
Former Trump national security advisor warns Australia on China
Bolton warned that the US could treat its quieter allies with suspicion as tensions in the Pacific persist. The Trump administration is already reconsidering the AUKUS deal, which would provide Australia with nuclear submarines. The ex-national security advisor, who was fired in a tweet by Trump during his first term in 2019 after repeated clashes, said that 'back in the Cold War days, Labour governments in Great Britain were just as anti-communist' as the right wing.
'When you see a leftist government that's not willing to talk as openly about what the real threat is, it does make some people nervous,' Bolton told The Sydney Morning Herald. 'Why the hell are we worried about talking about what the threat is? The struggle is on, and we ought to be candid about it,' he said. Tensions between China and the West have significantly grown since the communist superpower began ramping up efforts to grow influence over the Indo-Pacific in the 2010s.
Chinese President Xi Jinping claimed in a recent speech that: 'No one can stop China's 'reunification' with Taiwan'. The continued pressure from Washington for Australia to make its stance on China public comes in spite of the US growing guarded over its own position. While former president Joe Biden repeatedly said the US would defend Taiwan from Chinese invasion, the Trump administration's style has been described as 'purposeful strategic ambiguity' to keep both friends and foes guessing.
So why should Australia, which sits much closer to the disputed region, be the first to stick its neck out? Naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, believes it boils down to AUKUS. In 2023, Australia announced it would buy three American-made nuclear submarines. Those subs are set to be delivered in the early 2030s.
From there, the US and UK will share knowledge with Australia to help it be able to build its own nuclear submarines, SSN AUKUS subs. That submarine construction yard will be built in Adelaide's Osborne Naval Shipyard, which South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas toured alongside US congressmen on Wednesday. Mr Clark explained the US wanted clarification on whether the submarines it sells to Australia would be used to back America, should it find itself in conflict with China.
He said Australia had been 'reticent' to explicitly say they would be used against China, which had raised some questions in Washington about why the government was not more straightforward about the reason for purchasing the submarines. Australia is spending billions to procure the submarines, but there is not a guarantee they will arrive. The AUKUS deal contains a clause that the US can only supply Australia excess submarines not needed by its own navy.
Australia has so far paid the US two installments of $800 million twice this year, in February and July. By the end of 2025, Australia will have paid USD$2 billion to help expand America's nuclear submarine production, which is already worryingly behind schedule. All up, Australia plans to spend $368 billion over 30 years on the AUKUS submarine pact. The pact is currently being reviewed by US defence under Secretary Elbridge Colby, a vocal AUKUS skeptic.
While it's widely believed AUKUS will remain intact when the review concludes in the coming months, it has only served to further strain relations between the US and Australia following Trump's trade tariff spree. Bolton conceded it was detrimental for America to expect Australia to publicly call out China while it remained tight-lipped. However, he supported Washington's calls for Australia to lift its defence budget to three per cent of GDP.
Labor's existing policies promise just 2.33 per cent of GDP by 2033. 'Everybody is going to have to go up, I just think that's inevitable. It's not because of Trump's pressure, it's because of what's going on in the real world,' Bolton said. In response to the US' earlier demands for an official stance on Taiwan, Albanese said he would not bow to pressure to make 'private' discussions public. 'The sole power to commit Australia to war, or to allow our territory to be used for conflict, is the elected government of the day,' he told the ABC.
'That is our position. Sovereignty will always be prioritized and that will continue to be our position.' Albanese has still not had a sit-down meeting with President Trump since his January inauguration. The pair were due to meet in June but the Trump left Canada's G7 summit early citing urgent developments in the Middle East, preceding the bombing of Iran.

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


The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Putin's envoy Dmitriev meets a bear in Alaska before US-Russia summit
Vladimir Putin 's envoy Kirill Dmitriev met a bear in Alaska ahead of upcoming crunch talks on ending the Russia - Ukraine war. Sharing footage of the interaction on social media on Friday (15 August), the economic adviser to the Russian president can be seen walking towards the mammal which is standing by a lake. "Met a bear in Alaska before the US -Russia Summit," Dmitriev wrote, alongside a teddy bear emoji. 'Hopefully a good sign.' Putin also made a pit-stop ahead of the 'high stakes' meeting in Anchorage with Donald Trump, with a trip to a fish factory in a far-eastern Russian town of Magadan.


