Go to war over Taiwan? Australian parties spar over US-China tensions
Power Play is a weekly column that looks at various facets of US-China rivalry and its implications for Asia.
Typically, foreign policy marks a rare and refreshing area of agreement between Australia's two main political blocs: the Liberal-National Coalition and Labor.
Despite the occasionally raucous sparring that occurs in domestic debates over issues such as education and taxation, both sides of politics tend to walk in lockstep when dealing with major items of Australian foreign affairs.
In September, for instance, Prime Minister Scott Morrison was careful to give a private briefing to the Opposition leader Anthony Albanese before announcing the creation of the Aukus alliance, which involved a landmark decision to procure nuclear-powered submarines from the United States and the United Kingdom.
Mr Albanese did not divulge the news of the deal, which was described last week by Lowy Institute analyst Sam Roggeveen as "one of the best-kept secrets in Australian political history". And, when the time came to discuss it in public, Mr Albanese threw his support behind the agreement, saying that Labor "looks forward to strengthened cooperation with our close allies".
But these are not typical times.
Australia's bipartisan approach to foreign policy is being tested and strained as it faces one of its greatest post-World War II challenges: the growing rivalry between its closest ally, the US, and its closest trading partner, China.
As Washington and Beijing increasingly spar and compete for influence, Australia risks being forced to choose between its security and its economic interests.
China has already made the costs of such a choice clear, imposing trade sanctions on goods such as Australian wine, wheat and barley in an apparent bid to punish Canberra for actions such as calling for an inquiry into the origins of the novel coronavirus.
Australian political leaders are mindful of the need to try to present a united front as they navigate this rivalry. This was why, for instance, Mr Morrison briefed Mr Albanese on the Aukus alliance.
But the high stakes are also forcing Australian politicians to put aside amicable bipartisanship in cases where they believe their opponents are unnecessarily damaging ties with Washington, or Beijing, or both.
Not seeing eye to eye
The signs of this strain emerged recently as a deep split over US-China ties occurred during debate about how to approach tensions between the two superpowers over Taiwan.
Australia's hard-line Defence Minister Peter Dutton who is viewed as a future contender to replace Mr Morrison as coalition leader, has taken an increasingly strident pro-US approach, saying that Australia would definitely commit troops to support the US in a war over Taiwan.
"It would be inconceivable that we wouldn't support the US in an action if the US chose to take that action," he told The Australian newspaper on Nov 13.
"I think we should be very frank and honest about that... Maybe there are circumstances where we wouldn't take up that option, I can't conceive of those circumstances."
In an unusual break with the presiding political harmony surrounding Australia's approach to US-China ties, Labor publicly lashed out at Mr Dutton.
In a speech to the National Security College at the Australian National University on Nov 22, Labor's foreign policy spokesman Penny Wong accused the coalition of stoking the threat of war for political purposes. She said Mr Dutton's comments were "wildly out of step" with the bipartisan approach long adopted in both Australia and the US, which involves a position of "strategic ambiguity" and a refusal to declare a definitive position on whether to commit to a war in Taiwan.
"Mr Dutton does Australians and the Taiwanese no favours by amplifying Beijing's fatalism," she said.
"It's true that China has changed, and our relationship has become harder to manage. But desperately playing politics on China whenever he's in trouble does nothing to strengthen Mr Morrison's authority with Australians or Beijing."
Ms Wong went further, accusing the coalition of deliberately trying to score political points on issues of national security ahead of a looming federal election, which is due to be held by next May. She said Mr Morrison and Mr Dutton were playing "political games on something so grave as whether they commit Australia to war against a superpower".
She added: "Amping up the prospect of war against a superpower is the most dangerous election tactic in Australian history."
Mr Dutton then hit back. He said Ms Wong's speech was "very irresponsible" and "embarrassing", and indicated that Labor was not fully committed to the US alliance or to the Aukus deal.
"I think the Labor Party has demonstrated… when they get into government, they go weak at the knees," he said.
"Penny Wong has demonstrated today, already, that the Labor Party has gone weak at the knees, and we're not even through the election."
In response, Ms Wong said Labor was committed to both the US alliance and Aukus. "And we are sticking to the long-held bipartisan position on Taiwan, even if Mr Dutton is walking away from it," she added.
This clash was described by The Sydney Morning Herald as "the angriest dispute between the two major parties over foreign policy in years".
Mr Dutton also later claimed that if China were allowed to take Taiwan, it would move on to the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands claimed by both Japan and China, and beyond. He accused Labor of "appeasement", noting that Australian cities were in range of Chinese missiles.
