Latest news with #Colby
AllAfrica
a day ago
- Business
- AllAfrica
Australia, Japan reluctant to commit to US-led Asian NATO
The Financial Times reported that US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby recently asked Australian and Japanese defense officials how their countries would respond to a war over Taiwan. He also asked them to boost defense spending after NATO just agreed to do so during its latest summit. Colby lent credence to this report by tweeting that he's 'focused on implementing the President's America First, common sense agenda of restoring deterrence and achieving peace through strength.' This sequence shows that Trump 2.0 is serious about 'Pivoting (back) to (East) Asia' in order to more robustly contain China. This requires freezing the Ukraine war and assembling a de facto Asian NATO – both of which, however, are uncertain. Regarding the first, Trump is being drawn into 'mission creep,' while the latter is challenged by Australia and Japan's reluctance to step up. To elaborate, they seemingly expected the US to do all the 'heavy lifting', just like NATO expected till recently as well. That would explain why they didn't have a clear answer to Colby's inquiry about how their countries would respond to a war over Taiwan. Simply put, they likely never planned to do anything at all, thus exposing the shallowness of the de facto Asian NATO that the US has sought to assemble in recent years via the AUKUS+ format. This refers to the AUKUS trilateral of Australia, the UK and the US alongside what can be described as the honorary members of Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan. Australia and Japan are correspondingly envisaged as this informal bloc's Southeast and Northeast Asian anchors, yet they're evidently unwilling to fulfill the military roles that their US senior partner expects. What the US apparently had in mind was them, at the very least, playing supportive logistical roles in the scenario of a Sino-US war, but their representatives reportedly didn't suggest as much to Colby. This, in turn, reveals that they fear retaliation from China even if they don't participate in combat. Japan's population and resultant economic density make it extremely vulnerable to Chinese missile strikes while unconventional warfare could be waged against Australia through sabotage and the like. Moreover, China is both of their top trade partners, which opens up additional avenues for retaliation and coercion. At the same time, however, neither of them wants China to seize control of Taiwan's chip-making powerhouse TSMC (if it even survives a speculative conflict) and thus seize a monopoly over the global semiconductor industry. The US doesn't want that either, but the problem is that the two envisaged anchors of its de facto Asian NATO aren't willing to boost defense spending nor seemingly assist America in a war over Taiwan. That's unacceptable from Trump 2.0's perspective so tariff and other forms of pressure could be applied to coerce Australia and Japan into at least spending more on their armed forces. The endgame, however, is for them to agree to play some sort of role (whether logistical or ideally combative) in that scenario. Given that the US won't relent on its 'pivot (back) to (East) Asia', it will likely coerce concessions from Australia and Japan one way or another. The same applies to the other members of AUKUS+, namely South Korea, the Philippines and Taiwan, albeit with perhaps a slightly lower defense spending from the latter two. All in all, the US is rounding up allies ahead of a possible war with China but it's anyone's guess whether it actually plans to spark a major conflict. This article was first published on Andrew Korybko's Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber here.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Bridge' Colby: Who is the ‘maverick' putting AUKUS through the wringer?
