Donald Trump’s rocked the boat, but now’s not the time to bail on AUKUS

Donald Trump’s rocked the boat, but now’s not the time to bail on AUKUS


The world is in a difficult stage of its recent history, and the new United States administration’s change of tack is undeniably jarring.

President Trump has re-litigated America’s relationship with Europe through NATO, applied maximum pressure on Ukraine to push it towards negotiations, and said precious little about Russia. Meanwhile, a trade war has kicked off, and Australia’s now facing tariffs on steel and aluminium and maybe more from our closest ally. Does any of this put our alliance with the United States under threat? Absolutely not. Does it change Australia’s plans to acquire nuclear-powered submarines? Again, no. Here’s why.

Donald Trump has re-litigated America’s relationship with Europe, but he has undermined the Australian-US alliance.

Donald Trump has re-litigated America’s relationship with Europe, but he has undermined the Australian-US alliance.Credit: Graphic: Jamie Brown

Australia’s defence strategy since World War II has been anchored in its alliance with the United States, formalised in the 1951 ANZUS Treaty. This treaty obliges both nations to “act to meet the common danger” if either is attacked, and it has weathered many tests over the decades – we are, after all, very different countries. Like all critical defence frameworks, it’s rightly attracted public debate about its precise scope. Alliances are built on relationships, history, reliability and trust – not just treaties. Reassessing our strategic underpinnings is healthy, but any review should rest on facts.

At this point, there’s no sign the US is an unreliable ally of Australia. In the first 50 days of Trump’s term, senior officials – from the secretary of state to the president himself – have repeatedly underscored Australia’s importance to US security. While the current administration does not necessarily have a consistent view across key players, the endorsement should be comforting to Australia. Some have pointed to diverging US-Europe relations as a red flag, but the US has long urged Europeans to invest more in their own defence – this is hardly new. We may dislike the tone of the current demands, yet they don’t signal unreliability when it comes to the Indo-Pacific.

In fact, US officials openly acknowledge that encouraging Europe to handle its own conventional defence allows the US to refocus on deterring conflict with China. That’s where Australia comes in. A century of mateship is a lovely phrase – but that’s not why countries work together. Throughout our alliance, we haven’t agreed on everything, but it’s been rooted in shared strategic interests rather than purely shared values. Those interests are more aligned now than at any time since World War II, given China’s increasingly assertive stance.

As for tariffs on Australian steel and aluminium, they’re unwelcome – even unreasonable – but they affect only a small fraction of our exports. This disagreement doesn’t equate to a shaky foundation in our overall defence relationship. The Australia-US alliance extends far beyond economic tiffs or even AUKUS – our plan to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. It supports vital intelligence-sharing and extended nuclear deterrence, critical as China rapidly expands its nuclear arsenal. North Korea has already demonstrated nuclear capabilities.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unveil details of the AUKUS agreement in San Diego in March 2023.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unveil details of the AUKUS agreement in San Diego in March 2023.Credit: Getty

When it comes to AUKUS, calls for a “Plan B” seem off-base. Contingency planning is prudent, of course, but there’s no evidence that AUKUS is going off track. Like any major defence acquisition, it’s complex, and the nuclear dimension adds to the challenge. It will not always go to plan. But the pertinent question isn’t “is it risky?” but “are we managing the risks effectively?”



Source link

Leave a Comment

Scroll to Top
Receive the latest news

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Get notified about new articles