What the US warning on China means for our defence
Sam Hawley: Donald Trump is demanding America's allies massively boost defence spending. His Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, says a Chinese invasion of Taiwan could be imminent. And one of our closest allies, the UK, is rushing to invest billions of dollars in its defence force to make sure it's war-ready. Today Peter Dean from the United States Studies Centre at Sydney Uni, on what that all means for us, and whether our defence force is fit for purpose. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal Land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily.
Sam Hawley: Peter, we better start with these comments from the US Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, at the Shangri-La meeting in Singapore. He has warned that China poses an imminent threat to Taiwan.
Pete Hegseth, US Defense Secretary: To be clear, any attempt by communist China to conquer Taiwan by force would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world. There's no reason to sugarcoat it. The threat China poses is real and it could be imminent. We hope not, but it certainly could be.
Peter Dean: Yes, so Secretary Hegseth I believe is referring to here is comments made by the Chinese leader Xi Jinping and by other members of the Chinese leadership, where Xi Jinping in particular has said that the Chinese military are prepared to use force and to achieve specific capability goals by the dates of 2027 and the dates of 2029.
Pete Hegseth, US Defense Secretary: We know, it's public, that Xi has ordered his military to be capable of invading Taiwan by 2027. The PLA is building the military needed to do it, training for it every day and rehearsing for the real deal.
Peter Dean: This is about requirements that Xi Jinping has set for the development of the People's Liberation Army and its subsequent Navy and Air Forces as well. So this is about its development of specific capabilities, but also its command and control systems, its ability to conduct exercises and its ability to conduct the types of high-end warfare to undertake, for instance, a strike across the Taiwan Strait.
Sam Hawley: So what has China then, Peter, had to say about all of this, that it will imminently attack Taiwan?
Peter Dean: Well, I mean, what Xi Jinping has said is that he reserves the right to use force to solve what the Chinese argue is a domestic political issue. They, of course, refer to Taiwan as a rogue state. They don't recognise the democratic system that the Taiwanese people have. And of course, they don't recognise the will of the Taiwanese people, who overwhelmingly identify now as Taiwanese and do not wish to be reunited with the mainland.
Sam Hawley: Well, China's foreign ministry does say that the US is overstepping its bounds and stoking flames in the South China Sea in response to those comments from Pete Hegseth.
Sam Hawley: Let's consider, Peter, now then China's military build-up and defence spending by Western nations. Now, our Defence Minister, Richard Marles, he also addressed that conference in Singapore, noting that Australia can't rely on the US alone to counter China's military strength in the Indo-Pacific.
Richard Marles, Defence Minister: There is no effective balance of power in this region absent the United States, but we cannot leave it to the United States alone. Other countries must contribute to this balance as well, and that includes Australia.
Sam Hawley: And he also pointed to that huge military build-up by China.
Richard Marles, Defence Minister: What we have seen from China is the single biggest increase in military capability and build-up in a conventional sense by any country since the end of the Second World War.
Peter Dean: So I think what Richard Marles is putting out there is basically reaffirming Australia's strategic approach and that this is not just something that we can rely upon the US to do on its own. It doesn't have the requisite levels of capability to respond to China in this way. It must be by a community of nations within the Indo-Pacific. And as a status quo power, Australia and the United States and others are attempting to maintain the free and open Indo-Pacific that we currently have and stop any state from being able to dominate that region and impose a sort of hegemonic control over the Indo-Pacific.
Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Donald Trump, of course, and Pete Hegseth have urged US allies in the region to increase their defence spending. They want Australia to raise our contribution to 3.5% of GDP, but let's face it, we are nowhere near that at the moment, and that would cost a lot of money, wouldn't it?
Peter Dean: Oh, yes. You're looking in the realm of somewhere around $41 billion additional to go into defence spending to raise that level of money. I think what's really key here is GDP as a measure of defence spending has become a bit shorthand in recent decades for sort of commitment towards defending your own country or contributing to collective defence. There is no magical number that the Australian government can get to that would make our country safe. And if you remember way back when Tony Abbott was vying to become Prime Minister, when Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd were running the country, then there was a whole debate about achieving 2% of GDP, which we currently have. Now the debate has moved on to is it 3 or 3.5% of GDP. But of course, as I said, most importantly, this number is being used internationally as a proxy by both the Trump administration, but by other states around the world, relative to an individual state's commitment to both its own sovereignty and security, but also the collective defence of the region it lives in.