Colby opted for a classic liberal arts degree at Harvard University, majoring in history and political and moral theory, where he studied alongside the political philosopher Harvey Mansfield, whom he admires. This background remains a point of pride, and he harbours a slight disdain for the tight-knit – some would say cloistered – world of foreign relations and national security experts. 'I don't identify as a member of the national security community,' Colby told the Intercollegiate Studies Institute last year. 'Where's their source of intellectual and moral confidence? I don't think you're going to find that just by reading the latest textbook on international relations theory.' Later in college, he gravitated toward Cold War history. He graduated and began work in government shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the US. The experience afforded him a 'peanut gallery view' of a pivotal moment in American history, including as a staffer on a commission looking into why US intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was wrong. Colby obtained a law degree from Yale University, but decided it wasn't his calling. His interest is in national security and foreign affairs strategy – concepts, rather than operations or the day-to-day minutiae. Loading 'I think I've always had – it sounds a little ridiculous – but sort of a maverick mindset,' he told the ISI. 'I don't think one should be contrarian. Being able to think for yourself and on your own is good.' In the first Trump administration, Colby served as principal adviser to the defence secretary on defence and foreign policy, and led the development of the 2018 National Defence Strategy, which shifted the US's focus to China. Now he has been tasked with creating a 2025 version. Book of revelations In his 2021 book, The Strategy of Denial, Colby said the US's top strategic priority was to act as an 'external cornerstone balancer' for a strong coalition that can frustrate China's desire for hegemonic power in Asia. The best way to do this, Colby contends, is through a 'denial defence.' The US's goal is not to dominate China militarily, but to deny it the ability to achieve its objectives – peeling off an ally, or seizing or holding an ally's territory. This strategy can only work 'if the United States and its allies and partners apply the needed level of effort and focus,' he wrote. The most obvious of Beijing's targets is Taiwan, which it sees as part of China. For years, Washington's foreign policy establishment has fixated on the notion – suggested by then INDOPACOM commander Phil Davidson in 2021 – that China wants to be ready to attack in 2027, the 100th anniversary of the People's Liberation Army. This masthead and the Financial Times have reported that Colby is asking Australia – and Japan – to make clear commitments about what they would do in the event of a conflict with China over Taiwan. That includes how Australia would use the nuclear-powered submarines it buys from the US under AUKUS. How Canberra handles this will be critically important to the ongoing relationship with Beijing. While Prime Minister Anthony Albanese enjoyed a relatively cozy visit to China last week – even lunching with Chinese President Xi Jinping – Colby's demands loomed over the pomp and ceremony of the trip. He has quickly shifted from relative obscurity to playing a key role in the future of the Australia-China relationship. Meanwhile, a senior US defence official told this masthead that while public reporting had focused on Taiwan, US concerns were broader than that. There are clues in Colby's book as to what that entails. He writes that the Philippines is likely to be Beijing's second-best target among US allies. He identifies Australia and Japan as two allies with the capacity to contribute significantly to the collective defence of both Taiwan and the Philippines. Loading Colby views US allies in the region as vital, but he is also wary of their willingness to contribute and commit to collective defence. Specifically, he says Australia, Japan and South Korea may resist formally committing to the defence of Taiwan and the Philippines. He supports the alliance with Australia, noting it has an advanced economy, capable military and is relatively easy to defend due to its distance from China. But Colby also observes that if China dominated South-East Asia, it would make it far more painful, challenging and risky for the US and others to defend Australia. 'The US should therefore seek to enlist Canberra to prepare its forces to aid US efforts to defend the Philippines and Taiwan,' he wrote in the book, and noted Australia was already heading in that direction. Courting controversy Part of Colby's pivot to the Indo-Pacific and containing China means focusing US resources there. He is sceptical about deploying weapons in other conflicts, including Ukraine, and is one of the driving forces behind the latest push for NATO members to lift their defence spending and take care of their own backyard. Colby's recent attempt to halt arms for Ukraine was controversial. The Wall Street Journal reported he wrote a memo in early June outlining how Ukraine's request for more weapons 'could further stretch already depleted Pentagon stockpiles.' But Trump reversed the decision and committed new Patriot missile defence systems to Kyiv (paid for by Europe, he said). Many in Washington see this episode as Colby 'overplaying his hand' – freelancing – even though Hegseth was ultimately responsible for the decision, and reportedly failed to tell the White House in advance. There are also tensions between Defence and the State Department, which was surprised by the AUKUS review. When the review became public, the department sent its diplomats a message 'We are not aware of a review of the AUKUS agreement.' A recent story by Politico unveiled the depth of tensions between Colby and the government. 