
Goodbye to all that? Trump's America and Australia's choice
If they're not, they ought to read the two essays under review here. They offer a host of compelling reasons why a reassessment of the costs, benefits and possible future trajectory of the alliance is long overdue.
And yet, notwithstanding the cogency and timeliness of the critiques offered by Emma Shortis and Hugh White, it seems unlikely either of these will be read, much less acted upon, by those Shortis describes as the 'mostly men in suits or uniforms, with no democratic accountability' who make security policy on our behalf.
White, emeritus professor of strategic studies at the ANU, was the principal author of Australia's Defense White Paper in 2000. Despite having been a prominent member of the defence establishment, it is unlikely even his observations will prove any more palatable to its current incumbents.
Shortis, an historian and writer, is director of the Australia Institute's International & Security Affairs Program. She is also a young woman, and while this shouldn't matter, I suspect it does; at least to the 'mostly men' who guard the nation from a host of improbable threats while ignoring what is arguably the most likely and important one: climate change.
To Shortis's great credit, she begins her essay with a discussion of a 'world on fire' in which the Trump administration is 'locking in a bleaker future.'
This matters for both generational and geographical reasons. While we live in what is arguably the safest place on the planet, the country has the rare distinction of regularly experiencing once-in-100-year floods and droughts, sometimes simultaneously.
If that's not a threat to security, especially of the young, it's hard to know what is. It's not one the current government or any other in this country has ever taken seriously enough.
White gives a rather perfunctory acknowledgement of this reality, reflecting an essentially traditional understanding of security – even if some of his conclusions will induce conniptions in Canberra.
While suggesting Trump is 'the most prodigious liar in history', White thinks he's done Australia a favor by 'puncturing the complacency' surrounding the alliance and our unwillingness to contemplate a world in which the US is not the reliable bedrock of security.
Shortis doubts the US ever was a trustworthy or reliable ally. This helps explain what she calls the 'strategy of pre-emptive capitulation', in which Australian policymakers fall over themselves to appear useful and supportive to their 'great and powerful friend.'
Former prime minister John Howard's activation of the ANZUS alliance in the wake of September 11 and the disastrous decision to take part in the war in Iraq is perhaps the most egregious example of this unfortunate national proclivity.
White reminds us that all alliances are always transactional. Despite talk of a 'history of mateship', it's vital to recognize if the great power doesn't think something is in its 'national interest', it won't be doing favors for allies. No matter how ingratiating and obliging they may be. While such observations may be unwelcome in Canberra, hopefully they won't come as a revelation.
Although White is one of Australia's most astute critics of the conventional wisdom, sceptics and aspiring peace-builders will find little to cheer in his analysis.
A good deal of his essay is taken up with the strategic situations in Europe and Asia. The discussion offers a penetrating, but rather despair-inducing insight into humanity's collective predicament: only by credibly threatening our notional foes with nuclear Armageddon can we hope to keep the peace.
The problem we now face, White argues, is the likes of Russia and China are beginning to doubt America's part in the 'balance of resolve.' During the Cold War, both sides were confident about the other side's ability and willingness to blow them to pieces.
Now mutual destruction is less assured. While some of us might think this was a cause for cautious celebration, White suggests it fatally undermines the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons.
Even before Trump reappeared, this was a source of angst and/or uncertainty for strategists around the world. The principle underpinning international order in a world in which nuclear weapons exist, according to White, is that
a nuclear power can be stopped, but only by an unambiguous demonstration of willingness to fight a nuclear war to stop it.
Trump represents a suitably existential threat to this cheery doctrine. Europeans have belatedly recognised the US is no longer reliable and they are responsible for their own security.
Likewise, an ageing Xi Jinping may want to assure his position in China's pantheon of great leaders by forcibly returning Taiwan to the motherland. It would be an enormous gamble, of course, but given Trump's admiration for Xi, and Trump's apparent willingness to see the world carved up into 19th-century-style spheres of influence, it can't be ruled out.
If there's one thing both authors agree on it's that the AUKUS nuclear submarine project, the notional centrepiece of Australia's future security is vastly overrated. It's either a 'disaster' (Shortis) or 'insignificant' (White).
Likewise, they agree the US is only going to help Australia if it's judged to be in America's interest to do so. Recognizing quite what an ill-conceived, ludicrously expensive, uncertain project AUKUS is, and just how unreliable a partner the US has become under Trump, might be a useful step on the path to national strategic self-awareness.
Shortis thinks some members of the Trump administration appear to be 'aligned with Russia.' Tying ourselves closer to the US, she writes, 'does not make us safer.' A major rethink of, and debate about, Australia's security policy is clearly necessary.
