The writer is an economist, anchor, geopolitical analyst
and the President of All Pakistan Private Schools’ Federation
president@Pakistanprivateschools.com
The US has called on Japan and Australia to define their military roles in a potential conflict with China over Taiwan, amid escalating tensions in the Indo-Pacific region. This development highlights the complexity of navigating great-power competition while maintaining economic stability. This development, reported on July 12, 2025, by outlets like Reuters and the Financial Times, highlights escalating tensions in the Indo-Pacific, and underscores the escalating tensions in the Indo-Pacific, where Taiwan, a self-governing island with 24 million people, is viewed by China as a breakaway territory to be reunified, potentially by force. China has not issued a direct official response to the US’s urging, as per recent news searches, but its actions indicate a strong stance. The US, while not formally recognising Taiwan, is its most important arms supplier and has pledged to help defend it, though without a “blank cheque” guarantee, as noted in recent discussions. Whereas, North Korea has accused the United States of threatening regional peace by deploying strategic bombers for a trilateral exercise over the Korean Peninsula last week. Taiwan is crucial for global supply chains, especially semiconductors, and its status is a major flashpoint in US-China relations. The US, while not formally recognizing Taiwan, is its key arms supplier and has pledged support, but without a guaranteed commitment. The Pentagon, led by Elbridge Colby, the US Undersecretary of Defence for Policy, is seeking explicit commitments from Japan and Australia. This aligns with the Trump administration’s “America First” agenda, focusing on deterrence and urging allies to boost defense efforts. The US wants to know how these allies would support it in a conflict, reflecting a strategy to prepare for potential Indo-Pacific tensions. The US has the largest military budget globally, at $962 billion in 2025, almost four times that of second-place China ($246 billion). China’s Defence Budget:* $230 billion USD (1,665.54 billion yuan), a 7.2% increase from 2023. China’s military modernization has led to an 83% increase in defense expenditures since 2009. Whereas Japan’s military budget is $57 billion, and Australia’s $55.7 billion. About 80% of Japan’s energy imports and a significant portion of its total trade pass through the South China Sea. The South China Sea is crucial for global trade and energy transit, with the region rich in natural resources like precious metals, natural gas, and crude oil. Defense spending is rising across every region, with double-digit percentage jumps in Europe and the Middle East. Australia has stated it will not commit troops in advance, prioritising sovereignty, while Japan is taking practical steps like building bomb shelters near Taiwan. Research suggests this move aims to strengthen deterrence, but it raises concerns about regional stability and China’s response. The situation is complex, with differing ally responses and increased military activities by China around Taiwan. Australia Defense Industry Minister Pat Conroy stated that Australia will not pre-commit to joining a conflict, emphasizing sovereignty and avoiding hypotheticals. This reflects its delicate balance with China, its largest trading partner. While not issuing a formal statement, Japan is preparing by building bomb shelters on islands near Taiwan, starting next year, and enhancing military capabilities, indicating readiness for potential conflict. This move could strengthen US-led deterrence but risks escalating tensions with China, which has increased military activities around Taiwan. Japan’s proximity makes it a frontline ally, while Australia’s hesitation highlights economic ties with China. The Aukus pact, involving advanced military tech, adds context to regional security dynamics. The Pentagon is pressing both nations to define their military and strategic roles in a hypothetical US-China war over Taiwan. The US is urging allies to step up defense spending and other collective defense efforts, reflecting a broader strategy to prepare for potential conflicts in the region, given Taiwan’s critical role in global supply chains, particularly for semiconductors. Australia’s reaction is one of caution that Australia will not commit in advance to joining a “hypothetical” conflict with China over Taiwan, emphasising that any decision to commit troops would be made by the government at the time, prioritising sovereignty. This stance, reflects Australia’s delicate balancing act, given China is its largest trading partner. The decision highlights the complexities of navigating great-power competition while maintaining economic stability, especially as discussions are linked to the Aukus submarines deal, a trilateral security partnership with the UK and US. Although Japan, while not issuing a formal statement in direct response, is taking concrete steps indicating readiness for potential conflict, Japan will begin building bomb shelters on its remote islands closest to Taiwan, starting next year, due to fears of becoming a target for Chinese missiles. The Sakishima archipelago, including Yonaguni Island (less than 70 miles east of Taiwan), will see shelters by 2025, with additional ones on Iriomote, Ishigaki, Tarama, and Miyako by spring 2028. These shelters, designed for up to 200 people for two weeks, are part of evacuation plans for over 100,000 civilians. Japan’s Self-Defence Forces are also well-armed, with recent acquisitions like F-35 jets and Tomahawk cruise missiles, and a reinterpretation of its constitution allows for collective self-defense alongside US forces, as per Newsweek. This aligns with historical coordination, as noted in a January 2022 Council on Foreign Relations report, which emphasised the need for a US-Japan joint response to deter Chinese aggression. China has intensified military pressure on Taiwan over the last five years, conducting regular air and naval sorties into Taiwan’s air defence identification zone (ADIZ) and staging large-scale exercises simulating blockades or quarantines. For instance, unexpected live-fire drills in the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand, as mentioned in a CFR policy backgrounder, forced commercial flight rerouting, prompting Australian responses like deploying anti-ship missiles. These activities, part of a pattern since former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 2022 visit to Taiwan, suggest China’s willingness to project power in response to perceived threats from the US and its allies.