'He is pissing off just about everyone I know inside the administration,' one person familiar with the situation told the outlet. Some believe Colby is now in a weaker position. However, as one well-connected source told this masthead: 'It would be a mistake on the Australian side to think he's going to go away.' On Friday, Australian ambassador to the US Kevin Rudd told the Aspen Security Forum that Australia was working with Colby and his team on the AUKUS review and was confident of working through each of the issues Colby raised. He indicated they were familiar with each other. Loading ''Bridge' has been round to my place a lot of times,' Rudd said. 'We have known each other for a long period of time.' Former ambassador Arthur Sinodinos, now with the Asia Group and a co-chair of the AUKUS Forum, says it's important to remember Colby is not a think-tank person seeking to apply theoretical views to the real world. 'He has an extensive background in defence strategy, force development and planning, which means he is a serious player in shaping current defence priorities, including on AUKUS,' Sinodinos says. United States Studies Centre chief executive Mike Green, who was on the National Security Council staff from 2001 to 2005, says Colby has made his mark in foreign policy circles by pushing hardest to make the difficult choices many people know are necessary. Part of his success, but also potentially his failure, is that the Trump administration has diminished the usual bureaucratic processes that co-ordinate policy development, such as the NSC. 'So there's much more space for policy entrepreneurs to push their agenda, and 'Bridge' is clearly doing that,' Green says. 'He's seized by urgency, and he's reducing these hard choices down to stark choices, but without the very important interagency process to consider the consequences.' Green says Australia and other allies will likely have to deal with more of this pressure. 'But I don't think it changes the fundamental interests of the United States and key stakeholders to move forward with AUKUS.'
The Age
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Age
‘Bridge' Colby: Who is the ‘maverick' putting AUKUS through the wringer?
Colby opted for a classic liberal arts degree at Harvard University, majoring in history and political and moral theory, where he studied alongside the political philosopher Harvey Mansfield, whom he admires. This background remains a point of pride, and he harbours a slight disdain for the tight-knit – some would say cloistered – world of foreign relations and national security experts. 'I don't identify as a member of the national security community,' Colby told the Intercollegiate Studies Institute last year. 'Where's their source of intellectual and moral confidence? I don't think you're going to find that just by reading the latest textbook on international relations theory.' Later in college, he gravitated toward Cold War history. He graduated and began work in government shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the US. The experience afforded him a 'peanut gallery view' of a pivotal moment in American history, including as a staffer on a commission looking into why US intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was wrong. Colby obtained a law degree from Yale University, but decided it wasn't his calling. His interest is in national security and foreign affairs strategy – concepts, rather than operations or the day-to-day minutiae. Loading 'I think I've always had – it sounds a little ridiculous – but sort of a maverick mindset,' he told the ISI. 'I don't think one should be contrarian. Being able to think for yourself and on your own is good.' In the first Trump administration, Colby served as principal adviser to the defence secretary on defence and foreign policy, and led the development of the 2018 National Defence Strategy, which shifted the US's focus to China. Now he has been tasked with creating a 2025 version. Book of revelations In his 2021 book, The Strategy of Denial, Colby said the US's top strategic priority was to act as an 'external cornerstone balancer' for a strong coalition that can frustrate China's desire for hegemonic power in Asia. The best way to do this, Colby contends, is through a 'denial defence.' The US's goal is not to dominate China militarily, but to deny it the ability to achieve its objectives – peeling off an ally, or seizing or holding an ally's territory. This strategy can only work 'if the United States and its allies and partners apply the needed level of effort and focus,' he wrote. The most obvious of Beijing's targets is Taiwan, which it sees as part of China. For years, Washington's foreign policy establishment has fixated on the notion – suggested by then INDOPACOM commander Phil Davidson in 2021 – that China