Donald Trump wants an independent ally, not a servile friend
Recent debate concerning the state of the US-Australia alliance often has been perplexing, not least because it is narrowly fixated on the turbulent politics of President Donald Trump. Instead, the focus should be Australia’s shift from viewing the alliance as a tool to augment and aid our security position to one that acknowledges America’s part in our prosperity.
In 1970, prime minister John Gorton announced plans to support development of naval base infrastructure in Cockburn Sound, now home to HMAS Stirling. The enemy was the Soviet navy and the British and US governments applauded Canberra’s commitment to keeping the Indian Ocean free and open. While the intent was to bolster Australian capabilities, the developments were framed in terms of how this infrastructure could support our allies.
President Richard Nixon’s defence secretary, Melvin Laird, went so far as issuing a statement celebrating the West Australian naval base development as evidence of Australia’s commitment to “the free world”. For the US, these facilities would be central to Washington’s contingency plans in the Western Pacific. It was an example of an Australian government seeking to extend its own independence and national interests within the broader Australia-US alliance framework.
Fast forward to the Obama-era “pivot to Asia”, and discussions about formalising US naval access to WA ports reappeared. At the time Labor’s defence minister, Stephen Smith, confirmed proposals were under review “to examine the possibility of increased naval access” to HMAS Stirling.
AUKUS has returned focus to how WA naval infrastructure could support our allies. At least in Washington’s eyes, Australia is an aircraft carrier moonlighting as a continent. We’ve not complained when this guaranteed prosperity, security and the liberal rules-based order. But our high standard of living, Amazon packages and ability to watch war and destruction from our couches are aspects of Australian life that come at a cost. But we don’t like to talk about costs.
The incremental shift towards over-reliance on the US alliance has created dependencies that have become vulnerabilities. Our backyard security environment grows more complex by the day while we become more sheltered, risk-averse and serf-like in our strategic posture and imagination.
The main task should be to reinvigorate Australian agency within the US alliance. There’s no doubt Uncle Sam would welcome it. Independence within the alliance is crucial to navigating our strategic realities. We must strengthen our own capabilities while deepening ties with Washington; investment in us is an investment in the alliance. But the investment in our defence capability cannot remain pegged to solutions arriving in the 2040s.
Pragmatism should be the hallmark of Australian strategic activity. AUKUS needs to be reframed to enhance Australian capabilities, not deepen dependencies. Canberra should be supporting US nuclear-powered submarine (SSN) maintenance and sustainment under AUKUS rather than pursuing an independent SSN fleet. Government could then divert funds to scalable autonomous solutions.
Australia must disabuse itself of the idea that our identity crisis in the context of the US alliance is unique: Japan and South Korea navigate similar challenges in their partnerships with the US. Both have invested heavily in national defence capabilities while remaining tightly integrated with US military might. Hackneyed calls to pick between independence or the US alliance in defence and security terms are a false binary choice.
Australia has long and quite successfully balanced its dependence on Washington long and quite successfully with its pursuit of autonomy. The essential point is we have stopped balancing because Canberra got too comfy.
We also got too emotional. Australian national debate tends to oscillate between fear of abandonment by the US and panic over being too closely aligned. We experienced a similar response with Britain in the past century. But this speaks to the deeper tension that comes with being a Western-oriented country in an Asian neighbourhood, economically reliant on China but bound in defence terms to its great power competitor, Washington. It’s awkward all around. So, we must be practical.
The benefits of the US alliance still far outweigh the costs. There has yet to be a tangible alternative to the US alliance in its entirety.
What about armed neutrality for Australia? The public would baulk at the magnitude of the cost and that’s before we broach the nuclear-weapon question. Canberra could try its luck with Xi Jinping’s China, but few Australians would be confident Australian prosperity and quality of life could be maintained taking that approach!
Lifting our defence expenditure is the first step, but we need to ensure Canberra is diverting funds to efforts that bolster our independence within the US alliance. Revising the AUKUS pillar one pathway is an obvious place to start. There are costs and obligations Australia accepted when it went all in with the US. Investing in ourselves bolsters Australian independence within the alliance and provides an unparalleled US insurance policy. The alternative is we don’t invest and we pay an entirely different set of costs.
Elizabeth Buchanan is a senior fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
More Coverage
Don’t be gulled by Iran’s apologists – this is a terrorist state
As a scholar and journalist with over a decade of documenting executions, torture and extrajudicial killings in Iran, I found Fatima Payman’s claims appalling – an echo of the regime propaganda long used to discredit dissidents.
Coalition take note: WA Libs know what to do with net zero
The cautionary tale of British energy company Drax illustrates the reality of a marginal reduction in emissions that hardly justifies the cost.