By Mick Le Moignan
IN peacetime, alliances between nations generally evolve at glacial pace. There is no rush. Trust can build gradually. Trade deals can be worked out with care, for mutual benefit. War or the threat of war imposes a different dynamic. Decisions are made in haste and regretted at leisure: the Ottoman Empire in the First World War and Japan in the Second World War paid a heavy price for choosing the losing side.
The first battles of World War Three may already be taking place in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran. EU countries belatedly hasten to increase their spending on “defence” and view with justified concern the naked contempt for Europe shown by some in the new American administration, such as Vice-President J D Vance and Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth.
Selfishness and greed are the mantras of Trump’s USA. It boasts of being more interested in feathering its own nest than saving or leading what used to be called “the free world”. But it will sell weapons of destruction, if the price is right. The President himself is vulnerable to fawning flattery – although NATO head Mark Rutte probably went over the top in calling Trump “daddy”.
Middle powers like the UK, France and Australia need to remember the limits of their influence and choose their allies and enemies with great care. Medieval writers advised “when you sup with the devil, use a long spoon”, meaning try to stay at a safe distance. It is doubtful whether any spoon would be long enough, where Trump, Xi Jin-Ping and Putin are concerned.
Of course, it takes much longer for either alliances or enmities to filter through to the general population. We trust our leaders to negotiate these matters on our behalf, always hoping they will avoid plunging us into damaging trade wars or actual warfare in the process.
There is currently much concern in Australia over our most crucial military alliance with the UK and USA, “AUKUS”. Under the terms of this agreement, Australia will pay the almost inconceivable sum of $368 billion over 20 years for some nuclear-powered (but not nuclear-armed) submarines.
This year, Australia has handed over the greater part of a comparatively modest down-payment of $2 billion – only to learn that Trump’s Under-Secretary for Defence, Elbridge Colby, has proposed a unilateral review of the whole arrangement. It has been suggested that the USA may need the submarines for their own use – or that Australia might be allowed to purchase them if we promise to join the Americans in any war with China over Taiwan. Many believe the best outcome would be an early exit from this financially punishing agreement.
Australia is caught in a dilemma, between its strongest ally and its largest trading partner. There is every reason for Australia and China to work together for mutual prosperity – but for the repressive and vindictive policies of the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The USA is also a natural partner – but for Trump’s repressive and vindictive policies, his apparent ignorance of economics and economic history and his vitriolic dislike of any measures to protect our environment against the ravages of man-made climate change.
What’s left of the Australian opposition, after the recent election, would like the PM, Anthony Albanese, to kowtow to Trump and snub Xi Jin-Ping, just as their PM, Scott Morrison, did when in power. Morrison banned Chinese businesses and accused China of developing the Covid virus in their Wuhan laboratory. The Chinese retaliated with trade bans, which cost Australian exporters $20 billion a year – until Albanese’s Labor government got them lifted.
The Opposition chide Albanese for not yet having secured a personal meeting with Trump, but the PM seems in no hurry to do so. Instead, he went on a six-day visit to China and was honoured with an invitation to a private lunch with Xi. He also took his fiancée to see the Great Wall, in a deliberate evocation of his Labor predecessor, Gough Whitlam’s historic meeting with Mao Zedong, 50 years earlier. The Opposition scoffed that it was a “working holiday” but it was also very effective diplomacy.
Australia has up to a million Chinese-background voters. They deserted the Liberal/National Party coalition at the last election, significantly assisting Labor’s victory in at least 15 of the 150 seats. Polls suggest they prefer Albanese’s conciliatory approach to Morrison’s open hostility.
Trump’s bluster and threatened tariffs have brought several nations cap in hand to the Oval Office. Albanese’s balanced, wait-and-see approach seems a more mature response, and more likely to achieve a desirable outcome in the long term.
The principal aim of all international negotiations is surely to air and understand our differences and achieve peaceful coexistence. Sabre-rattling threats are rarely helpful. Taiwan is 160km (100 miles) off the Chinese coast. Both Chinese and Taiwanese governments agree that they are and should be part of the same nation; they disagree about the best system of government for that nation. Taiwanese fears of a possible Chinese takeover have been heightened by the CCP’s brutality towards Hong Kong democrats – but is this a good reason to light the touchpaper on World War Three? Talking is both cheaper and a lot safer – and most Chinese people have no more appetite for war than we do.
Jersey people must feel some natural affinity with Taiwan. This island has fended off two much more powerful neighbouring states for almost a thousand years, despite the many wars between them. Just imagine, if a hostile power were to conquer France… Don’t scoff, it could happen. Oh, wait, it did happen. And here we are, 80 years on. It was very tough, for those who remained (including my grandfather). But life as we know it was only postponed. It didn’t come to an end.
International diplomacy requires a very deft touch. As usual, the wisest advice comes from Shakespeare, through Polonius in Hamlet:
“Give all men your ears, but few your voice.”
