Latest / The Front / Pete Hegseth says China will invade Taiwan. Is he right?

Transcript

Pete Hegseth says China will invade Taiwan. Is he right? · The Front

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey.
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: It's Friday, June sixth, twenty twenty five. Australia's guidelines on
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: transgender kids have been slated by a family court judge
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: who has removed a child from a mother who wanted
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: doctors to prescribe puberty blockers. Australia's warplanes and navy ships
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: are vulnerable to the same kind of drone attack that
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: Ukraine successfully used to destroy Russian fighter jets. That's the
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: warning from defense experts. Those exclusives are live now at
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: the Australian dot com. Dot Au warnings this week that
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: a war over Taiwarn is getting closer. America wants Australia
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: to spend much more on defense, but Anthony Albanezi says
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: that won't be happening today. What's really going on beneath
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: the talk of war? Foreign editor Greg Sheridan joins us
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump's Defense secretary. Pete Higseth is one of those
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: colorful characters who, it seems can only exist in American politics.
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: A former soldier and Fox News presenter who had to
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: fight off allegations about his past to be confirmed as
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: a member of cabinet.
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: If there's one thing I've sort of been offended by,
• 1:30
  Speaker 2: I don't get offended by much.
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: Is this idea that.
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: I don't take classification or I don't take clearances seriously.
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: Nobody takes it more seriously than me.
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: The job makes him one of the most significant figures
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: in world affairs, complete with an American flag handkerchief in
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: the breast pocket of his tailor made suits, and he's
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: just rocked geopolitics with a blunt declaration about China.
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: Beijing is credibly preparing to potentially huse military force to
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: alter the balance of power in the Indo Pacific.
• 2:03
  Speaker 3: It's public that she has ordered.
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: His military to be capable of invading Taiwan by twenty
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: twenty seven.
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: Hexseth is making a frank request of Australia and the
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: rest of America's allies pony up with more cash to
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: defend yourselves and Taiwan. Hegseth wants allies like Australia to
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: spend three point five percent of their GDP on defense.
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: For US, that would be a seventy five percent uplift
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: on our current spend. Greg Sheridan is the Australian's Foreign editor. Now, Greg,
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: one of the things we like to do on the
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: front is dig through what these colorful characters like Pete
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: Heigseth say. What's your interpretation of what he really wanted
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: allies like Australia to hear from that speech that he made.
• 2:55
  Speaker 3: One of the things he said was that there is
• 2:58
  Speaker 3: potentially an Chinese military action against Taiwan. Shijinping himself has
• 3:05
  Speaker 3: told the Chinese military that they need to be ready
• 3:08
  Speaker 3: to be able to take Taiwan by force if they
• 3:11
  Speaker 3: so decide by twenty twenty seven. Nothing is inevitable. And
• 3:16
  Speaker 3: one of the reasons Hegseth would have said it was
• 3:19
  Speaker 3: to make it less likely. The more you convinced the
• 3:21
  Speaker 3: Chinese that the Americans might respond that there'd be a
• 3:25
  Speaker 3: very big cost if the Chinese did this, the less
• 3:29
  Speaker 3: likely they are to do it. So Hegseth is a
• 3:33
  Speaker 3: colorful character, but he is actually in accordance with what
• 3:37
  Speaker 3: previous senior American officials under the Biden administration were also
• 3:42
  Speaker 3: saying about China and Taiwan.
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump's political brand for a very long time has
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: really been isolationist that America would look after itself first
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: and couldn't be relied on any more to be the
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: world's policeman solving problems everywhere else. That had been interpreted,
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: probably before or the US presidential election, as a signal
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: that Taiwan might be on its own and that the
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: US might look the other way if China invaded. What
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: do you think we can say now about what Trump
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: and hexth really think.
