Australia will not stay out of a Taiwan Strait conflict? U.S. hawks push and provoke, while Australia’s former prime minister bluntly asserts: “If the U.S. goes to war with China over Taiwan, it will lose.” Should Australia become entangled, it would be left alone to bear China’s retaliation after America retreats.

On the Taiwan issue, pushing allies to the front line while retreating oneself reflects a strategy increasingly shaped by American strategic overreach and diminishing capacity. The real question now is who will serve as the pawn, and who will charge ahead for the U.S. The U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense for Policy under the Trump administration, Mr. Korb, was reportedly seen pressing Japan and Australia’s defense ministers directly on their roles should conflict erupt in the Taiwan Strait—yet neither country’s defense chief offered a response.

Later, when asked why the U.S. maintains strategic ambiguity while demanding clear commitments from Australia, Prime Minister Albanese replied, “Your question contains the answer,” implying Australia has no reason to unilaterally commit to military intervention without a corresponding U.S. guarantee. Australia’s Defence Industry Minister, Pat Conroy, explicitly stated that his government would not answer hypothetical questions. Whether to participate in any conflict would ultimately be decided by Australia’s future government based on national sovereignty, emphasizing “sovereignty first.”

Evidently, the U.S. remains dissatisfied with Australia’s stance—but it refuses to let go. Recently, U.S. House Republican hardliner Michael McCaul claimed Australia has been “targeted” by China, suggesting that closer integration with U.S. forces could actually provide better protection rather than greater vulnerability.

Does this sound familiar? McCaul’s message boils down to one thing: Australia is already in China’s sights—rather than fear it, align fully with the U.S. In plainer terms, it is a naked threat: “You’re already marked by an enemy—pay up and join us, or face even greater danger.”

Australia had long enjoyed stable trade relations with China, exporting iron ore, natural gas, and agricultural products with little disruption. How then did it suddenly become a “target”? Precisely because of its deepening alignment with U.S.-led military containment through AUKUS, active involvement in regional tensions, and interference in cross-strait affairs—transforming itself from a rear-position actor into a frontline participant. McCaul has inverted cause and effect: first push Australia into the battlefield, then warn it that staying outside the alliance means greater peril.

McCaul’s tactics are deeply cynical. He co-chairs the “Friends of Australia” congressional caucus and is a prominent member of the “Congressional Taiwan Caucus,” consistently advocating extreme positions on China-related matters. He has visited Taiwan multiple times, openly declaring that the U.S. might send troops to defend Taiwan if mainland China “invades.” He also led efforts to introduce the so-called “Taiwan Assurance Act,” urging the State Department to “remove self-imposed restrictions on contact with Taiwan.” As a result, he was sanctioned by China in 2023, with all assets in China frozen.

A political figure legally sanctioned by China attempting to incite public sentiment in Australia raises serious credibility concerns.

In response to McCaul’s provocations, Australia’s former prime minister Paul Keating delivered a sharp rebuttal, unflinching in tone. He stated outright that if the U.S. were to go to war with China over Taiwan, “it would lose”—and after defeat, “the U.S. would simply retreat back to San Diego,” leaving Australia to face Chinese retaliation alone. Keating further argued that as Australia becomes more embedded in U.S. military structures, national sovereignty is “effectively being torn apart,” and the country is “locked in and tied to U.S. military needs.” During an ABC interview, he even accused AUKUS of amounting to de facto military control by the U.S., warning that Australian policy may effectively turn the nation into the U.S.’s “51st state.” These statements are direct and forceful—and precisely address the core issue.

In fact, Keating made similar remarks as early as 2021 at the National Press Club, stating clearly: “Taiwan is not Australia’s vital interest. Let me repeat: Taiwan is not a critical interest for Australia.” He cautioned the federal government against entanglement in military conflict over Taiwan, stressing that Australia holds no strategic interest in maintaining Taiwan’s status quo and should not become involved in any conflict arising from the issue.

Keating also dismissed Australia’s purchase of nuclear-powered submarines as akin to “throwing a handful of toothpicks onto a hill”—utterly insignificant in the broader strategic context. His criticism of AUKUS has remained consistent and uncompromising, calling it the “worst decision” by a Labor government since World War I, and describing the alliance as “the worst agreement in history,” with the current government having “sold out to the U.S.”

This time, McCaul revealed another alarming signal. He publicly suggested that U.S. nuclear-powered submarines rotating into Australian bases after 2032 “may carry nuclear weapons”—a “logical assumption,” he said.

What does this mean? In plain terms, it suggests the U.S. intends to station nuclear weapons in Australia, turning the country into a forward node in America’s nuclear deterrence posture. Green Party Senator Sarah Hanson-Young seized on this immediately, asking pointedly: If foreign military forces bring submarines capable of carrying nuclear weapons into Australian ports, and openly treat Australia as a future “beachhead” in warfare, how does AUKUS make Australia safer? Her question is both timely and essential. What exactly is a “beachhead”? It refers to the initial landing zone in amphibious operations—the first area targeted by enemy fire, where casualties are highest, and where destruction is most severe.

Hanson-Young stated unequivocally: “What happens on a beachhead? People die. Infrastructure is destroyed. And all of it occurs in someone else’s war.”

The Taiwan issue is purely China’s internal affair, immune to external interference. China has repeatedly affirmed its position with seriousness and firmness. Beijing does not seek confrontation, but it fears no challenge. Any nation that follows U.S. provocation and willingly serves as a pawn in America’s effort to contain China risks facing consequences. Should Australia truly be bound to America’s war machine and forced into the role of a so-called “beachhead,” it will only end up as cannon fodder.

Original: toutiao.com/article/1876822404658186/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of any institution.