists on East Timor, that those that oppose independence or those with interests from Indonesia in East Timor and ongoing interest in it being part of Indonesia would attack the infrastructure of that country, would destroy bridges, would destroy roads, would destroy the ability to produce electricity, what have you. What sort of contingencies are in place to prevent that happening. What sort of economic contingencies are available to take into account that happening and to redress that if it does happen, or is it in fact something that has been discarded, that is not likely to happen at all?
from Transcript: Assistant Secretary Roth at Australia National Press Club (26-8-1999) - yes I know Roth is no longer there.
for recently: Downer flags China shift (18/8/2004)- Quote:
-
"The ANZUS treaty is invoked in the event of one of our two countries, Australia or the United States, being attacked, so some other military activity elsewhere in the world, be it in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter, doesn't automatically invoke the ANZUS treaty," he said.
"It's important to remember that. We've only ever invoked the ANZUS treaty once . . . after the events of 9/11 because there was an attack on the territory of the United States."
Ron Huisken, former director of alliance policy with the Defence Department, said Mr Downer's description of ANZUS was technically correct, but ran counter to Washington's view, which would see a failure to fight alongside the US as "a major alliance issue". The treaty states both nations would jointly discuss action against their forces in the Pacific, he said.
Dr Huisken, now a senior fellow with the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, said Mr Downer was making a "significant gesture" to Beijing. Mr Downer appeared to be "recalibrating" Australia's relationship with China, including towards a potentially significant new security dimension.
and
- Quote:
-
In 2001, Mr Armitage suggested the US believed the alliance meant Australia would contribute to military action over Taiwan. He said it would be hard to imagine US military action in the region without Australian participation.
In 1999, Mr Armitage said that if the US was taking casualties "we would not want our allies to stand by".
So that is possibly the view of the USA's administration overall.
|