• 4:12
  Speaker 3: America has always said that China should not use force
• 4:17
  Speaker 3: to change the status quo. The Australian government says that too,
• 4:20
  Speaker 3: But there always was a little bit of strategic ambiguity
• 4:23
  Speaker 3: about whether America would actually automatically military come to Taiwan's
• 4:28
  Speaker 3: aid because America also wanted to constrain Taiwan about what
• 4:31
  Speaker 3: it did. It didn't want Taiwan to declare de jura independence,
• 4:36
  Speaker 3: even though Taiwan has only been ruled by Beijing for
• 4:39
  Speaker 3: four years since eighteen ninety five. But then some presidents
• 4:43
  Speaker 3: defy the principle of ambiguity. Joe Biden. The one clear
• 4:47
  Speaker 3: thing he used to say in his very confused presidency
• 4:49
  Speaker 3: was that he would come to the military aid of Taiwan,
• 4:53
  Speaker 3: and his spokespeople would then rush out and say no,
• 4:56
  Speaker 3: the President didn't mean to say that, and he wasn't
• 4:58
  Speaker 3: changing our policy of strategic ambiguity. But in fact, I
• 5:02
  Speaker 3: give Biden more credit than that. I think Biden was
• 5:06
  Speaker 3: using his dodderiness as a cover to send a clear
• 5:10
  Speaker 3: warning to Beijing. If you move on Taiwan, we'll move
• 5:14
  Speaker 3: on you. And going to war with the United States
• 5:16
  Speaker 3: is a very dawting prospect. Now, Trump has always been
• 5:20
  Speaker 3: reluctant to take any military action, But now everybody accuses
• 5:24
  Speaker 3: Trump of being a bit of a hypocrite. The so
• 5:30
  Speaker 3: called taco trade. Trump always chickens out. If one thing
• 5:33
  Speaker 3: could ensure that Trump one day won't chicken out, it's
• 5:36
  Speaker 3: being accused that he always will chicken out. And I
• 5:39
  Speaker 3: think in the first administration he took military action against
• 5:43
  Speaker 3: ISIS and against Iranian military commanders to show that he could,
• 5:48
  Speaker 3: and in the second administration he's taken military action against
• 5:51
  Speaker 3: the Hooties to show that he can. He obviously would
• 5:55
  Speaker 3: hate a war with China, so would any civilized human being.
• 6:00
  Speaker 3: In the past that he probably wouldn't do military intervention,
• 6:04
  Speaker 3: He'd do economic intervention. He'd crush China economically. So Trump,
• 6:09
  Speaker 3: I think we can say is sending out ambiguous messages.
• 6:14
  Speaker 3: We don't know how he would react to Chinese military
• 6:17
  Speaker 3: action against Taiwan, but it's not the worst thing that
• 6:21
  Speaker 3: the Chinese don't know either. They could take military action
• 6:25
  Speaker 3: against Taiwan confident that Trump won't react, or they know
• 6:30
  Speaker 3: there's a chance they'll get that calculation wrong, and then
• 6:33
  Speaker 3: they would be in a military conflict with the United States.
• 6:37
  Speaker 3: And having that degree of uncertainty in the Chinese mind
• 6:40
  Speaker 3: is perhaps not altogether a bad thing.
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: How do you think the changing landscape in Ukraine, where
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: Trump is trying and failing to negotiate a peace, influences
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: Americas thinking about China and Taiwan.
• 6:54
  Speaker 3: I think at one level, you can certainly say that
• 6:57
  Speaker 3: if the West had been completely weak on Ukraine, it
• 7:02
  Speaker 3: would have convinced the Chinese that the West will never intervene.
• 7:06
  Speaker 3: Taiwan is inherently a very difficult island to invade, but
• 7:09
  Speaker 3: Taiwan is also a difficult place to resupply for its
• 7:14
  Speaker 3: allies because you'd have to come in against Chinese sea
• 7:19
  Speaker 3: and air blockades. The only nation that could do that
• 7:22
  Speaker 3: is the United States. The United States could break through
• 7:25
  Speaker 3: any Chinese blockade, but it would be a very bloody business.
• 7:29
  Speaker 3: The Chinese, of course, may take military action against Taiwan.
• 7:33
  Speaker 3: Far short of invasion, they may simply blockade the island
• 7:36
  Speaker 3: and try to sort of, so to speak, starvan into submission.
