The defence hawks never miss a chance. Netanyahu and Trump are running amok in the Middle East. Yet “Look over there! China!” Michael Pascoe reports.

The three-year deadline set by the embarrassing SMAge Red Alert series for China to attack Australia went by without a PLA missile in sight last month. Never mind, Trump’s war is burning through America’s weapons stockpile and assets have been moved to the Middle East, weakening defences in the Pacific, so China could seize the opportunity to at least attack Taiwan any day now. 

It’s Xi’s golden opportunity. 

Or so goes the Sinophobia story as the usual suspects continue to judge China by American standards. An opportunity to attack and wage war, to kill people and blow things up, doesn’t necessarily make it the smart thing to do, even if it is “fun” as Mad King Donald attests.

The Financial Times reported Taiwan is concerned all the missiles the US has been firing at Iran means there aren’t enough left to defend Taiwan, should China attack. 

And fear of China drives the unquestioning and uncritical obedience to the US displayed by Labor and the Coalition, no matter how rogue the US goes, how untrustworthy it proves to be, how much damage it does to us and other allies, how much it flaunts and abuses its self-granted supra-legal status. 

Overlooked among the many issues in the Prime Minister’s National Press Club appearance on Thursday was a very reasonable question by Nine’s Andrew Probyn about the damage Trump has done to the social licence for the AUKUS pact. 

Albanese of course did not acknowledge the substance of the question, immediately retreating to pledging allegiance to the flag, the American flag, that is.

“The US alliance is our most important,” he said. “That remains the case. And we’ve relied upon it. 1951 was when it was formalised, but the truth is, it was really formalised in World War II by John Curtin when he said, ‘Australia looks to America’. And ever since then, they’re our most important military partner. The AUKUS relationship makes sense for us.”

Asked if he would concede that Trump had damaged the social licence for AUKUS, Albanese declined to answer. Thou shalt not speak any evil of the Trump. 

I’ll take it as read that the ANZUS treaty is a flimsy non-binding document, not even a shadow of the NATO alliance that the Trump gang is threatening to trash as it has trashed numerous other treaties and deals. 

An obvious lesson from the war on Iran is that hosting American bases unsurprisingly makes the host a target when America goes to war.

Even the most rabid China hawks fail to provide a reason for China attacking Australia other than to hit the five American bases we host if the US was to attack China. 

We are through the looking glass, needing American military protection because we host American military protection. 

Which cuts to the most important question for our national security, the need to calmly ask ourselves, what would Xi do? 

The guiding hands of the fortune we are spending on defence are firmly in the American mindset of the need to “contain” our most important economic partner, that is, serving America’s perceived strategic and economic interests, not ours. 

There is no clearer example than our nuclear-powered submarine folly that promises, or perhaps just hopes, to deliver a couple of operational boats best suited to sitting in the South China Sea as part of the American navy.  

That mindset judges China through an American lens of militarism, imperialism and entitlement. The easy answer to that question of what would Xi do is that he wouldn’t do what Trump does. 

If a Trump was running China, he might well think this is a golden opportunity to militarily take Taiwan. Thankfully, he is not. 

Why would China bother to go into battle to win just Taiwan when it is steadily winning the world by remaining peaceful? The more aggressive Trump’s America is, 

the better China looks. 

The current cover of The Economist magazine tells the story. (Though, typical of the Economist, its editorial reports at length on how China is winning before twisting at the end to suggest maybe America could yet win.)

China knows its brief “wolf warrior” period of blunt economic coercion was a mistake. It learned its lesson quickly and moved on. America’s on-going tariff bullying, illegal seizures and blockades make those dismissed Chinese wolves look like labrador puppies. 

Again if a Trump was running China, America has set a precedent with its blockade of Cuba, why not do the same with Taiwan to bring it to heel? After all, the world acknowledges that Taiwan is part of China, unlike impoverished Cuba, a sovereign state. 

You can imagine the outrage and the call to arms if China did try to starve Taiwan. 

Again, thankfully, Xi is not a Trump. 

With brief and relatively minor exceptions, the hallmark of Chinese policy is being prepared to play a long game. The main Taiwanese opposition party is favourably inclined towards Beijing, Taiwan is witnessing a feckless United States in decline and is itself suffering American coercion. 

An America prepared to ditch NATO won’t stress much over Taiwan. 

China continues to build its military capability. Being ringed by American military bases and Russia, it is the rational thing to do yet Chinese defence spending as a percentage of GDP continues to run at about half that of the US.

What would Xi do? I think he would continue to act in China’s best interests and China’s best interest is to avoid the wastage of war and to increasingly look like a more reliable partner than the US. 

Most of the world understands that. Our most important neighbours don’t want to be in either the American or Chinese camps yet little ol’ insecure Australia at the bottom of Asia keeps searching for ways to more deeply imbed itself in American uniforms and keeps presenting itself to the region as America’s loyal Deputy Dawg. 

In peaceful days long ago – early February – South China Morning Post columnist Alex Lo wrote a prescient piece that could stand as a quick guide to China’s international positioning for what has subsequently happened:

China has a few red lines. But if you respect them, life can be smooth and wonderful. China doesn’t care if you are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu or an atheist. It doesn’t care if your government is democratic, theocratic or dictatorial. If you want to do business, China is more than happy to partner with you.

If you need aid, that’s fine; it won’t tell you what to do with the money or otherwise dictate your finances, so long as it sees some returns, whether commercial, strategic or diplomatic. It is not doing it out of the goodness of its heart, but it always appreciates a win-win. The Global South understands that. The West, which loves to interfere and dictate, doesn’t.

China doesn’t interfere with your elections, overthrow or stage coups against your government, kidnap your political leaders and their spouses or sanction your country to the point of impoverishing and starving the population.

It doesn’t operate hundreds of military bases around the world that turn your country into a staging ground for the next world war. It’s not invading other countries. It doesn’t demand loyalty or force you to pick a side so long as you keep your end of the bargain. China builds; it doesn’t bomb.

In that respect, China is the most transactional and ideology-free country in the world. Just don’t cross its red lines – the return of Taiwan, the legitimacy of Communist Party rule and the unity of the Chinese nation. Everything else is negotiable.

The contrast with the United States is sharpening. 

There was a question I would have liked asked at the National Press Club on Wednesday:

Prime Minister, leaving aside the current war, the US murders survivors clinging to boat wreckage, commits acts of piracy seizing ships, maintains an illegal blockade of Cuba denying essential goods, routinely breaks treaties, economically coerces the world, has an Administration that entwines its own enrichment with policy and much more – is there any redline the US could cross that would see you criticise Trump?

https://michaelwest.com.au/what-would-xi-jinping-do/