wants to be ready to attack in 2027, the 100th anniversary of the People's Liberation Army. This masthead and the Financial Times have reported that Colby is asking Australia – and Japan – to make clear commitments about what they would do in the event of a conflict with China over Taiwan. That includes how Australia would use the nuclear-powered submarines it buys from the US under AUKUS. How Canberra handles this will be critically important to the ongoing relationship with Beijing. While Prime Minister Anthony Albanese enjoyed a relatively cozy visit to China last week – even lunching with Chinese President Xi Jinping – Colby's demands loomed over the pomp and ceremony of the trip. He has quickly shifted from relative obscurity to playing a key role in the future of the Australia-China relationship. Meanwhile, a senior US defence official told this masthead that while public reporting had focused on Taiwan, US concerns were broader than that. There are clues in Colby's book as to what that entails. He writes that the Philippines is likely to be Beijing's second-best target among US allies. He identifies Australia and Japan as two allies with the capacity to contribute significantly to the collective defence of both Taiwan and the Philippines. Loading Colby views US allies in the region as vital, but he is also wary of their willingness to contribute and commit to collective defence. Specifically, he says Australia, Japan and South Korea may resist formally committing to the defence of Taiwan and the Philippines. He supports the alliance with Australia, noting it has an advanced economy, capable military and is relatively easy to defend due to its distance from China. But Colby also observes that if China dominated South-East Asia, it would make it far more painful, challenging and risky for the US and others to defend Australia. 'The US should therefore seek to enlist Canberra to prepare its forces to aid US efforts to defend the Philippines and Taiwan,' he wrote in the book, and noted Australia was already heading in that direction. Courting controversy Part of Colby's pivot to the Indo-Pacific and containing China means focusing US resources there. He is sceptical about deploying weapons in other conflicts, including Ukraine, and is one of the driving forces behind the latest push for NATO members to lift their defence spending and take care of their own backyard. Colby's recent attempt to halt arms for Ukraine was controversial. The Wall Street Journal reported he wrote a memo in early June outlining how Ukraine's request for more weapons 'could further stretch already depleted Pentagon stockpiles.' But Trump reversed the decision and committed new Patriot missile defence systems to Kyiv (paid for by Europe, he said). Many in Washington see this episode as Colby 'overplaying his hand' – freelancing – even though Hegseth was ultimately responsible for the decision, and reportedly failed to tell the White House in advance. There are also tensions between Defence and the State Department, which was surprised by the AUKUS review. When the review became public, the department sent its diplomats a message 'We are not aware of a review of the AUKUS agreement.' A recent story by Politico unveiled the depth of tensions between Colby and the government. 'He is pissing off just about everyone I know inside the administration,' one person familiar with the situation told the outlet. Some believe Colby is now in a weaker position. However, as one well-connected source told this masthead: 'It would be a mistake on the Australian side to think he's going to go away.' On Friday, Australian ambassador to the US Kevin Rudd told the Aspen Security Forum that Australia was working with Colby and his team on the AUKUS review and was confident of working through each of the issues Colby raised. He indicated they were familiar with each other. Loading ''Bridge' has been round to my place a lot of times,' Rudd said. 'We have known each other for a long period of time.' Former ambassador Arthur Sinodinos, now with the Asia Group and a co-chair of the AUKUS Forum, says it's important to remember Colby is not a think-tank person seeking to apply theoretical views to the real world. 'He has an extensive background in defence strategy, force development and planning, which means he is a serious player in shaping current defence priorities, including on AUKUS,' Sinodinos says. United States Studies Centre chief executive Mike Green, who was on the National Security Council staff from 2001 to 2005, says Colby has made his mark in foreign policy circles by pushing hardest to make the difficult choices many people know are necessary. Part of his success, but also potentially his failure, is that the Trump administration has diminished the usual bureaucratic processes that co-ordinate policy development, such as the NSC. 'So there's much more space for policy entrepreneurs to push their agenda, and 'Bridge' is clearly doing that,' Green says. 'He's seized by urgency, and he's reducing these hard choices down to stark choices, but without the very important interagency process to consider the consequences.' Green says Australia and other allies will likely have to deal with more of this pressure. 'But I don't think it changes the fundamental interests of the United States and key stakeholders to move forward with AUKUS.'
