Former Australian Minister of Defense Paul Bull; Paul Dibb recently wrote on the Australian Strategic Family website that when the military in China recovers Taiwan, if the United States does not declare war on China, its strategic position in Asia will be fatally weakened; andIf Australia does not send troops against China, the Australian Military Alliance will also be killed.Dib's conclusion is that once Mainland China first move against Taiwan, the United States responds to China's declaration of war, and Australia should follow closely.
Picture from Taiwan Media
According to my opinion, Dib's premise is correct, but the conclusion is wrong.Indeed, if you do not send troops to Taiwan, the status of the United States in Asia will be seriously frustrated and may even be completely overturned; if Australia does not support the United States, the Australian and American alliances will be seriously frustrated and even completely collapsed.But even so, it is impossible to derive the conclusions of the United States and Australia to deal with China's declaration of war and departure to defense against Taiwan.
Whether or not to send troops depends on whether it can win in the war.Like any war, this war is full of unknown factors, but at least one thing is certain, that is, the United States is unlikely to defeat China quickly, low cost, and decisively.Although the U.S. military has strong strength, China's military strength is also rapidly improving, and its anti -intervention ability against the US Air Force and the Navy is particularly powerful.
The geographical location of Taiwan Island and the determination of maintaining unity are all China's significant advantages.Compared with the United States, mainland China is closer to Taiwan and pays more attention to Taiwan.If anyone expects the United States to use nuclear forces to reverse the situation, China must take into account China's nuclear retaliation capabilities.If the US leader decides to declare war on China, it is necessary to estimate the risk of American cities to become a nuclear strike target.
Washington and Canberra must make pessimistic plans when considering the war options.Dibr believes that the United States and Australia must choose one of the two in the Asian order or retreat in the United States or the collapse of the order, but the actual situation is not so simple.In any case, a war between China and the United States, a long -lasting, high cost, and unknown victory and defeat will inevitably destroy regional order, because after the war, it is difficult to keep its leadership in Asia.
The most likely ending of this war was the United States withdrawing from Asia.The United States has experienced the same protracted and unknown war in the Middle East. Although the price is far lower than the Sino -US war, it still withdraws from the Middle East.If the United States withdraws from Asia, the United States -Australian Union relations will also come to an end.From this point of view, the choice in front of the United States is: either fight against China and lose its position in Asia, or not to fight against China, and abandon its position in Asia.Considering the cost and risk of fighting with nuclear powers, it is not difficult to see what the United States should choose. I think this is likely to be the final decision of the United States.
Dibu gave an anti -example in the article, that is, the United States during the Cold War was willing to bear the risk of fighting a nuclear war with the Soviet Union in order to solve West Germany.If China is ambitious today and the threat to the United States is comparable to the Soviet Union of the year, then this view is quite convincing.The reason why U.S. leaders and voters are willing to bear the risk of the Soviet Union's willingness to undertake the nuclear war is because they are afraid that the expansion of Soviet forces will pose a threat to the survival of the United States.I don't think that today's Chinese threats to the United States have a similar threat, so I think the United States should not declare war on China for Taiwan.
Facing the ambitious China, how the United States' future status in Asia depends entirely on whether Americans think that the threat of China is currently comparable to the Soviet Union.This key issue should be examined more closely.But in terms of the current situation, Americans don't seem to think so much.
In recent months, although the US Vice President Pence and other senior officials made a tough statement, no US political leader tried to convince the public to fight the nuclear war with China willingly.In fact, the US Department of Defense's nuclear situation assessment report in 2018 did not even mention the vulnerability of the United States in front of China's nuclear power.Unless Americans express their own positions, Australia is not willing to wish the United States willing to bear the risk of fighting a nuclear war with China.
If I have speculated that the United States really chose war, it is obviously a better choice for Australia.The Iraq war gave us a lesson: it is irrational to blindly support an allies in the war.Besides, once China and the United States start war, the interest relationship involved is by no means comparable to the Iraq war.
Finally, you need to point out a small problem.According to the Australian and US Security Treaty, whether Australia's defense responsibilities cover the Taiwan region are actually relatively vague, not as clear as Dibu said.There is no doubt that Washington believes that Australia is obliged to support the United States to send troops to Taiwan, and it is expected that Australia will support the United States in conflict.For today's decision makers, the responsibility stipulated in the defense treaty is very important.Because of this, I agree with some of the views of Dib's MDASH; MDASH; that is, if Australia fails to support the United States, the Australian and American alliance relations will be fatal.
However, the treaty text does not clearly specify Australia's defense responsibility for Taiwan. At least Australia's legal authority Joseph Middot; Stark is interpreted in the Book of Australia and New American Safety Treaty Alliance.Stark said that from the context of the treaty, it can be clearly seen that the Pacific region in Article 4 does not include Taiwan, which is the opinion of respecting Australia when signing the contract.
(Observer network Li Huiyan is translated from Australia's strategic home website)