Not surprisingly, Mr Dutton's comments drew a stern rebuke from Beijing. The Chinese Embassy in Canberra accused him of "fanning conflict and division between peoples and nations".
But Labor, too, attacked Mr Dutton. Mr Brendan O'Connor, Labor's defence spokesman, described Mr Dutton's view of China's territorial plans as unhelpful and unwise.
"I don't think he should be suggesting that somehow China has claims on the entire region," Mr O'Connor told Sky News.
Bipartisan approach
This dispute is taking place as the coalition and Labor seek to establish their battle lines ahead of the election. Mr Morrison, who became Prime Minister in 2018, currently rules with a razor-thin one-seat majority in the House of Representatives.
He is seeking to become the first Australian prime minister in almost 20 years to win successive elections.
But his popularity has plunged following concerns about his handling of Covid-19 and also his overall trustworthiness. The most recent Newspoll survey on Dec 5 showed Labor leading the coalition by 53 per cent to 47 per cent, with 44 per cent of people approving of Mr Morrison's performance, 52 per cent disapproving and the remainder uncommitted.
Foreign policy rarely plays a significant role in elections, particularly because both sides tend to adopt a bipartisan approach to major issues. A notable exception occurred in 2004, when then Prime Minister John Howard accused Labor leader Mark Latham of being a threat to the US alliance.
Mr Latham had previously denounced then US President George W. Bush as incompetent and dangerous over the war in Iraq. To try to deflect Mr Howard's attack, Mr Latham appeared at a press conference in front of a US flag and insisted that he wanted to "leave some of those points of difference well and truly in the past".
Nonetheless, Mr Howard scored a resounding victory in the election. Ever since - and although Mr Howard's win was due to a vast range of factors - Labor has been extremely cautious about being painted as soft on national security, a vulnerability that Mr Dutton appeared keen to try to exploit.
For now, Labor seems to have dulled Mr Dutton's attacks.
The foreign policies of the major parties remain largely defined by their agreement on issues such as strengthening the US alliance and supporting bilateral and multinational free trade deals.
There are differences to be sure.
Labor tends to be more committed to supporting the role of the United Nations and other multilateral bodies, to allowing greater independence in ties with the US, and to increasing foreign aid spending.
The coalition tends to be more sceptical of multilateralism, more averse to openly disagreeing with the US, and more supportive of increasing defence spending.
But these are often differences of degree, or of tone and rhetoric - they are rarely significant enough to seize the attention of the public or shape political debate during an election campaign.
Public opinion matters
The foreign policy consensus in Australia on significant issues such as ties with the US and China largely overlaps public opinion.
Australians, like their political leaders, have become increasingly wary of Beijing. The 2021 Lowy Institute poll showed that 63 per cent of those surveyed viewed China as more of a security threat than an economic partner, compared with 34 per cent who viewed it as more of an economic partner, with the remainder viewing both equally or uncommitted.
This was the first time since the question was asked in 2015 that more Australians viewed China as a security threat; as late as 2018, 82 per cent of Australians viewed China as an economic partner. Support for the US alliance has been consistently strong, with 78 per cent of those polled this year saying it was important for Australia's security.
Likewise, an Essential opinion survey in September found that there was little opposition towards the Aukus partnership, with 45 per cent saying it would make Australia more secure, 19 per cent saying it would make Australia less secure, and 36 per cent saying it would not affect Australia's security.
Of course, this public consensus does not merely reflect the views of Australia's major parties, but it is also reinforced by it. The lack of strong political debate on foreign policy reduces the airtime for alternative views and makes it less likely that the public will question the consensus.
Curiously, there is one obvious and striking exception to this overlap between public and political attitudes. Australians seem to be more wary of going to war than their leaders. In the lead-up to the Iraq war in 2003, polls showed Australians opposed going to war despite then PM Howard indicating he supported it. But, once Mr Howard committed troops, the polls changed and Australians were largely split on the country's involvement.
This year, the Lowy Institute poll asked for the first time about attitudes in the event of a war between the US and China. It found 57 per cent said Australia should remain neutral, with 41 per cent saying Australia should support the US, and 2 per cent supporting China or uncommitted. This may seem to fly in the face of Mr Dutton's blatant pre-commitment of support for the US in a potential conflict over Taiwan.
But he is no doubt mindful of the lessons of the 2003 Iraq war, and of the Australian election result in the following year.