Policymakers also ought to take seriously White's arguments about the need to reconfigure the armed forces to defend Australia independently in an increasingly uncertain international environment.
Perhaps the hardest idea for Australia's unimaginative strategic elites to grasp is that, as White points out,
Asia's future, and Australia's, will not be decided in Washington. It will be decided in Asia.
Former prime minister Paul Keating's famous remark, 'Australia needs to seek its security in Asia rather than from Asia' remains largely unheeded. Despite plausible suggestions about developing closer strategic ties with Indonesia and even cooperating with China to offer leadership on climate change, some ideas remain sacrosanct and alternatives remain literally inconceivable.
Even if we take a narrow view of the nature of security – one revolving around possible military threats to Australia – US Defense Secretary Pete Hesgeth's demands for greater defence spending on our part confirm White's point that,
it is classic Trump to expect more and more from allies while he offers them less and less. This is the dead end into which our 'America First' defence policy has led us.
Quite so.
Australia's strategic elites have locked us into the foreign and strategic policies of an increasingly polarised, authoritarian and unpredictable regime.
But as Shortis observes, we cannot be confident about our ability, or the world's for that matter, to 'just ride Trump out', and hope everything will return to normal afterwards.
It is entirely possible the international situation may get worse – possibly much worse – with or without Trump in the White House.
The reality is American democracy may not survive another four years of Trump and the coterie of startlingly ill-qualified, inhumane, self-promoting chancers who make up much of his administration.
Both authors think attempts to 'smother' a serious national debate about defence policy in Australia (White), and the security establishment's obsession with secrecy (Shortis), are the exact opposite of what this country needs at this historical juncture. They're right.
Several senior members of Australia's security community have assured me if I only knew what they did I'd feel very differently about our strategic circumstances.
Really? One thing I do know is that we're spending far too much time – and money! – acting on what Shortis describes as a 'shallow and ungenerous understanding of what 'security' really is.'
We really could stop the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza if Xi had a word with Putin and the US stopped supplying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the weapons and money to slaughter women and children. But climate change would still be coming to get us. A bushfire in the Grampians National Park, Victoria. Photo: State Control Centre / AAP via The Conversation
More importantly, global warming will get worse before it gets better, even in the unlikely event that the 'international community' (whoever that may be) agrees on meaningful collective action tomorrow.
You may not agree with all of the ideas and suggestions contained in these essays, but in their different ways they are vital contributions to a much-needed national debate.
An informed and engaged public is a potential asset, not something to be frightened of, after all. Who knows, it may be possible to come up with some genuinely progressive, innovative ideas about what sort of domestic and international policies might be appropriate for an astonishingly fortunate country with no enemies.
Perhaps Australia could even offer an example of the sort of creative, independent middle power diplomacy a troubled world might appreciate and even emulate.
But given our political and strategic elites can't free themselves from the past, it is difficult to see them dealing imaginatively with the threat of what Shortis calls the looming 'environmental catastrophe.'
No wonder so many of the young despair and have little confidence in democracy's ability to fix what ails us.
Mark Beeson is adjunct professor, Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hashtags

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


South China Morning Post
a day ago
- South China Morning Post
China calls for global AI centre to reverse ‘fragmented trend' as US tech rivalry deepens
Chinese Premier Li Qiang has called for the establishment of an international centre to better coordinate global cooperation on artificial intelligence (AI) and address the current 'fragmented trend'. The move comes as China looks to expand its influence in the new but rapidly evolving sector amid a bitter tech competition with the United States. Opening the annual World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai on Saturday, Li said: 'Currently, global AI governance is showing a fragmented trend overall, particularly with significant differences among nations in regulatory approaches, institutional frameworks and rules. 'We should enhance coordination and alignment to establish a widely accepted global governance framework for AI at an early date.' Top AI scholars as well as industrial representatives from China and around the world are attending the three-day event in the Chinese financial and commercial capital. Li's proposal comes days after the US announced its own blueprint on AI development. The White House policy framework released on Wednesday aims to bolster American AI dominance through deregulation, infrastructure investment and expanding AI exports to allies in the technological arms race with China, described by President Donald Trump as a fight that will define the 21st century.


