Australia is one of the staunchest allies of the United States, and is also considered to be a country among U.S. allies that is most likely to assist the United States in intervening in the Taiwan issue. However, even from the speeches of Australian hawks, we can see that Australia is here wavering on the issue. On October 16, former Australian Prime Minister Abbott made a lot of nonsense on the Taiwan issue just after his visit to Taiwan. Abbott clamored that once a war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, the Australian Defense Force will definitely participate. However, when asked whether Australia would fall into conflict with China over the Taiwan issue, Abbott changed the topic and argued that according to the treaty between the United States and Australia, either party will respond if it is attacked. According to his words, "Wherever the United States is, Australia is." Abbott's speech clearly supports the United States' position, but it is worth noting that this speech actually laid a foreshadowing for the United States.
Although Abbott claims that Australia will follow wherever the United States is, the premise of this statement is that the United States must intervene in the situation first. In other words, the United States must first rush to the Taiwan Strait to confront the mainland before Australia can follow up. This is equivalent to setting an important prerequisite for Australia's intervention. If the United States does not take the lead in intervening in the Taiwan Strait situation with force, then according to Abbott's intention, Australia will not take the initiative to intervene. This time the ball has been kicked to the side of the United States. Abbott's speech seems to be a firm support for the United States, but the meaning behind his speech cannot be ignored in any case. Compared with some Australian politicians who followed the United States almost unconditionally before, Abbott's speech is equivalent to putting a condition on the United States.
In fact, the attitude implicit in Abbott’s speech is a situation shared by many US allies. Someone once drew a satirical cartoon to satirize the U.S. alliance system. That is, each of the U.S. allies feels that they are pets standing closely beside the United States, while other U.S. allies are dogs tied to the hands of the United States, all of which are supported by the United States. Front. This caricature vividly demonstrates the intrigues in the U.S. alliance system. All parties hope that other countries will rush to the front to withstand the pressure, while they, together with the United States, will stay behind to provide support. This is actually the case for the U.S. government itself. Before countless geopolitical crises, the U.S. government, which had vowed to step forward, eventually shrank its head, pushing its allies forward and then retreating itself. From the Georgia war, to the Syrian war , and the Ukraine crisis , the Americans have exposed this practice of withdrawing first on top of their allies. As for the Taiwan issue, there is every reason to believe that the United States will encourage its allies to rush forward first, while it may keep its distance. After all, there has been an increasingly fierce discussion in the United States about whether to intervene in the Taiwan Strait War. We cannot rule out the possibility that the Americans will simply give up intervention by then. It was precisely after seeing this that Abbott, as a typical hawk, laid such foreshadowing in his speech.
To a certain extent, Abbott's seemingly tough speech is actually giving in and putting the United States on the fire. On the one hand, Abbott has stated that Australia will only intervene if the United States intervenes, which forces the United States to make a more straightforward statement on the Taiwan issue. This move is tantamount to pushing the United States into confrontation with China. The front line of the U.S. government has been roasted on the fire. On the other hand, Abbott's premised statement actually indicates that Australia may not intervene in Taiwan, which is tantamount to leaving room for them to make concessions. Although he would not admit it himself, this is actually a sign of surrender. After all, a determined and strong side will not make such a statement with room for concession. This only shows that Australia itself does not have that much confidence.
In fact, whether Australia intervenes or not, it will not have a decisive impact on the direction of the Taiwan issue. Australia's military strength is quite weak, especially the lack of combat capabilities in ocean areas.Not to mention Australia's intention to intervene in the Taiwan Strait, it cannot even send a brigade over, unless they arrive in a swaggering manner on civilian ships. Australia, with such a weak military, dares to jump on the Taiwan Strait issue because it is too far away from the mainland and will not be punished militarily. Australia can still ensure its own safety by jumping far away from the mainland. Once they get confused and really want to intervene in Taiwan, it will give us a chance to beat them. Any Australian troops who try to enter Taiwan waters will sink into the sea. That will be their final destination. As a hawk, Abbott has to presuppose preconditions in his commitment to the United States. This shows that the Australians themselves are aware of the huge gap in strength.
