Israel-Iran conflict raises questions about Australia's relationship with the US
As the world holds its breath over Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu's arm wrestle about whether to drop US "bunker busters" on Iran's nuclear facilities, Australians have every right to feel confused and concerned.
Is this proof we've inadvertently yoked ourselves as a nation to the whims of madmen?
Does the US-Australia alliance — normally a source of national comfort — hide fearsome consequences? Will we be drawn into a new conflagration involving nuclear powers? Do we have a choice? Is our sovereignty at risk?
Or is there a logic to what Israel is doing against Tehran's nuclear program that serves the interests of Australians, even if we dislike the process? Disarming a dangerous regime accused of spreading terror around the world must surely be a good thing?
Either way, Richard Marles told 730 on Tuesday that "we are not a part of this conflict" in the Middle East even as the defence minister doggedly side-stepped questions from my colleague David Speers about the nature of our support for potential American involvement in Iran.
"Can I just clarify, is the US allowed to launch any missions from Australia's northern bases?," Speers asked.
"Well, again, there's a whole lot of speculation in all of that".
Not really. Are they allowed to or not?
"That's a simple question about what permission the US has regardless of what's happening right now," Speers pressed.
"Well, we have a system of full knowledge and concurrence in terms of the way in which any country operates from Australia and that includes the United States," Marles eventually explained.
The minister's choice of language was deliberate and strategic. And purposefully obtuse.
Having full "knowledge and concurrence" of what American military forces are doing on Australian soil sounds vaguely comforting.
In practice, it's a long way from what it might imply. Concurrence is not the same as "approval" or "consent" — both of which ascribe the granter an implicit and concrete veto.
Concurrence leaves open the possibility that Americans do what they want from their Australian-based assets, perhaps seeking forgiveness rather than permission.
Such questions and constructive ambiguity emerge every time an American administration signs up to war-fighting.
But this is not a normal American administration and these are not normal times. The notion this generation of Australians can stand as aloof observers of far-off events could soon be tested.
It was only on Monday that Marles triggered a frisson among the defence and strategic community when he stated that China's regional military build-up means "Australia's geography today is more relevant to great power contest than it has been at any point since the end of the Second World War, arguably at any point in our history".
At face value — the notion that Australia now has a great big target on its back — is stating the bleeding obvious.
But hearing it directly from an acting Labor prime minister is a significant escalation in rhetoric.
Marles was emphasising — in essence — that Australia's unique geography and the traditional tyranny of distance means the country does not need to spend what the Trump administration is demanding.
The problem, says Marles, is that the nation's strategic interests are in protecting global sea routes that supply Australia's fuels and export revenues.
"Our risk is not so much the invasion of the continent," Marles told a security forum in Parliament House hosted by News Corp on Monday.
"We are fortunate that we are an island nation surrounded by oceans.
"But on the other hand, we are deeply reliant on our sea lines of communication."
Almost all of our liquid fuels are imported by sea, he said, but also through export revenues.
"And so that is our strategic risk. It's the disruption of those sea lines," he said.
"It's the coercion that could result because of the disruption of such sea routes, it is that, and the stability of the region in which we live."
The cost of managing those risks is to work with the US on regional security. And to contribute elsewhere when called upon.
Anthony Albanese's frustrated attempts to have a meeting with Donald Trump at the G7 meeting in Canada this week have garnered much attention.
Claims of being "snubbed" by the US president are silly, given he did the same to other leaders, including India's Narendra Modi.
It's not obvious what benefit Albanese would have secured in Alberta either. Trump is in no mood to grant trade exemptions and any assurance about AUKUS is now subject to a Pentagon review.
Should the first meeting between the men occur in September, as the government is indicating, then both of those issues might have been resolved.
As the PM flies back to Australia, he is now considering whether to race off again next week to a NATO summit in The Hague, which Trump is expected to attend.
This poses at least two risks. Critics may accuse Albanese of starting to look desperate in his efforts to meet the president. Can Trump be relied upon to even show up?
And the prime minister would also be running headlong into Europe's debate about levels of military spending.
NATO boss Mark Rutte wants defence spending lifted to 5 per cent of gross domestic product — which would make Albanese's stated goal of 2.4 per cent look pretty lame.
For now, the government is arguing that it would be good to be in the NATO room given the level of global uncertainty.
But it has not yet explained to Australians what that looks like in reality. Will the US be using Australian bases in its strikes on Tehran, for instance, by providing re-fuelling services as appeared to be the case for long-range US bombings on Houthi targets last year?
Foreign Minister Penny Wong on Wednesday hardened her rhetoric against Iran's regime, having started the week urging the US and Israeli governments to show "restraint".
Wong said the "fastest way out of the danger" is for Iran to "come to the table and stop any nuclear weapons program".
