As Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese visits China to bolster economic cooperation, a stark geopolitical dilemma is unfolding. The United States is reportedly pressing its key Pacific allies, Australia and Japan, for a clear commitment to join a potential military conflict with China over Taiwan, placing both nations in a precarious position between their primary security partner and their major trading partner.
Canberra and Tokyo have responded with conspicuous hesitation. While Albanese publicly calls for peace and stability, his government has firmly stated that the decision to go to war is a sovereign one, not an automatic obligation. Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy explicitly rejected any unconditional commitment to a “hypothetical” Taiwan conflict. Japan has echoed this cautious sentiment, indicating any military action would have to be weighed against the constraints of its pacifist constitution, effectively ruling out a swift promise of intervention.
The pressure from Washington was reportedly articulated by former senior Pentagon official Elbridge Colby, who directly questioned what role the two allies would play if the U.S. intervened against a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. This reflects a persistent American strategy to forge a collective front to deter Beijing, demanding that partners increase defense spending and be prepared for a collective military response to potential aggression in the Indo-Pacific.
This demand for clarity from allies stands in contrast to Washington’s own long-standing policy of “strategic ambiguity,” under which it deliberately avoids making an explicit promise to defend Taiwan. This policy has seen shifts between administrations, with President Joe Biden occasionally suggesting a direct defense commitment, while his predecessor, Donald Trump, remained notably silent on the matter, even while urging allies to prepare for conflict.
Washington, however, is not without leverage. The AUKUS security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. serves as a powerful bargaining chip. The landmark agreement promises to equip Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, a multi-decade project that would significantly enhance Canberra’s military capabilities and create an estimated 20,000 jobs.
Yet, this transformative deal now appears conditional. The planned transfer of several older U.S. submarines to Australia—a crucial first step before local production begins—has been placed on an indefinite hold. The move is widely seen as an unspoken message from Washington, implicitly tying the future of the AUKUS pact to Australia’s willingness to align unequivocally with U.S. strategy on Taiwan.