Sam Hawley: Yeah, well, Anthony Albanese says we will determine our own defence policy. And he notes that Australia is on track to lift defence spending to 2.4% of GDP by 2033-34.
Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister: We're provided an additional $10 billion of investment into defence over the forward estimates. We're continuing to lift up. That adds up to 2.3% of GDP.
Sam Hawley: A long way, as we said, to 3.5% that the Americans actually want. But nations like the UK are now moving more quickly, aren't they, Peter? The British leader, Keir Starmer, he has promised to increase annual spending to 3% up from 2.3%. They seem pretty worried in the United Kingdom.
Peter Dean: Yeah, look, the UK government has made a firm commitment to move to 2.5% of GDP in the next couple of years and 3% of GDP in the near future. This is off the back of their strategic defence review.
News report: Under the AUKUS security pact with Australia and America, 12 new nuclear-powered submarines will be built to protect Britain's waters. Six new munitions factories will be constructed across the UK and thousands of long-range weapons will be manufactured on British soil.
Keir Starmer, UK Prime Minister: We are moving to warfighting readiness as the central purpose of our armed forces. When we are being directly threatened by states with advanced military forces, the most effective way to deter them is to be ready.
Peter Dean: Particularly in response not only to the war in Ukraine and the threat from Russia, but of course, most recently from the changing posture of the United States under President Donald Trump. And what we can see there is Keir Starmer, along with Emmanuel Macron from France and other key leaders in Europe, are working assiduously hard to provide for greater defence of Europe based on European needs.
Sam Hawley: Well, the British leader Keir Starmer says the UK must be ready to fight a war.
Keir Starmer, UK Prime Minister: A battle-ready, armour-clad nation with the strongest alliances and the most advanced capabilities equipped for the decades to come.
Sam Hawley: What weaponry does he want?
Peter Dean: Well, what Keir Starmer has announced is that he wishes the UK military to field a force of at least 7,000 long-range missiles. Now, if you look at what's happening in the war in Ukraine in particular, but also the war in Gaza and the Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, what you've seen is the explosion of the use of long-range precision fires in each of those conflicts.
Sam Hawley: Well, the UK plans to pay for all of this by, in part, cutting international aid, just to note that. What's it really worried about then? Is it just Russia or does China come into this as well for the UK?
Peter Dean: Look, I think it's both. I mean, what we're seeing is a fundamental changing of the strategic order of the world that we live in. The world is becoming much more dangerous. As our own government has said, we live in the most perilous times. We're seeing the rise of revisionist powers, in particular China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. And of course, the Russian illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine has been really at the centre of this. This is the first time since the end of the Second World War that Europe has seen a large major power conduct a full-on invasion of another state in Europe. That is an ongoing war, as we see today. And it looks like President Trump's efforts at brokering a peace deal are faltering at the moment. So that war is going to continue on.
Sam Hawley: And the concern is, of course, that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he has other plans after that, right?
Peter Dean: Well, exactly. And Putin, again, I think we need to actually believe what the rhetoric is coming out of some of these leaders from some of these states. I mean, Putin made it very clear in the lead up to the war in Ukraine that he believes that Ukraine shouldn't exist as a sovereign state, that it belongs as a part of a revitalised Russian empire that he sees. And he committed similar acts in states such as Georgia and other parts. And of course, in Ukraine itself, where he conducted limited incursions. And of course, what we see in the South China Sea and the East China Sea is ambient claims from China that are not recognised by international courts or international law. And the Chinese consistently using coercion military force against the Philippines, against Vietnam, against Indonesia, against Taiwan and against Japan in various parts of those seas to push their own sovereign claims, even though they are not recognised in the international community and not recognised by those other states. And of course, we add in the layer here of the cyber domain and cyber dimension, that while we're largely in strategic competition with these states across the globe in areas such as cyber, we're in day to day limited conflict as we receive an onslaught of assaults in the cyber domain from states such as North Korea, Iran, China and Russia.