"Ultimately, the Iranian regime has to make a decision about whether it is going to continue down a path that is so perilous.
"The point that we are at, I think we can all see that Iran needs to come back to the table and stop any program."
If the conflict erupts, many voters and no doubt parts of Labor's party room will fast become dissatisfied by Marles's "full knowledge and concurrence" explanation.
The term itself dates back to the early 1970s, when the Whitlam government was outraged to learn that America was using the North West Cape facility to communicate with nuclear-armed Polaris submarines in the Indian Ocean.
But it wasn't until the Hawke government that it was formalised in a 1988 treaty with the Reagan administration in relation to joint operations at Pine Gap.
In a speech to parliament in June 2013, then Labor defence minister Stephen Smith said full knowledge "equates to Australia having a full and detailed understanding of any capability or activity with a presence on Australian territory or making use of Australian assets".
'Concurrence' means Australia approves the presence of a capability or function in Australia in support of its mutually agreed goals."
Smith then added a critical caveat: "Concurrence does not mean that Australia approves every activity or tasking undertaken".
Defence officials and experts — on both sides of the alliance — are understood to be in the midst of a spirited debate about whether "full knowledge and concurrence" (FK&C for short) needs to be reworked in light of the deepening use of Australian soil and waters for US military activities.
It might have been enough to clarify things when the alliance was mostly about satellites and communications and over-the-horizon radar activities.
But a hot war in the Middle East involving heavy bombers and other things is something quite different.
Alex Bristow, senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says the government would be "very reticent to get too directly embroiled in this conflict", though the Americans might request some level of support.
Bristow notes the Australian Defence Department took the "unusual step" of confirming an ABC story that Australia's northern bases likely supported air-to-air refueling operations for US B-2 stealth bombers flying from the continental US for missions against Houthi targets in October.
"Such bombers could play a key role in potential US strikes on Iran, as they can deliver large 'bunker-buster' bombs to hit underground targets that the Israelis would struggle to reach," he says.
Australia may be called upon in other ways, "like contributing to maritime security around the Middle East, or backfilling US capabilities nearer to Australia to free up US forces to deploy to the Middle East".
Marles's statement that "Australia's geography and continent would be crucial to any United States prosecution of a war against China will go down as a dark moment in Australia's history", said Paul Keating on Monday.
Accusing the Labor government of having "intellectually ceded Australia to the United States as a platform for the US" for "military engagement against the Chinese state", Keating warned that Labor's "grassroots will not support Australia being dragged into a war with and by the United States over Taiwan".
"The large majority of new members of the parliamentary Labor Party will not find community support for such a course of action," he said.
Keating's anger is not isolated.
Many continue to call for a proper debate over the terms and circumstances of America's involvement on our continent.
A debate that many believe should have been conducted in full when the Gillard government and Smith agreed with the Obama administration to allow US troops to rotate through a base in Darwin.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
34 minutes ago
- ABC News
Calls for electric bike owners to pay for registration, CTP insurance and licensing
A Queensland MP says he backs residents in his electorate's calls for e-bikes and e-scooters to be registered and thereby covered by compulsory third-party (CTP) insurance. The state announced a parliamentary inquiry into e-bike safety last month which has already attracted more than 600 public submissions. While some of the submissions available on the government's website were in support of e-bikes as a more sustainable alternative to cars, many called for better enforcement of speed limits and a registration scheme. No changes will be made until after the final report is tabled in March next year. Outraged demands for registration or licensing for bicycles on the road have been raised over the years, but it has never been seriously considered in Australia. Amid the growing popularity of e-bikes, Burleigh MP Hermann Vorster said the review could lead to stricter laws for personal mobility devices. "People are pushing for a registration scheme and they want to see some form of CTP [insurance]," he said. According to Mr Vorster, it was the number one issue raised by his constituents, and 500 people from his electorate had expressed interest in making a submission to the inquiry. He said residents were frustrated by machines being driven dangerously and said the community was calling for a road rules test for unlicensed young riders. "Something needs to be done," he said. Mr Vorster said there was no proposal to ban the devices, "but we need to make sure they are being used in a safe way." Although residents have been calling for registration and insurance, Mr Vorster did not explain what law changes he would be advocating for. He said any changes would need to strike a balance between encouraging active transport that helped take cars off the road with the safety of elderly people and young children walking on the footpath. Gold Coast councillor Nick Marshall said all levels of government had a role to play. "I believe it's probably headed to a place where there is some sort of registration required," Mr Marshall said. "The people I talk to in my community certainly think that's really important, so people who do the wrong thing can be identified." He said the city could aim to reduce the impact on pedestrians by installing bollards and creating separate e-bike paths. Cycling advocacy group Bicycle Queensland has made a submission to the inquiry and is a staunch opponent of registration for e-bikes, which it said added an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Interim chief executive Liana Heath said the high-powered bikes attracting complaints were already illegal, and the government should enforce the existing laws and ensure the bikes that retailers sold were compliant. "We are concerned about the rapid growth of illegal e-bikes, and the safety of riders and the public is our priority," Ms Heath said. She said authorities should be encouraging active transport. "We should be facilitating the uptake of active transport and really embracing the active transport revolution, not hindering it or putting in obstacles," she said.
