August 9, 2022
Tuesday 9 August 2022
Interview with Tom Connell, News Day, Sky News
Subjects: Nancy Pelosi’s Taiwan visit, defence strategic review, parliamentary delegations to Taiwan
Tom Connell: I won't delve too much into the One-China policy. The concern is coming after the visit from Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker in the US. Joining me now is James Paterson, formerly chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and now shadow cyber defence. Thanks for your time. The world's on edge right now, really, that these military drills surrounding Taiwan are a concern. Do we have to sit back and wonder if the Pelosi visit was worth it?
Senator Paterson: Look, it's not really a matter for us to judge in a sense, Tom. The Taiwanese government made a decision to invite the Speaker of the House to visit and decided to host her, and she decided to travel. And it's completely routine for congressional delegations to visit Taiwan. Indeed, for Australian parliamentarians to visit Taiwan. I've done so myself. Yes, the Speaker is a more senior political figure in the US, but that's not without precedent either. In 1997, Newt Gingrich visited. So it's not really Australia's place to dictate either to Taiwan or to the Speaker, what they can do.
Where I think we have a very strong interest is in recognising them align behaviour of the Chinese Government here. It is a grossly disproportionate reaction to fire ballistic missiles into other people's territorial waters in response to a politician visiting an island for a short period of time.
Connell: So I think most Australians have come to the view that the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party, is the aggressor in the region and in a lot of these sort of issues, I suppose. But they still want us to try to help figure out a path back to peace - us being Australia in concert with the US. Does that involve us almost being the bigger person in the room? Figuring out an olive branch without obviously conceding anything or being weak, but trying to figure out how to offer that olive branch to China?
Paterson: One thing which I'd really congratulate the new government on is that they haven't taken any backward steps on the policy settings that we've put in place, and they've been very clear in their public communications that they are unwilling to do so. And that's absolutely the right approach, because otherwise the signal that that would send to the Chinese government is that the economic coercion and the other threats they've made against Australia are successful and that would paradoxically just make sure we got even more of it, not less of it. So I think it'd be a real mistake to offer kind of any olive branch in that sense, which is a tangible policy concession that would be a very dangerous thing to do. And I don't think the government will do that and I hope they don't do that. What we can do to discourage this behaviour from the Chinese Government, in conjunction with our allies, like-minded countries in the region like Japan and the United States, India and others, is to be as strong as possible and as to be as united as possible to demonstrate that it is just not worth China's efforts to behave this way.
Connell: Andrew Hastie described Australia as ‘in the gun’ if there were an invasion of Taiwan. What does that mean?
Paterson: Well, it just means that it would be extraordinarily damaging for Australia's national interests regardless of whether or not we participated. And that's a hypothetical question. But if it were to occur, no matter how it occurred, it would be detrimental to Australia's interest.
Connell: But ‘in the gun’ almost sounds that we are in the firing line. This is a long way away. We're not going to be directly involved in this, or are we? Do you think in terms of a threat to our actual [inaudible]…
Paterson: Yes, because as you can imagine, Tom, I can't and it will be irresponsible to speculate on hypothetical outcomes. But I think the point that Andrew is making, which I completely agree with, is that it's not in our interests if this were to happen. And that's why the consistent bipartisan policy of the Australian Government for decades has been that we support the status quo, that we're opposed to any unilateral changes to the status quo, and that we're particularly opposed to any changes to that status quo that occur by force. Really, any resolution of the Taiwan Strait's tensions needs to have at the heart of it the self-determination of the Taiwanese people. And it's a democracy of 23 million people who I think have expressed pretty clearly in recent elections and as well as in opinion polls, that unification with the People's Republic of China is not something that they want. And I think we need to bear that in mind.
Connell: But not 'in our interest' is different to 'being in the gun'. It just strikes me as an interesting choice of words that could concern Australians.
Paterson: No, I think Andrew's absolutely right. He's very right to be direct about that. The idea that this could take place and somehow be quarantined just to the South China Sea or the Taiwan Straits and not directly affect Australians is a naive assumption.
Connell: Is that even along the lines of the so-called domino effect style, first Taiwan, next Australia?
Paterson: Yeah, Tom, as I said, it would be irresponsible for me to publicly speculate about a hypothetical scenario. But our interests are very clearly tied with the interests of stability and the status quo.
Connell: The defence strategic review that's going to go on[inaudible] seems to be prioritising capability in particular around submarines earlier, even if that means some of the local build doesn't happen. Is that the right call?
Paterson: Look, I would encourage the government to look at all options, to not rule out anything and if forced to choose, I think the comments that Richard Marles has made this week about prioritising capability over local content is the right path to go down. Of course, that's the most important thing when we're talking about the acquisition of defence capabilities is when we can get it and actually achieving it rather than having it made here.
Connell: Okay. So, backing him on that. Just finally. You've been to Taiwan before. Things have changed a bit since then. Would you go back?
Paterson: It's perfectly consistent with our One-China policy for members of parliament, who are not part of the executive, to visit Taiwan. And I did so as a capacity as a backbencher, as a parliamentarian, that's actually a very normal and very healthy exchange. And I would encourage new parliamentarians who've been elected if they are invited to doing that.
Connell: But not you as a shadow minister, is that a different line?
Paterson: Look, I'm still not a member of the executive, Tom, so it would be theoretically possible for me. But I have been and I've benefited greatly from that experience.
Connell: You don't need to go back, you feel?
Paterson: But I think it is important for new parliamentarians to go.
Connell: If you were invited again though, would you go back?
Paterson: Yeah, I would contemplate it depending on the circumstances.
Connell: Okay. James Paterson, got to leave it there. Thank you.
Paterson: Thanks, Tom.
ENDS