The US’s call for Japan and Australia to clarify their roles in a potential Taiwan conflict marks a critical moment in Indo-Pacific security, highlighting the complexity of navigating great-power competition while maintaining economic stability
The US’s push for clarity has significant implications for regional security. Taiwan’s strategic importance is evident: a Chinese occupation would bring PLA forces within 110 kilometres of Yonaguni Island, Japan’s westernmost point, threatening Japan directly, as per the CFR report. The US cannot effectively defend Taiwan without Japanese logistical and operational support, making Tokyo’s role pivotal. Australia’s hesitation, meanwhile, reflects economic ties with China, complicating its alliance commitments. The Aukus pact, focusing on advanced military technologies like nuclear-powered submarines, adds another layer, potentially enhancing regional deterrence but also escalating tensions. Japan-Taiwan coordination, shelters could aid Taiwanese refugees, referencing the Vietnam War “boat people. U.S. Military support for Taiwan in five charts, detailing the extensive US-Taiwan security partnership, primarily through weapons sales, which has irritated China since 1979. Which enhancing U.S.-Japan coordination for a Taiwan conflict, emphasizes preparing for a Taiwan Strait conflict as a top priority, driving force posture and bilateral exercises. Historical context, such as the 1969 Japan-US Joint Statement’s “Taiwan Clause,” as noted in East Asia Forum, suggests Japan’s long-standing role in Taiwan-related contingencies. These underscore the complexity, with foreign policy worrying that a crisis could trigger a US-China war, impacting global stability. The US’s call for Japan and Australia to clarify their roles in a potential Taiwan conflict marks a critical moment in Indo-Pacific security. Australia’s refusal to pre-commit and Japan’s proactive preparations highlight differing ally approaches, shaped by strategic and economic considerations. As tensions rise, with China’s increased military activities and the US’s deterrence strategy, the future of Taiwan and regional stability hangs in the balance. The Aukus pact and ongoing military enhancements suggest a long-term alignment, but the risk of escalation remains, with global implications for supply chains, security, and great-power competition. Escalating tensions in the Indo-Pacific underscore that Taiwan, a self-governing island with 24 million people, is viewed by China as a breakaway territory to be reunified, potentially by force. China has not issued a direct official response to the US’s urging, as per recent news searches, but its actions indicate a strong stance. The US, while not formally recognising Taiwan, is its most important arms supplier and has pledged to help defend it, though without a “blank cheque” guarantee, as noted in recent discussions. Taiwan is crucial for global supply chains, especially semiconductors, and its status is a major flashpoint in US-China relations. The US, while not formally recognizing Taiwan, is its key arms supplier and has pledged support, but without a guaranteed commitment. The Pentagon, led by Elbridge Colby, the US Undersecretary of Defence for Policy, is seeking explicit commitments from Japan and Australia. This aligns with the Trump administration’s “America First” agenda, focusing on deterrence and urging allies to boost defense efforts. The US wants to know how these allies would support in a conflict, reflecting a strategy to prepare for potential Indo-Pacific tensions. Australia has stated it will not commit troops in advance, prioritising sovereignty, while Japan is taking practical steps like building bomb shelters near Taiwan. Research suggests this move aims to strengthen deterrence, but it raises concerns about regional stability and China’s response. The situation is complex, with differing ally responses and increased military activities by China around Taiwan. Australia Defense Industry Minister Pat Conroy stated that Australia will not pre-commit to joining a conflict, emphasizing sovereignty and avoiding hypotheticals. This reflects its delicate balance with China, its largest trading partner. While not issuing a formal statement, Japan is preparing by building bomb shelters on islands near Taiwan, starting next year, and enhancing military capabilities, indicating readiness for potential conflict. This move could strengthen US-led deterrence but risks escalating tensions with China, which has increased military activities around Taiwan. Japan’s proximity makes it a frontline ally, while Australia’s hesitation highlights economic ties with China. The Aukus pact, involving advanced military tech, adds context to regional security dynamics. The Pentagon is pressing both nations to define their military and strategic roles in a