• 7:39
  Speaker 3: I mean. The Americans in the Indo Pacific Command in
• 7:42
  Speaker 3: Hawaii have developed battle plans for creating a healthscape for
• 7:47
  Speaker 3: the Chinese, where through drones and missiles, the Americans could
• 7:52
  Speaker 3: attack a thousand Chinese targets a day. This is really
• 7:56
  Speaker 3: an incalculable potential conflict and the consequences for all of us,
• 8:01
  Speaker 3: including for Australia, would be utterly horrendous. And the best
• 8:07
  Speaker 3: way to avoid it is to convince the Chinese that
• 8:10
  Speaker 3: it's too costly, that they'd be better off not doing
• 8:13
  Speaker 3: it than engaging in that uncertainty coming up.
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: So why don't we just spend more on defense? One
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: thing that's loud and clear from Pete Hexf and Donald
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: Trump is that they want all their allies, including Australia,
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: to spend a lot more on defense. Anthony o Aneasy
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: scene very quick to shut that down.
• 8:51
  Speaker 3: Now, what we'll do is well determine our defense policy,
• 8:54
  Speaker 3: and we've invested just across the fall it's an additional
• 8:59
  Speaker 3: ten billion dollars in defense.
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: Do we need to get to three point five percent
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: of GDP as a defense spend to keep ourselves safe?
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: Gregan also to participate in a US let alliance.
• 9:11
  Speaker 3: Clear the amount of money we spend on defense is
• 9:13
  Speaker 3: a joke. We have some symbolic capabilities, we have no
• 9:17
  Speaker 3: capability to defend ourselves. We are one hundred percent reliant
• 9:21
  Speaker 3: on the Americans. We won't take responsibility for ourselves, we
• 9:25
  Speaker 3: won't take responsibility for anybody else, and we just believe
• 9:28
  Speaker 3: the Americans will always win. They'll always be there, they'll
• 9:33
  Speaker 3: always be committed to our security, and they'll always take
• 9:36
  Speaker 3: care of us. Next year, the federal government'll spend seven
• 9:38
  Speaker 3: hundred and seventy seven billion dollars. We currently spend fifty
• 9:42
  Speaker 3: five billion on defense. If we went up from two
• 9:46
  Speaker 3: to two and a half percent of GDP, you'd have
• 9:48
  Speaker 3: to add another thirteen billion, and that would be very
• 9:53
  Speaker 3: vital money. Because we have no ammunition, we have no missiles,
• 9:57
  Speaker 3: we have no drones, we have no counter drones. The
• 10:00
  Speaker 3: Ukrainians have just shown us what you can do with drones.
• 10:02
  Speaker 3: They've destroyed billions of dollars of Russian warplanes with smart drones,
• 10:09
  Speaker 3: instead of which we spend one hundred years purchasing three
• 10:14
  Speaker 3: exquisite ships, each worth twenty billion dollars or something, so
• 10:18
  Speaker 3: you can't possibly send them into battle, because if you
• 10:20
  Speaker 3: lose one, you've lost a third of your navy. And
• 10:24
  Speaker 3: the design of that is so that we can make exquisite,
• 10:28
  Speaker 3: tiny niche deployments with the Americans in expeditionary operations in
• 10:32
  Speaker 3: the Middle East or somewhere else. It's not to defend ourselves,
• 10:36
  Speaker 3: it's not to be a credible alliance partner. But one
• 10:39
  Speaker 3: day the Americans will say to themselves, you know what,
• 10:43
  Speaker 3: if the Australians aren't interested in defending themselves, we aren't
• 10:47
  Speaker 3: interested in defending them either, and they'll go home. And
• 10:50
  Speaker 3: then we have no capacity at all. Where the thirteenth
• 10:53
  Speaker 3: or fourteenth biggest economy in the world. If we put
• 10:56
  Speaker 3: our minds to it, we could certainly produce an asymmetric
• 10:59
  Speaker 3: defense which would make it very difficult for any power,
• 11:02
  Speaker 3: even a superpower, to come and do us harm. We
• 11:06
  Speaker 3: haven't done any of that. It's just an act of
• 11:08
  Speaker 3: gross national irresponsibility.
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: Greg. You always managed to make me laugh even when
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: we're talking about military sustainment or nuclear armourged and so
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: thank you very much. We really appreciate your time. Greg
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: Sheridan is The Australian's Foreign editor. You can read his
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: analysis and all the latest on world affairs anytime at
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: the Australian dot com dot au