Sam Hawley: All right, well, Peter, as you say, we're living in a less stable world. But what do you think is our approach when it comes to defence, the right one? Are we war ready like the UK wants to be? And if we're not, do we actually need to be?
Peter Dean: I think we're definitely not war ready at the moment. If you look at the Defence Strategic Review in 2023, it made it really clear that the ADF was not fit for purpose. The government is in the process of lifting defence spending to try and achieve some of the outcomes that were set. We don't have 10 years anymore to wait to prepare our forces. Now, what's been happening in Australia has been a long discussion in recent years over the requisite levels of defence spending. This was happening well before Donald Trump was elected for his second term of office. And if you look back to last year, you'll see some very eminent commentators and experienced people in this debate, people such as Sir Angus Houston, the former chief of Defence Force and one of the two independent leads of the Defence Strategic Review, former Secretary Dennis Richardson, former Labor leader Kim Beazley, former Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezzullo, have all called for increasing of defence spending to around about three percentage of GDP on defence. So this is a national debate that's been happening for quite a while. And now it's become much more direct, given that our US alliance partner has directly made the request to Australia to increase defence spending.
Sam Hawley: All right, and what about this imminent threat that Pete Hegseth talks about that China will invade Taiwan soon? If that was the case, and we're not saying that it is, of course, but what would that mean for us?
Peter Dean: This would mean you have the two largest economies in the world going toe to toe militarily with each other across the Taiwan Strait and in East Asia. It would always inevitably suck in states like Japan and Korea and Australia and others. And in all the estimates we have, not only would it be the extreme loss of life that would occur by the states involved in the conflict, you would spiral the global economy into a major recession, if not depression. You're talking about the most dynamic economic region in the world being consumed by conflict. And we will be putting ourselves in the risk not just of a global economic recession and a major war, but of course, we're talking about a war here between major nuclear armed states. The government's not wrong when it says we live in this really dangerous strategic age. And of course, Donald Trump is not helping that, right? He's not helping stability and security. He's, you know, in many senses, creating a source of additional instability in the global strategic order.
Sam Hawley: Peter Dean is the director of foreign policy and defence at the United States Study Centre at the University of Sydney. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Adair Sheppard. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. ABC News Daily will be back again on Monday. Thanks for listening.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Daily Telegraph
an hour ago
- Daily Telegraph
‘We won't wait': Brutal reality of life without light rail for Palm Beach
Don't miss out on the headlines from Gold Coast. Followed categories will be added to My News. Mayor Tom Tate warns council will dig up the southern stretch of the Gold Coast Highway to the border for critical infrastructure work, regardless of whether the light rail proceeds. Worn-out underground infrastructure, including pipes, must be replaced in the next few years in Palm Beach, Currumbin and Tugun, he says, something that had been planned to occur during construction of the multi-billion dollar tram extension to the Gold Coast Airport. Artist impression of Gold Coast Light Rail Stage 4 between Tugun and Coolangatta, including Gold Coast Airport and the NSW border. Picture: Department of Transport and Main Roads. But with the project's future in doubt and under State Government review, city leaders have used Friday's council budget to underline the critical need for the tram to be built promptly, saying even a delay until after the 2032 Olympics would force the roads to be dug up twice – once for the pipes and again years later for the light rail Mr Tate followed his budget speech by urging the state government to back in the trams, saying he didn't want to have to perform a 'double-bypass' on the heart of Palm Beach. 'While the state government does their review and consultation, we need to continue planning for underground infrastructure upgrades along the southern end of the Gold Coast no matter what and there is $10m already allocated for (upgrades to) kilometres and kilometres of water pipes, sewer pipes, storm water pipes under the highway,' he said. 