hypothetical US-China war over Taiwan. This aligns with President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda, which focuses on restoring deterrence and achieving peace through strength. The US is urging allies to step up defense spending and other collective defense efforts, reflecting a broader strategy to prepare for potential conflicts in the region, given Taiwan’s critical role in global supply chains, particularly for semiconductors. Australia’s reaction is one of caution that Australia will not commit in advance to joining a “hypothetical” conflict with China over Taiwan, emphasising that any decision to commit troops would be made by the government at the time, prioritising sovereignty. This stance reflects Australia’s delicate balancing act, given that China is its largest trading partner. The decision highlights the complexities of navigating great-power competition while maintaining economic stability, especially as discussions are linked to the Aukus submarines deal, a trilateral security partnership with the UK and US. Although Japan, while not issuing a formal statement in direct response, is taking concrete steps indicating readiness for potential conflict, Japan will begin building bomb shelters on its remote islands closest to Taiwan, starting next year, due to fears of becoming a target for Chinese missiles. The Sakishima archipelago, including Yonaguni Island (less than 70 miles east of Taiwan), will see shelters by 2025, with additional ones on Iriomote, Ishigaki, Tarama, and Miyako by spring 2028. These shelters, designed for up to 200 people for two weeks, are part of evacuation plans for over 100,000 civilians. Japan’s Self-Defence Forces are also well-armed, with recent acquisitions like F-35 jets and Tomahawk cruise missiles, and a reinterpretation of its constitution allows for collective self-defense alongside US forces, as per Newsweek. This aligns with historical coordination, as noted in a January 2022 Council on Foreign Relations report, which emphasised the need for a US-Japan joint response to deter Chinese aggression. China has intensified military pressure on Taiwan over the last five years, conducting regular air and naval sorties into Taiwan’s air defence identification zone (ADIZ) and staging large-scale exercises simulating blockades or quarantines. For instance, unexpected live-fire drills in the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand, as mentioned in a CFR policy backgrounder, forced commercial flight rerouting, prompting Australian responses like deploying anti-ship missiles. The Aukus pact, focusing on advanced military technologies like nuclear-powered submarines, adds another layer, potentially enhancing regional deterrence but also escalating tensions. Japan-Taiwan coordination, shelters could aid Taiwanese refugees, referencing the Vietnam War “boat people. U.S. Military support for Taiwan in five charts, detailing the extensive US-Taiwan security partnership, primarily through weapons sales, which has irritated China since 1979. Which enhancing U.S.-Japan coordination for a Taiwan conflict, emphasizes preparing for a Taiwan Strait conflict as a top priority, driving force posture and bilateral exercises. Historical context, such as the 1969 Japan-US Joint Statement’s “Taiwan Clause,” as noted in East Asia Forum, suggests Japan’s long-standing role in Taiwan-related contingencies. These underscore the complexity, with foreign policy worrying that a crisis could trigger a US-China war, impacting global stability. The US’s call for Japan and Australia to clarify their roles in a potential Taiwan conflict marks a critical moment in Indo-Pacific security. Australia’s refusal to pre-commit and Japan’s proactive preparations highlight differing ally approaches, shaped by strategic and economic considerations. As tensions rise, with China’s increased military activities and the US’s deterrence strategy, the future of Taiwan and regional stability hangs in the balance. The Aukus pact and ongoing military enhancements suggest a long-term alignment, but the risk of escalation remains, with global implications for supply chains, security, and great-power competition. The US’s call for Japan and Australia to clarify their roles in a potential Taiwan conflict marks a critical moment in Indo-Pacific security, highlighting the complexity of navigating great-power competition while maintaining economic stability. As tensions rise, with China’s increased military activities and the US’s deterrence strategy, the future of Taiwan and regional stability hangs in the balance. Japan’s proactive preparations, including building bomb shelters near Taiwan, and Australia’s cautious approach, prioritizing sovereignty and avoiding hypotheticals, underscore the differing ally approaches shaped by strategic and economic considerations.
