Let’s test Hugh White’s contention, expressed in The Saturday Paper on 8 March (‘Trump’s conduct on Ukraine prompts strategic reckoning”), that Australia will perhaps sooner rather than later have to confront the end of the US Alliance.
What will Australia’s defence budget need to be as a percentage of GDP? Will the current government’s aspirational goal of two point something per cent by the early 2030s be sufficient? Will the 3% Elbridge Colby suggested at his confirmation hearing as US Deputy-Secretary of Defence for Policy suffice, or the minimum 5% Trump will demand of the Australian Government? What about 10%+?
This is what White argues… Like the Europeans, we have all too easily been lulled by Washington’s policy elites into believing they will do whatever it takes to defend their leadership of the Asian strategic order from the ambitions of a regional great power. We, too, have ignored the fundamental reality that, despite what the US says, the costs and risk to America of containing China far exceed the imperatives to do so. In particular, there is no way we can expect the US to fight a nuclear war to defend its allies in Asia, and that means there is no way it can deter or defeat China’s challenge.
I guess this has implications for Taiwan as well.
The problem with calls by the China Wolverines in Australia’s media and think-tanks, especially in the wake of the Chinese navy’s circumnavigation of the continent beginning in February, to dramatically increase the defence budget and lambast the government for supine China diplomacy, is that they want a dramatic increase in defence spending within the US alliance, which is supposed to have our back. Either we need to deconstruct the federal budget to gratify President Trump’s bullying, we need lots more military stuff to prevent an imminent Chinese invasion, or both.
White concludes his piece with… That in turn means that in the long run — and maybe sooner — we will find ourselves facing our gravest strategic reckoning in generations, as the Europeans do right now, wondering how we can defend ourselves without the US. Despite this, Albanese still has trust in America’s security guarantee. He should talk to the Europeans.
The “gravest strategic reckoning in generations”. Let’s extend White’s point here and ask how on earth can Australia defend itself against China, especially if President Trump treats President Xi Jinping like he is treating President Putin in negotiations to end the war in the Ukraine on Putin’s terms?
There are probably two answers. The first is that with serious investment in diplomacy sans the US Alliance, Australia will not need to confront China militarily in any theatre or battle-space because China does not pose any military threat to Australia. China will struggle to subdue Taiwan, if it comes to a regional war, so how will it invade and occupy Australia? And to what end?
Australia will work with ASEAN, and likely Japan and South Korea, which are also likely to soon confront their own “European-style dénouements”. At this point, the Australian Wolverines will be howling in utter disbelief at such pro-Communist Party propaganda. One can use Mike Pezzullo and Peter Hartcher’s anti-China templates to write the front page outrage stories for them, with a little help from AI.
The second answer to the question above is probably best expressed as a thought experiment, à la Schrödinger’s Cat, because it will only ever materialise in a quantum space.
If the price of ANZUS and AUKUS is spending 5%+ of GNP on defence, what does Australia possess to transact a deal with President Trump? I might start with pointing out the bleeding obvious (remember this is a thought experiment). I’d point out that the Northern Territory is fast becoming a US military staging area for war with China. I’d remind the US of the future importance of HMAS Stirling, south of Perth, for the forward deployment of US Virginia Class attack submarines. I’d remind them of Pine Gap near Alice Springs. And I thank them for us not having to pay more tranches of hundreds of millions of dollars into the US naval ship building program. The savings from not proceeding with AUKUS Pillar 1 will be invested in what Australia actually needs to secure its future, such as expenditure on climate change/energy and food security, education and health, and sustainable urbanisation.
Then I’d say that if you want Australia to “defend itself” without you, then we will hereto end all existing defence arrangements and agreements, and ask you to leave. You can fight the Chinese alone from Guam if you want to. Now, what was that transaction you were putting on the table?
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.
Michael Sullivan
Dr Michael Sullivan Adjunct Lecturer, International Relations (International Political Economy; China’s political economy and foreign and defence policies; Indo-Pacific Regionalism; ANZUS+AUKUS), College of Business, Government and Law (BGL), Flinders University. I retired in December 2024.