'If the (state) report comes back that we have to move and the state wants to delay light rail Stage 4, we won't wait (because) we will have to go and rectify (the) sewer and water now. Mayor Tom Tate and Deputy Mayor Mark Hammel discussing the budget. Picture: Andrew Potts 'It means you've got to dig it up twice, double expenditure and the pain of opening the roads up in Palm Beach and that's what (critics) don't understand.' Council committed $13.8m to progressing light rail Stage 4 in its 2024-25 budget last year but did not list specific new funding for it in this year's budget. However, budget documents do list progressing the business case on the project as a key action for improving connectivity in the city the next financial year, subject to state government approval. The long-planned light rail stage 4 from Burleigh Heads to the border via the airport has paused as the new state government kept its pre-election promise to review the route and perform community consultation, which closed in early May. It is not known when the results of this will be released. Business leaders across the city have backed the extension as essential as the Gold Coast population soars. Artist impression of Gold Coast Light Rail Stage 4 between Tugun and Coolangatta, including Gold Coast Airport and the NSW border. Picture: Department of Transport and Main Roads. Deputy Mayor and city planning boss Mark Hammel said delays and uncertainty around the future of stage 4 were having a serious knock-on effect on the council's own planning for transport infrastructure for the future. 'It's the state government that sets the regional plans projections of the city's future population and it also sets projection of where they expect most that population to be and the coastal strip from Paradise Point to Coolangatta is where the largest proportion of this city's future population will go, light rail or no light rail,' he said. 'We're looking to make investments in infrastructure to support that population growth and the investment the state government needs to make is in public transport to allow that sustainable growth to occur down there, so it is a concern. 'They need to come through with investment in public transport and while Stage 4 is the next (element), that's not the end of it – it's just the next (piece) in a series of projects to deliver the city's long-term public transport network with the heavy rail and the light rail as the two spines connected by east-west links. 'The frustration is the longer we delay this next stage, we waste precious time and energy and increasing costs to see it delivered with every year goes by. 'That's also having an effect on those east-west connections which open up other opportunities for not just population growth but connecting the entire city to high frequency public transport.' It comes weeks after an 'Enterprising City' report, by KPMG, underlined the critical role of light rail in the city's future as it looked forward to 2030 and the city's economy as it evolves from a tourism town to a modern metropolis. 'Longer term, stage 4 of the light rail from Burleigh to the Airport and investments related to the 2032 Olympic Games will further enhance the Gold Coast's attractiveness,' it reads. 'The Gold Coast has always had an unbeatable lifestyle, but the continued creation of highly-skilled jobs and investment in world-class infrastructure truly makes it a global city.' Originally published as Gold Coast light rail Stage 4: Brutal reality of life without tram extension to Coolangatta via Gold Coast Airport

News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
‘How would you know about crocodiles if you live in Brisbane?': Maverick MP Bob Katter lashes out at Terri Irwin
Maverick Queensland MP Bob Katter has hit back at Terri Irwin after she publicly criticised the Katter's Australian Party (KAP) latest bill to cull crocodiles in the north of the state. Mrs Irwin described the amended proposal as 'lazy and sloppy' earlier in the week and warned it would 'turn the clock back to the dark and destructive days prior to the 1970s'. The bill claims Queensland has seen a giant increase in crocodile numbers, which Terri Irwin disputes, as justification for removing and euthanising crocs found in 'populated' waterways, and enabling hunting safaris on Aboriginal-controlled land. However, on Friday Mr Katter hit back at the animal conservationist, questioning her knowledge of crocodile preservation in Australia. 'Mrs Irwin … said that I'm a dangerous person and it's the only time I've ever agreed with her in my life,' he said in a video posted to Facebook. 'She knows all about crocodiles … well that's rather fascinating for me because she lives in Brisbane and I work with the top crocodile handlers in the world I would argue. 'Versace and the other big fashion houses have huge crocodile farms here.' Mr Katter went on to explain that the best crocodile handlers in the world have 'always been here in Australia'. 'She knows all about it well …. I'm a bit fascinated by that … how would you know about crocodiles if you live in Brisbane?' he said while laughing. 'Oh that's right she's got them all locked up in a cage in Brisbane I'd forgotten about that.' But Mrs Irwin has earlier claimed the amended bill – which imagines currently croc-infested waterways being used recreationally – is 'reckless, ill-informed and dangerous on so many levels'. In a 14-page long submission, Irwin argued a false sense of security may be created by the proposals, which would actually increase crocodile-related deaths. 