Tuesday, July 15, 2025

Op-Ed: Clumsy US diplomacy ‘demands’ to know what Australia and Japan would do in a war with China over Taiwan


By Paul Wallis
July 14, 2025
DIGITAL JOURNAL


This frame grab from video taken on March 31, 2025 and released by the Taiwan Defence Ministry on April 1, 2025 shows Chinese military vessels in waters off Taiwan - Copyright TAIWAN DEFENCE MINISTRY/AFP Handout

Nobody has ever called the Trump administration perceptive, talented, or capable of discretion, or of being coherent on any subject.

Global defense is now basking in the joys of this uniquely American anti-skill set. For some reason, major global defense-level issues have been made public. It’s hard to describe how bottomlessly amateurish and inept the current situation is.

In an astonishingly flat-footed move, the US now wants commitments to a hypothetical war with China. It now “demands” answers from Japan and Australia to a non-existent situation while yet again stoking the fires of US/China polarization.

The Japanese were painstakingly tactful. Australia simply said it was up to the government of the day to address any real military situations, not hypotheticals.

Cunningly overlooking the often extremely complex trade and other relations between the two nations and China, the American commentary created a war scenario out of nothing.

That did not go down well. One commentator noted that Trump has made no direct commitment to defend Taiwan. Nor, I would note, has he made any commitment to defend anywhere else.

The net effect of US defense gibberish so far has been:

To make relations with China all that much more difficult based on a vague, non-existent scenario.

To divert allied military spending to non-US markets.

To antagonize allies daily.

To fumble major defense contracts.

To insist on increased military spending without defining that spending in any way.

To effectively demand that allies blow out budgets with this unspecified defense spending.

Now let’s settle in for a cosy chat about military idiocy.

The Taiwan issue is quite hot enough without uninvited babbling yokels in Washington pushing all its buttons. Any conflict would crash the global economy and create absolute chaos in any military scenario.

The world, including the US, is signed up to the One China policy, letting Taiwan and China sort it out for themselves. A few phone calls would be more productive than a war to resolve the problems. There are no benefits for anyone to be derived from a war over Taiwan. It’d be a disaster and severely damage US interests in Asia.

Any military commitment from anyone would require massive logistics over any period of time. Pouring military assets into Taiwan would be just adding clutter, not useful combat or other resources. Where are the Taiwanese supposed to put vast quantities of military assets? What about their own defense plans?

The theory of posting lots of valuable military resources at point-blank range from China is naïve to the point of imbecility, and that’s being unnecessarily polite. As a strategy, this is Manifest Delirium.

In a conflict with China, America is facing a competent near-peer adversary with a lot of depth and reach. It wouldn’t be painless and would inevitably go global. Any such conflict wouldn’t be just purely conventional military, either, given the Chinese presence on the ground around the world.

Countries like Australia, Japan, and South Korea do have their own home-grown useful military assets, which can be highly effective in a wartime environment. It’s just possible that these countries don’t want to waste them in some mindless rhetorical exercise for no reason at all.

Not for the sake of some passing political smell in DC, trying to create a profile, or a half-baked, half-witted attempt to project an image of power.

If you want friends, don’t annoy them.

_________________________________________________

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.

No comments: