Is Australia Under Albanese Drifting Toward China in a U.S.-China War? By James Reed
As the spectre of a U.S.-China conflict over Taiwan looms, questions swirl about where Australia, under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, would stand. The United States, led by a hawkish Trump administration, is reportedly pressing allies like Australia to clarify their roles in such a war. Yet, Albanese's track record suggests a troubling possibility: Australia might opt for neutrality, or, in a shocking twist, tilt toward China. While this may seem far-fetched, the case can be made that Albanese's policies and diplomatic coziness with Beijing could lead Australia down a path that undermines its long-standing alliance with Washington and emboldens the Chinese Communist Party.
Since taking office in 2022, Albanese has prioritised mending ties with China, Australia's largest trading partner, which accounts for nearly a third of its exports. His second official visit to China, starting July 12, 2025, underscores this focus. Accompanied by executives from mining giants like Rio Tinto and BHP, Albanese is doubling down on economic ties, celebrating the removal of $20 billion in trade barriers imposed during the previous government's tensions with Beijing. His mantra, "cooperate where we can, disagree where we must," sounds pragmatic, but critics argue it masks a willingness to appease China to protect economic interests.
This coziness isn't just about trade. Albanese's government has downplayed China's provocative actions, such as the February 2025 live-fire naval exercises in the Tasman Sea, which rerouted commercial flights and raised regional alarm. Rather than condemn Beijing outright, Albanese noted that China hadn't broken international law, a tepid response that contrasts sharply with his predecessor's confrontational stance. His foreign minister, Penny Wong, has similarly softened rhetoric, focusing on "stabilisation" while avoiding labelling China a direct security threat, even as Beijing expands its military presence in the Indo-Pacific.
The U.S. is leaning hard on Australia to commit to a potential Taiwan conflict, with Pentagon strategist Elbridge Colby urging allies to boost defence spending and clarify their roles. Australia's AUKUS pact, a $368 billion deal for nuclear-powered submarines to counter China's regional dominance, is a cornerstone of this alliance. Yet, Albanese's reluctance to engage in "hypotheticals" about Taiwan, echoed by Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy's refusal to pre-commit troops, signals a hesitancy to fully align with Washington's war plans.
This hesitation could stem from economic pragmatism. A U.S.-China war would devastate Australia's economy, given its reliance on Chinese markets for iron ore, coal, and agriculture. Recent trade disputes, like China's 2020 tariffs, crippled Australian industries, and Albanese's government has worked tirelessly to lift those barriers. Why risk reigniting Beijing's wrath by pledging to fight alongside the U.S.? Posts on X capture this sentiment, with users like @GeopoliticsDH warning that Australia's economic dependence on China makes it vulnerable to Beijing's influence, potentially turning it into a "U.S. proxy" that could backfire.
Could Australia go beyond neutrality and lean toward China in a conflict? Albanese's actions provide ammunition for this provocative claim. His government's refusal to join U.S.-led sabre-rattling over Taiwan, combined with high-profile visits to Beijing, suggests a strategic pivot. China's state media, like the Global Times, has praised Albanese's "mature diplomacy," and Beijing's ambassador to Canberra has called Australia a "friend, not foe." This rhetoric aligns with China's broader strategy to peel U.S. allies away from Washington, especially as Trump's "America First" policies, like 50% tariffs on Australian steel and aluminium, alienate partners.
Albanese's domestic messaging reinforces this shift. During the 2025 election, Labor capitalised on fears of U.S.-China trade wars, positioning itself as a stabilising force by deepening ties with Beijing. The presence of Chinese warships in Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone during the campaign was met with a calm response, which some analysts argue helped Labor win key multicultural Chinese electorates. This suggests Albanese is attuned to public sentiment favouring economic stability over military adventurism, even if it means cozying up to an authoritarian regime.
From a propaganda perspective, painting Albanese as a China apologist is a potent narrative. His refusal to commit to a Taiwan conflict, coupled with his economic overtures to Beijing, feeds the perception that Australia could sit out a U.S.-China war, or worse, tacitly support China to protect its economic interests. Social media posts amplify this, with @SushantSin noting that Beijing would be "happiest" with Australia's noncommittal stance. Critics like former Prime Minister Paul Keating, who called AUKUS the "worst deal in history," argue that Australia has no vital interest in Taiwan and risks being dragged into a U.S.-led conflict to avoid American retaliation.
This narrative gains traction when you consider Albanese's delicate balancing act. He's rebuffed U.S. demands for a 5% GDP defence spend, insisting Australia's $57 billion investment over a decade is sufficient. His government has also prioritised climate cooperation with China, a global leader in renewable energy, over aligning fully with U.S. security objectives. In a hypothetical war, Australia could justify neutrality by citing its economic dependence on China and the lack of a direct threat from Taiwan's status, especially since Trump himself hasn't committed to defending the island.
Pushing the narrative that Albanese's Australia could go neutral or pro-China in a U.S.-China war is a propaganda goldmine. It sows doubt about Australia's reliability as a U.S. ally, pressures Albanese domestically to clarify his stance, and emboldens Beijing to exploit the ambiguity. While unlikely that Australia would openly side with China, its economic dependence and Albanese's diplomatic overtures make neutrality plausible.
"The United States has already long been engaged heavily into two war zones it can't control – namely Ukraine and Gaza – and still looks to pivot to a third. A fresh report in Financial Times says the Trump administration is demanding to know what is Pacific allies will do in the event of a war with China over Taiwan.
Specifically the US government has been pressing Japan and Australia to clarify their roles in the event that China moves militarily on Taiwan. Elbridge Colby, US under-secretary of defense for policy, has held meetings with Australian and Japanese officials in recent months with this end in mind.
Colby has made clear in a Sunday statement that he's working on implementing President Donald Trump's agenda of "restoring deterrence and achieving peace through strength." He outlined that this includes "urging allies to step up their defense spending and other efforts related to our collective defense."
And separately, a US defense official described that the "animating theme" of these recent discussions with allies was "to intensify and accelerate efforts to strengthen deterrence in a balanced, equitable way."
The official was quoted in FT as saying "We do not seek war. Nor do we seek to dominate China itself. What we are doing is ensuring the United States and its allies have the military strength to underwrite diplomacy and guarantee peace."
But Beijing might understandably disagree, given that in recent months it has been confirmed that the US maintains hundreds of Marines in Taiwan, including on its small outlying islands near China's coast, ostensibly for "training" purposes.
We can imagine what Washington's reaction would be if China had PLA troops all over Cuba or even US territory Puerto Rico, in support of a Puerto Rican 'independence movement'.
Japan, which has never had an actual military to speak of after its WW2 defeat, would likely be expected to play host to American troop build-ups and naval fleets.
As for Australia, it has clarified it will not commit troops in advance to any conflict. As laid out by the defense minister:
Australia will not commit troops in advance to any conflict, Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy said on Sunday, responding to a report that the Pentagon has pressed its ally to clarify what role it would play if the U.S. and China went to war over Taiwan.
Australia prioritizes its sovereignty and "we don't discuss hypotheticals", Conroy said in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Recent trade conflicts with China have threatened to devastate whole Australian export industries, and so Australia is not in any mood to poke the panda over theoretical future US war plans.
One regional analyst was quoted in FT as pointing out the obvious, from allies' perspectives: "President Trump has not committed to defend Taiwan, so it is unrealistic for the US to insist on clear commitments from others."
And given that America's recent entangling conflicts have not gone well for Washington, and remain unpopular even among the American public (Iraq and Afghanistan being the foremost examples), why would allied countries want to sign on to such military adventurism at all, much less in advance?
Comments