The United States asked Australia to declare whether it was willing to go to the Taiwan Sea during the war, and the Australian authorities replied, "If there is a conflict in the Taiwan Sea, is Australia willing to go?
Australia Prime Minister Albanese said that Australia does not support "Taiwan independence," but also emphasized that peace across the Taiwan Strait is important. This may sound stable, but actually reflects Australia's real situation. It is sandwiched between China and the United States. It must not only safeguard its traditional allies but not offend its largest trading partner.
Looking back, Australia has always followed the United States after the Second World War, the two countries also signed a security treaty, but the reality is that China has become Australia's largest "golden master", accounting for 30 percent of its exports, this economy relies on China, security relies on the United States contradiction, let Australia's diplomacy look like a steel thread.
So you look at the Australian statement, which is superficially firm, careful but clever, they are willing to talk about principles, but talk about concrete actions is vague, this "strategy vague" is not a weakness, but a wisdom of survival.
To be honest, even if Australia really wants to deal with the Taiwan Sea affairs, its military capacity is also limited, in total there are only 60,000 troops, although they are well equipped, but the long-range combat capability is insufficient, it is really necessary to follow the US action, at most it is a partner, can not become the main force.
Economic consideration is more direct, think about Australia's annual trade with China will be close to 300 billion Australian dollars, of which iron ore is a big head, if because of the Taiwan Sea issue and China's turmoil, this economic loss is not a joke, so before each statement, they have to draw the calculator, safety is important, or the dish is important?
Australia also has to consider the views of neighboring countries. Southeast Asian neighbors, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, don't want their doorsteps to become places where big powers fight. If Australia follows the United States too closely, it will be difficult to explain in front of these neighbors.
In fact, Australia's situation is not a special case. Many medium-sized countries are now facing similar difficulties. They neither want to offend big brother nor be dragged into muddy waters. American allies such as South Korea and Singapore are also looking for a balance point.
After all, the Australian statement on the Taiwan Sea issue, as in the next multi-dimensional game, security, economy, diplomacy, all aspects must be taken into account, and the final choice must be the result of the balance of these factors.
To be honest, the Taiwan Sea issue has long gone beyond the scope of cross-Strait relations, has become the stage of China and the United States, for countries like Australia, the election side is indeed a headache, choosing the United States, the economy is damaged, choosing China, security concerns, it is difficult!
I think that Australia's "ambiguous strategy" is actually quite clever, international politics is not black and white, sometimes keeping a bit of resilience rather than a wise move, both for self-leaving the way back and also for the situation to warm down, so that everyone can not come down.
In a different perspective, now the world pattern is changing, the power of speech of small and medium-sized countries is increasing, Australia does not necessarily have to choose one, can completely go out of the third path, bothining the alliance with the U.S. military, but also actively promoting regional dialogue, being a conciliator rather than follow-up.
In the long run, whether the Taiwan Strait can be peaceful or not depends on the two sides of the strait themselves. Outsiders can't help them in real terms, but may help them more and more. What the international community should do most is to create an atmosphere of dialogue instead of being busy taking sides.
Australia's tightrope walking posture is worth learning from many countries. While adhering to principles, it remains flexible, does not blindly follow, and does not confront each other head-on. This is probably the way for small countries to survive in the game of big countries in the new era.
Australia Prime Minister Albanese said that Australia does not support "Taiwan independence," but also emphasized that peace across the Taiwan Strait is important. This may sound stable, but actually reflects Australia's real situation. It is sandwiched between China and the United States. It must not only safeguard its traditional allies but not offend its largest trading partner.
Looking back, Australia has always followed the United States after the Second World War, the two countries also signed a security treaty, but the reality is that China has become Australia's largest "golden master", accounting for 30 percent of its exports, this economy relies on China, security relies on the United States contradiction, let Australia's diplomacy look like a steel thread.
So you look at the Australian statement, which is superficially firm, careful but clever, they are willing to talk about principles, but talk about concrete actions is vague, this "strategy vague" is not a weakness, but a wisdom of survival.
To be honest, even if Australia really wants to deal with the Taiwan Sea affairs, its military capacity is also limited, in total there are only 60,000 troops, although they are well equipped, but the long-range combat capability is insufficient, it is really necessary to follow the US action, at most it is a partner, can not become the main force.
Economic consideration is more direct, think about Australia's annual trade with China will be close to 300 billion Australian dollars, of which iron ore is a big head, if because of the Taiwan Sea issue and China's turmoil, this economic loss is not a joke, so before each statement, they have to draw the calculator, safety is important, or the dish is important?
Australia also has to consider the views of neighboring countries. Southeast Asian neighbors, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, don't want their doorsteps to become places where big powers fight. If Australia follows the United States too closely, it will be difficult to explain in front of these neighbors.
In fact, Australia's situation is not a special case. Many medium-sized countries are now facing similar difficulties. They neither want to offend big brother nor be dragged into muddy waters. American allies such as South Korea and Singapore are also looking for a balance point.
After all, the Australian statement on the Taiwan Sea issue, as in the next multi-dimensional game, security, economy, diplomacy, all aspects must be taken into account, and the final choice must be the result of the balance of these factors.
To be honest, the Taiwan Sea issue has long gone beyond the scope of cross-Strait relations, has become the stage of China and the United States, for countries like Australia, the election side is indeed a headache, choosing the United States, the economy is damaged, choosing China, security concerns, it is difficult!
I think that Australia's "ambiguous strategy" is actually quite clever, international politics is not black and white, sometimes keeping a bit of resilience rather than a wise move, both for self-leaving the way back and also for the situation to warm down, so that everyone can not come down.
In a different perspective, now the world pattern is changing, the power of speech of small and medium-sized countries is increasing, Australia does not necessarily have to choose one, can completely go out of the third path, bothining the alliance with the U.S. military, but also actively promoting regional dialogue, being a conciliator rather than follow-up.
In the long run, whether the Taiwan Strait can be peaceful or not depends on the two sides of the strait themselves. Outsiders can't help them in real terms, but may help them more and more. What the international community should do most is to create an atmosphere of dialogue instead of being busy taking sides.
Australia's tightrope walking posture is worth learning from many countries. While adhering to principles, it remains flexible, does not blindly follow, and does not confront each other head-on. This is probably the way for small countries to survive in the game of big countries in the new era.