Sky News AU
4 days ago
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Australia needs the United States for defence, but the US needs Australia too: Albanese government
The trip began with US defence official Elbridge Colby saying that a condition of the AUKUS pact should be that Australia agrees to join the US in any China Taiwan conflict. The Financial Times reported Mr Colby pressed both Australia and Japan to say what role they would play if the US and China went to war over Taiwan. The Albanese government has disregarded these kinds of statements, figuring Mr Colby has about as much status as Australia's Assistant Defence Minister Peter Khalil. Sources indicate that while Australia needs the United States for defence security, the US also needs Australia. However, shadow defence minister Angus Taylor told Sky News that the government should align with the US on its Taiwan position. 'We have a commitment, as does the United States to the status quo in and around Taiwan,' Mr Taylor said on Friday. 'That means peace in the Taiwan Strait. That means a secure Taiwan.' While critics accused the prime minister of engaging in soft diplomacy and indulging in nostalgia during his China visit, Mr Albanese has insisted the trip was a success. In a statement concluding his diplomatic visit, Mr Albanese said the trip "marks another important step in the Australia-China relationship". "A stable and constructive relationship with China is in Australia's national interest," he said on Friday. "We will cooperate where we can, disagree where we must and engage in our national interest." The prime minister said he had made Australia's position on regional security 'very clear' to the Chinese leadership. He raised concerns over Chinese military activity near Australia, particularly naval operations in international waters that coincided with Operation Talisman Sabre. However, he avoided clashing with Chinese President Xi Jinping over the Darwin Port, China's support for Russia or military drills near Australian waters. 'President Xi Jinping said that China engaged in exercises just as Australia engages in exercises,' Mr Albanese said. 'I said what I said at the time … but that we were concerned about the notice and the ways that it happened, including the live-fire exercises.' In response, President Xi reportedly defended China's actions, saying Beijing had the right to conduct its own military drills. The opposition has attacked Mr Albanese's trip to China, characterising it as bloated and lacking hard outcomes. Shadow finance minister James Paterson told Sky News the visit was 'starting to look a little bit indulgent'. 'I do wonder whether… a visit to Chengdu to pose with some pandas… is strictly necessary as part of a six-day visit to China,' he said. 'There is so much else at stake in our other international relationships.' Former Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezzullo echoed the criticism, suggesting the prime minister should have tried to meet with the US instead. 'I wouldn't have done the six days with the pandas and all the rest of it,' Mr Pezzullo told Sky News on Satruday. 'I would have had a shorter, sharper visit. The engagement with the President is important… but the rest of it was optional.' He also said he would have encouraged the prime minister to have 'blunt' discussions behind closed doors about Taiwan, stressing that any conflict would drag Australia in and have devastating consequences.
Sydney Morning Herald
6 days ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
He's a sceptic. So what might Colby recommend to Trump on AUKUS?
Former Reagan administration official Hugh Hewitt didn't mince his words on the AUKUS nuclear submarine pact last week after it emerged Pentagon leaders wanted a guarantee from Australia that the vessels would be used to back the US in the event of conflict with China. 'Why, for example, would we help country A arm itself if country A would not render assistance in a fight?' Hewitt wrote on X. 'If we don't know what our closest allies are genuinely committed to do in the event of a crisis of the first magnitude, can we call them 'close allies'?' His words received backing from the US Defence Department's chief spokesman, Sean Parnell. One of Parnell's bosses, undersecretary of defence for policy Elbridge Colby, is leading the Pentagon's review of AUKUS to see if it fits President Donald Trump's 'America first' agenda. This masthead has reported Colby intends to urge major changes to the program, though the broader Trump administration is split on the best way forward. Those changes could include calls for Australia to lease the submarines rather than buy them; have US crews on board the nuclear boats; or give some form of guarantee to deploy them in conflicts involving the US. So how would those work? And what would that mean for Australia? Commitment to join a conflict US officials say Chinese President Xi Jinping wants the ability to invade the self-governing democratic island of Taiwan by 2027, and defence experts say a conflict over the disputed territory is increasingly likely as China expands its military capabilities. China views the island as a wayward province and an internal issue for the country. Colby believes Australia should provide some form of guarantee that US-made nuclear submarines will be used in a possible conflict with China, this masthead has reported. Australia already has a mechanism to join the US in conflict under the ANZUS treaty. The pact was signed by Australia, New Zealand and the US in 1951 in response to the spread of communism in the Pacific and the rearmament of Japan after World War II.