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Australia backs Trump on Iran, says regime ‘has a choice'
Australia's chief diplomat is backing Donald Trump's stance on Iran, saying the Islamic republic 'has a choice' as the US President mulls American intervention. Mr Trump overnight said he still had not decided if he would order a US strike on Iran but that his patience with the regime had 'already run out'. It came after he demanded Iran give up its nuclear program and unconditionally surrender. Foreign Minister Penny Wong said on Thursday 'the world faces a dangerous moment'. 'We know that conflict in the Middle East historically has led to instability, to security risks beyond the region,' Senator Wong told Seven. 'First, we agree with president Trump that nothing is too late. 'Iran has a choice here, and the choice should be to return to the table and engage in dialogue and diplomacy. 'We see the situation there and as tough as their words might be, I think we all know the situation that they face and it's time for them to return to the table.' She warned there was a 'risk of regional escalation of this conflict getting larger, spreading, the consequences for all the people's of the region and more broadly the globe'. Israel and Iran continued trading deadly strikes into the early hours of Thursday. The week-long fighting has caused civilian deaths on both sides. About 2700 Australians and their close family members have requested government help to evacuate – a challenge as airspaces remain closed in the region. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has vowed to pulverise Israel. But with many of Iran's most senior military officials and nuclear scientists dead and most of its key uranium enrichment facilities severely damaged, it is unclear how much longer his regime can continue. An emergency UN Security Council meeting has been scheduled for Friday.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Australian EV drivers to get hit with new tax, if goverment gets its way
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has flagged the development of a new road-user charge across Australia for drivers of electric vehicles to ensure EV drivers are contributing a fair share to road upgrades. The Treasurer has made no secret of his support for a shake-up of the current system before the election, raising the idea with business leaders in February. But the debate over road-user charges (RUC) for electric vehicles is now set to be reignited as a result of his speech to the national press club. 'We will also continue to work with states and territories on the future of road-user charging,'' Dr Chalmers said. 'All of this represents a big agenda on the supply side of our economy. None of these reforms are simple.' How does fuel excise work? The current rate of fuel excise is 50.8 cents in excise for every litre of fuel purchased. For a typical household with a car running on petrol, the tax costs more than $1200 a year. But the flat sales tax isn't paid by drivers of pure electric vehicles, who simply need to plug in their cars to recharge. While registration and driver's licence fees go to state and territory governments, fuel excise is collected by the federal government. Australian motorists paid an estimated $15.71 billion in net fuel excise in 2023-24, and are expected to pay $67.6 billion over the four years to 2026-27. However, governments have long-warned that a road-user charge will be required to fill the gap in the budget left by declining revenue from the fuel excise, as the petrol and diesel engines in new cars consume less fuel and Australians adopt hybrid and electric cars. What does the AAA say? The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) is calling for a national approach to road-user charging but wants a guarantee the revenue will be earmarked for road upgrades. The AAA backs a distance-based road-user charging as a fairer and more equitable way to fund land transport infrastructure. The 2024 federal budget forecasted a reduction in fuel excise receipts by $470 million over four years from 2024-25. Roadblocks to reform Currently, New South Wales is the only state with firm plans to introduce a road-user charge from 2027 or when EVs reach 30 per cent of new car sales. Plug-in hybrid EVs will be charged a fixed 80 per cent proportion of the full road-user charge to reflect their vehicle type. Western Australia has also stated an intention to implement a road-user charge. Meanwhile, Victoria's electric vehicle levy had to be scrapped following a ruling from the High Court. Two Victorian electric car owners launched a legal challenge on the basis the tax was not legal as it was an excise that only a federal government could impose. They won with the High Court upholding the legal challenge. There have been several false starts to enshrine a road-user charge including in South Australia, where the former Liberal Government planned to introduce a charge for plug-in electric and other zero emission vehicles, which included a fixed component and a variable charge based on distance travelled. It was later pushed back to 2027 due to a backlash before the legislation was ultimately repealed. 'Gold standard' for reform Some experts argue the gold standard for reform is a variable rate that factors in the vehicle's mass, distance travelled, location, and time of day. But there's a big barrier to the Commonwealth imposing those charges because the Constitution prohibits it from imposing taxes that discriminate between states or parts of states. State governments could impose those levies, but as the experience of the Victorian Government underlines, it is legally complex.
