Goodbye to all that? Rethinking Australia’s alliance with Trump’s America
- Written by Mark Beeson, Adjunct professor, Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney
Even the most ardent supporters of the alliance with the United States – the notional foundation of Australian security for more than 70 years – must be having some misgivings about the second coming of Donald Trump.
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.
Review: After America: Australia and the new world order – Emma Shortis (Australia Institute Press), Hard New World: Our Post-American Future; Quarterly Essay 98 – Hugh White (Black Inc)
And yet, notwithstanding the cogency and timeliness of the critiques offered by Emma Shortis[1] and Hugh White[2], 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 Defence 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.
The age of insecurity
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”.
A bushfire in the Grampians National Park, Victoria. State Control Centre/AAP 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[15] ability to fix what ails us. References^ Emma Shortis (www.blackincbooks.com.au)^ Hugh White (www.quarterlyessay.com.au)^ once-in-100-year (theconversation.com)^ current government (www.crikey.com.au)^ history of mateship (usa.embassy.gov.au)^ uncertainty for strategists (www.foreignaffairs.com)^ forcibly returning Taiwan (www.globalguardian.com)^ AUKUS nuclear submarine project (theconversation.com)^ uncertain project (www.mup.com.au)^ plausible suggestions (www.smh.com.au)^ cooperating with China (www.globalpolicyjournal.com)^ Pete Hesgeth’s demands (australiainstitute.org.au)^ American democracy (www.project-syndicate.org)^ climate change (www.weforum.org)^ little confidence in democracy’s (www.theguardian.com)