The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
The hard work on a peace deal has only just begun
Despite the excitement about the first US-Russia summit since 2021 – and the first between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin for seven years – the meeting in Alaska was never going to produce a 'deal' in the sense of a detailed treaty addressing claims of sovereignty, borders, security guarantees, prisoners, kidnapped civilians, mineral rights and much else. That will, eventually, be required to secure something like sustainable peace in the region, albeit with the constant and well-founded suspicion that Putin is less than a man of his word – even if it is given to President Trump. As Volodymyr Zelensky has said on occasion, 'All wars end with negotiations. It's not the soldiers in the trenches who decide when.' If Ukraine is not to be allowed into the negotiations, there can be no deal and no peace, even if a ceasefire holds. The exclusion of President Zelensky from participating at this early stage is perhaps intended, at least on the part of President Trump, as a way to get the process moving. For Putin, it is more calculated – highlighting the superiority of his position, as leader of a superpower supposedly co-equal to the United States, over that of the president of Ukraine. Partly for reasons to do with his own imperialist ideology, and partly for tactical purposes, Putin doesn't accept that Ukraine has a right to exist as an independent democratic nation. Also, he cynically disputes Mr Zelensky's position as Ukraine's president, because his term of office has expired and there have been no new elections. This, of course, is because no free elections can be held in Ukrainian territory occupied by Putin's forces, and a state of martial law currently prevails. For a change – and with some useful pressure being applied by Ukraine's European allies – Mr Trump doesn't agree with the Russians on this, and wants bilateral (or trilateral) talks to include Mr Zelensky, and quickly. The US president tacitly acknowledges that even he, self-declared master of the art of the deal, can't confidently redraw the borders of, say, the Kherson oblast, much less find Mariupol on a map, and that his officials shouldn't have to do so as proxies for the Ukrainian government. Mr Zelensky and his team will have to be involved. President Zelensky is right to demand a seat at the table, and he is also right to say that no final deal can be agreed without a referendum, as is required by the constitution of Ukraine. It is not for him to sign away millions of his citizens to a foreign power. How such a vote could be conducted in occupied territory, or whether it would only apply to 'free Ukraine', is just one of the major details that will need to be settled before this war can be declared over. As many governments have found before – including the British government during Brexit – it is axiomatic in treaty-making that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This is also a moment for political imagination and diplomatic innovation. If Ukraine agrees not to join the EU or Nato, could it have some kind of associate status? How could the presence of private and federal US personnel in the rare-earth and minerals mining areas help to maintain order? More radical proposals could also be tabled. If neither the US nor Europe is prepared to back Ukraine unconditionally, then some unpalatable options must be contemplated. Successive British prime ministers, for example, had the attitude that 'Ukraine can win, Ukraine must win, Ukraine will win.' That mantra is not heard now. So other alternatives – and this, shamefully, does mean appeasement – have to be explored. The eastern provinces of Ukraine, in certain circumstances, might not have to be returned to Ukraine or absorbed into the Russian Federation if a different status as a neutral 'buffer' region could be established. The Donbas and other areas would be controlled neither by Moscow nor by Kyiv, demilitarised, and 'Finlandised', in the way that Finland was during the Cold War and until last year. Citizens might be free to choose their citizenship, or opt for both, and the various cultures, religions and language rights would be respected. In quieter times, the peoples there could be asked in an internationally supervised referendum whether they wished to join Ukraine, or Russia, or to stay independent. That would surely be preferable to simply freezing the border along the present front line. The histories of Korea since 1950, and Cyprus since 1974, shows how unstable, if long-lived, such a non-solution can turn out to be. Both Ukraine and Russia feel that their security is threatened in some way – whether sincerely or not, and whether or not the notion is justified – and the wider international community will have to be involved in providing what Sir Keir Starmer calls a 'reassurance force' in Ukraine. President Trump, an avowed 'America First' isolationist, is allergic to joining such a force – but if 'his' deal is ever going to stick, it is difficult to see how it can do so without the United States offering some kind of pledge to Ukraine to defend any new de facto, or de jure, frontiers with Russia. Sadly, the 'coalition of the willing' assembled by Sir Keir and Emmanuel Macron seems to be more like an alliance of the unwilling when it comes to fighting for Ukraine. Europe also wants a seat at the top table, but past proposals brokered by France and Germany have proved unsuccessful. If Europe wants to have a say in any settlement, it will need to earn it through military and economic commitment. Indeed, it will be essential, given America's express desire to wind down its presence on the continent and its role in Nato. A quadrilateral structure for a long period of detailed peace-conference work, in some suitable neutral location, should comprise teams from Ukraine, Russia and the US along with a joint European presence. The real hard work on the peace deal has only just begun. As someone once put it, the Ukrainian peace process is, at best, only at the 'end of the beginning' stage.


The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Train collides with vehicle in Denmark, killing one person and injuring about 20 others
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.