'The removal of crocodiles, either through trapping or culling, will instead increase the likelihood of crocodile attacks as people believe the lie that once a crocodile is removed from a waterway then there will be no crocodiles,' she wrote. 'Research has consistently shown that when a crocodile dies or is removed, then another crocodile immediately comes in to take over that territory. Because of this reality, the Bill will not eliminate or even greatly reduce the risk of crocodile attacks.' Irwin also disputed claims that crocodile numbers have dramatically increased, saying there is no Queensland data to confirm that and the bill's cited increase does not account for multiple sightings of the same croc. 'It is the Irwin family and Australia Zoo's belief that individual culling and relocation are not effective ways to manage crocodile/human coexistence; rather, research and educating people are the key,' she said. 'The best course of action is for people in crocodile territory to be 'Croc-wise', reduce risk wherever possible and take sensible steps to minimise human-crocodile interaction.' KAP MP Shane Knuth spoke about the bill at state parliament last month, stating North Queenslanders are 'angry about losing more of our recreational waterways to the increasing crocodile population'. 'The constant threat of attacks, recent deaths and near-death experiences are dramatically affecting North Queensland's outdoor lifestyle,' he said. 'We never had to worry about the threats of crocodiles in our recreational waterways and beaches until the last two decades.' Crocodiles are protected in Queensland and remain listed as vulnerable under the Nature Conservation Act 1992.

ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
WA dairy farmers dismayed at 'stagnant' milk prices amid rising costs
West Australian dairy farmers say they are disappointed by the ongoing stagnation of farmgate milk prices as repeated dry seasons and rising costs take a toll. Processors recently published their 2025-26 supply agreements as part of transparency measures in the Dairy Industry Code of Conduct. For the third successive year, WA processors have been offered no substantive price increase. The disappointment was shared by interstate producers, where processors have offered slight increases. Dairy farmers in WA's South West have called on local milk processors to review their offers, with one major processor, Bega, already conceding to a two-cent-per-litre rise. Brunswick dairy farmer Michael Partridge said the initial price offered by Bega was not enough. "Prices haven't moved for three and a half years; last year was a really hard year for farmers in Western Australia," he said. "The Dairy Farm Performance Program, which Dairy Australia did, showed 50 per cent of dairy farmers made a loss, and there was an average 2 per cent return on investment, and the prices didn't move, which was extremely disappointing." Though 2-cents-per-litre extra from Bega was not enough, Mr Partridge said it was a start. "I was pleased to hear that Bega has announced a 2-cent price rise, but it's not enough to turn the industry around," he said. He called on other big processors to do the same. "We really need the other two processors, Brownes and Lactalis, to follow suit, and push it further," he said. WAFarmers Dairy Council president Ian Noakes, who also runs a dairy in the south west of the state, said the stagnation of pricing ignored the fact that production costs had risen substantially for dairies. Mr Noakes said his lobby group was seeking a 5-cent increase to support farmers to be profitable. He said WA's average farmgate price ranged between 60-70 cents per litre, and that pricing hadn't materially changed in the last three years. While East Coast dairies had access to overseas export markets, WA's dairy farmers were constrained to a comparatively small, local market. For that reason, Mr Noakes partially blamed the major supermarkets' low-priced home brand milk ranges for the subdued pricing offered by WA processors. Mr Noakes recently presented to an ACCC inquiry into Australia's major supermarkets, urging the regulator to recognise the damage of home brand milk ranges. The ABC contacted WA's major dairy processors for comment, of which Coles was the only one to respond. "We introduced a direct sourcing model for our own brand milk in 2019 to ensure we could provide fair, competitive and guaranteed farm gate prices to dairy farmers directly," a Coles spokesperson said in a statement. "Our multi-year agreements for our direct supply dairy farmers aim to support them in longer-term planning, and as part of the process of setting these agreements, we consider a range of factors including supply volumes, customer demand, farm production costs, and dairy market condition,s including commodity prices." Harvey Fresh's parent company, Lactalis, declined to comment, and Brownes and Bega were yet to respond.