Australia's enduring love affair with the US is at a critical point
Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket.
As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall.
It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt.
As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive.
Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential.
Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability.
In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance.
In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity.
Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate.
The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against.
McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold.
Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism.
Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here.
"Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian.
As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium.
READ MORE KENNY:
It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms.
As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back.
Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it.
Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too.
To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes?
Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation?
Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997).
Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket.
As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall.
It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt.
As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive.
Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential.
Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability.
In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance.
In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity.
Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate.
The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against.
McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold.
Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism.
Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here.
"Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian.
As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium.
READ MORE KENNY:
It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms.
As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back.
Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it.
Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too.
To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes?
Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation?
Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997).
Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket.
As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall.
It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt.
As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive.
Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential.
Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability.
In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance.
In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity.
Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate.
The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against.
McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold.
Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism.
Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here.
"Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian.
As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium.
READ MORE KENNY:
It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms.
As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back.
Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it.
Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too.
To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes?
Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation?
Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997).
Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket.
As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall.
It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt.
As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive.
Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential.
Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability.
In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance.
In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity.
Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate.
The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against.
McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold.
Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism.
Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here.
"Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian.
As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium.
READ MORE KENNY:
It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms.
As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back.
Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it.
Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too.
To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes?
Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
7 minutes ago
- AU Financial Review
Trump calls on China to quadruple US soybean imports
Beijing | Donald Trump has called on China to quadruple its imports of American soybeans to reduce its trade surplus with the US, a day before a crucial truce between the two countries is due to expire. The US president's comments address one of the key political pressure points for Washington in its trade war with Beijing – the negative impact of high Chinese tariffs on farmers who see China as one of their biggest markets. Financial Times
West Australian
7 minutes ago
- West Australian
Free ride could soon be over for EV owners as the Australian Government eyes national road-user charge
The free ride could soon be over for electric vehicle owners with the Australian Government confirming it's eyeing a national road-user charge. As petrol and diesel cars disappear from the roads, senior Labor ministers admit it's 'no secret' EV drivers may soon face new fees to help pay for Australia's crumbling infrastructure amid speculation it's on the agenda at next week's economic reform roundtable. Tanya Plibersek said the measure was being considered as declining numbers of petrol and diesel vehicles eroded Australia's fuel excise revenue — a major source of road funding. 'It's no secret that as the number of petrol vehicles and diesel vehicles goes down, the take from fuel excise decreases. That means less money for building and maintaining roads. So, the States and Territories have been looking at this for some time,' she said. She stressed any charge 'wouldn't be happening tomorrow' but said it was important to consider long-term measures to secure road funding. 'I'm sure the Treasurer will be very interested in the discussion,' she said. Fellow frontbencher Murray Watt downplayed the discussions. 'It's no secret that we've said previously we'll work with the states and territories on this matter,' Watt said. Senator Watt said it was too 'premature' to say when the charge would be enforced: 'I wouldn't want to jump ahead of any sort of decision-making with that'. 'You'd be aware that there was a High Court decision which really raised this issue front and centre and ever since then, we've been working with the states and territories,' he added. Victoria had tried to implement a State-based road-user charge in 2021 but the proposal was struck down in 2023 by the High Court of Australia. Identifying that it needs to be introduced at a Federal level the Albanese Government is working on a scheme of its own. Federal Labor support for the charge came as Treasurer Jim Chalmers attended an Infrastructure Partnerships Australia-hosted road-user charging forum alongside industry members and public servants in Sydney on Monday. IPA chief executive Adrian Dwyer told the ABC momentum was growing to introduce a distance-based charge for EV owners and said it would have little impact on EV adoption. Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce said he supported EV drivers paying their fair share. 'They definitely should, 100 per cent they should,' Mr Joyce said. Mr Joyce said current system unfairly benefitted city drivers who were less likely to use combustion-powered vehicles than those in the regions. 'I have a sense there's a lot of EVs in Tanya's electorate. We out here are overwhelmingly combustion engines because… it's different terrain and we feel that we're paying the excise that other people in the inner city are getting away with,' he said. Opposition leader Sussan Ley accused the Albanese Government of convening the three-day roundtable next week to 'work out how they can levy more taxes on Australians' using the EV charge as an example. 'They're getting ready for their productivity roundtable. It's three days of working out how they can levy more taxes on Australians. We're watching them closely,' she told 4GB radio on Monday. Roads Australia chief executive Ehssan Veiszadeh was among guests at the Sydney forum and welcomed the charge, saying there needed to be a fair, transparent and future-ready fee system. 'Fuel excise revenue is in terminal decline. Without reform, we risk a future where our roads are underfunded, unsafe, and unable to support the demands of a growing population,' Mr Veiszadeh said. 'We're not just talking about replacing a tax — we're talking about rebuilding equity in how we fund the roads Australians rely on every day,' Mr Veiszadeh said. Australian Automobile Association managing director Michael Bradley was also in attendance. Other nations, including New Zealand, have already implemented all road user charge.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Deputy sheriff' no more: Why Australia broke from the US on Palestinian recognition
The Albanese government's decision to recognise a Palestinian state marks a historic moment in Australian foreign policy, even if the move is likely to have little to no practical impact on the Middle East in the foreseeable future. The shift has been years in the making, but momentum accelerated dramatically over the past fortnight as global events convinced Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong that now was the time to cross the Rubicon. Long derided as the United States' 'deputy sheriff' in the Asia-Pacific, Australia is asserting its independence from the Trump administration on a defining issue, even as the mercurial president weighs up the future of the AUKUS pact and possible tariffs on Australian pharmaceutical imports. Wong called US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday to tip him off about the decision, but this was merely a courtesy call. Rubio has warned that recognising Palestine now would reward Hamas for its October 7 attacks and embolden it to act as a spoiler in ceasefire talks over the war in Gaza. These warnings carried no weight with Wong, even though the US would have to support recognition for Palestine to be admitted as a United Nations member state. While disappointing our closest security partner, the announcement will be welcomed throughout South-East Asia, especially in Muslim majority countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia. It puts Australia in the same basket as Spain, Ireland, France, the United Kingdom, Canada and other like-minded nations that have recently recognised or flagged they intend to recognise Palestine. New Zealand is likely to follow at the United Nations General Assembly next month. Just a few weeks ago, Albanese was saying publicly, as well as privately to Jewish community leaders, that there was no imminent decision on recognising Palestine. He stressed that particular conditions had to be met on the Palestinian side, and that he did not want any move by Australia to amount to a mere gesture. Loading Despite his cautious instincts, Albanese ultimately felt he could not leave Australia isolated as countries use it as a tool to try to revive hopes for a two-state solution and community anger mounts at the devastating and seemingly endless war in Gaza. 'The world cannot wait for success to be guaranteed,' Albanese said on Monday. 'That only means waiting for a day that will never come. There is a moment of opportunity here, and Australia will work with the international community to seize it.' In one sense, there is something surreal about the growing push to recognise Palestine, given how disconnected it is from events in Gaza. When Albanese and Wong speak about adding to momentum towards a two-state solution, they are talking only in terms of international diplomacy, not in terms of the current reality in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. The goal is not to bring a Palestinian state into effect in the near future, but to keep the very idea of it alive.