AllAfrica
a day ago
- AllAfrica
Gaza ceasefire talks collapse as starvation crisis mounts
Efforts to end the relentless siege of Gaza have been set back by the abrupt end to peace talks in Qatar. Both the United States and Israel have withdrawn their negotiating teams, accusing Hamas of a 'lack of desire to reach a ceasefire'. US President Donald Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff says it would appear Hamas never wanted a deal: While the mediators have made a great effort, Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith. We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people in Gaza State Department spokesman Tommy Piggott reads Steve Witkoff's statement on the collapse of the Gaza peace talks. The disappointing development coincides with mounting fears of a widespread famine in Gaza and a historic decision by France to formally recognize a Palestinian state. French President Emmanuel Macron says there is no alternative for the sake of security of the Middle East: True to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognize the State of Palestine What will these developments mean for the conflict in Gaza and the broader security of the Middle East? The failure to reach a truce means there is no end in sight to the Israeli siege of Gaza, which has devastated the territory for more than 21 months. Amid mounting fears of mass starvation, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says Gaza is in the grip of a 'humanitarian catastrophe.' He is urging Israel to comply immediately with its obligations under international law: Israel's denial of aid and the killing of civilians, including children, seeking access to water and food cannot be defended or ignored. According to the United Nations Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA, more than 100 people – most of them children – have died of hunger. One in five children in Gaza City is malnourished, with the number of cases rising every day. Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini says with little food aid entering Gaza, people are neither dead nor alive, they are walking corpses […] most children our teams are seeing are emaciated, weak and at high risk of dying if they don't get the treatment they urgently need. The UN and more than 100 aid groups blame Israel's blockade of almost all aid into the territory for the lack of food. Lazzarini says UNRWA has 6,000 trucks of emergency supplies waiting in Jordan and Egypt. He is urging Israel – which continues to blame Hamas for cases of malnutrition – to allow the humanitarian assistance into Gaza. The latest ceasefire proposal was reportedly close to being agreed upon by both parties. It included a 60-day truce, during which time Hamas would release ten living Israeli hostages and the remains of 18 others. In exchange, Israel would release a number of Palestinian prisoners, and humanitarian aid to Gaza would be significantly increased. During the ceasefire, both sides would engage in negotiations toward a lasting truce. While specific details of the current sticking points remain unclear, previous statements from both parties suggest the disagreement centres on what would follow any temporary ceasefire. Israel is reportedly seeking to maintain a permanent military presence in Gaza to allow for a rapid resumption of operations if needed. In contrast, Hamas is demanding a pathway toward a complete end to hostilities. A lack of mutual trust has dramatically clouded the negotiations. From Israel's perspective, any ceasefire must not result in Hamas regaining control of Gaza, as this would allow the group to rebuild its power and potentially launch another cross-border attack. However, Hamas has repeatedly said it is willing to hand over power to any other Palestinian group in pursuit of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. This could include the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), which governs the West Bank and has long recognised Israel. Israeli leaders have occasionally paid lip service to a Palestinian state. But they have described such an entity as 'less than a state' or a 'state-minus' – a formulation that falls short of both Palestinian aspirations and international legal standards. In response to the worsening humanitarian situation, some Western countries have moved to fully recognize a Palestinian state, viewing it as a step toward a permanent resolution of one of the longest-running conflicts in the Middle East. Macron's announcement that France will officially recognize a full Palestinian state in September is a major development. France is now the most prominent Western power to take this position. It follows more than 140 countries – including more than a dozen in Europe – that have already recognized statehood. While largely symbolic, the move adds diplomatic pressure on Israel amid the ongoing war and aid crisis in Gaza. However, the announcement was immediately condemned by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claimed recognition 'rewards terror' and risks creating another Iranian proxy, just as Gaza became. A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel – not to live in peace beside it. A Palestinian state is unacceptable to Israel. Further evidence was recently presented in a revealing TV interview by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who stated Netanyahu had deliberately empowered Hamas in order to block a two-state solution. Instead, there is mounting evidence Israel is seeking to annex the entirety of Palestinian land and relocate Palestinians to neighbouring countries. Given the current uncertainty, it appears unlikely a new ceasefire will be reached in the near future, especially as it remains unclear whether the US withdrawal from the negotiations was a genuine policy shift or merely a strategic negotiating tactic. Ali Mamouri is research fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


South China Morning Post
2 days ago
- South China Morning Post
Overseas judge sitting on Hong Kong's top court extends term for 3 more years
An overseas non-permanent judge of Hong Kong's top court has extended his term of office for another three years, following a number of resignations from other foreign justices in recent years. The judiciary announced on Friday that Justice William Gummow, an Australian who joined the Court of Final Appeal in 2013, and two other local non-permanent judges would remain in their positions for another three years. Gummow will begin his new term next Tuesday, while the other two local judges, Justice Frank Stock and Justice Patrick Chan Siu-oi, will start their next terms in September and October, respectively. The judiciary said Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu had accepted the recommendation of the city's chief justice that the top court extend the three judges' terms of office. Last month, the Legislative Council endorsed the appointment of William Gillow Gibbes Austen Young, a 73-year-old retired New Zealand judge, to the top court. The city has seen six foreign judges step down in recent years, with Australian Robert French's exit in March the latest departure.