Recent developments have revealed that US Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Elbridge Colby has been privately advocating for Australia and Japan to provide pre-commitments of support for the US in a potential conflict over the Taiwan Strait.
Colby is particularly focused on securing assurances that the US-supplied submarines from the AUKUS pact will be utilized in any future military engagement against China in the Indo-Pacific region.
This move poses significant challenges for Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who is set to visit China amid high expectations for improved relations.
The Albanese administration has correctly rejected Colby’s requests, viewing them as an infringement on Australia’s sovereignty.
The Australian government maintains that decisions regarding military capabilities rest solely within its own jurisdiction, particularly when it comes to potential conflicts that may arise in the future.
It is widely regarded as inappropriate for any current government to bind future administrations to military commitments in response to uncertain threats.
This situation suggests that Colby’s actions may not be isolated; they could reflect a broader agenda endorsed by President Donald Trump’s administration.
The optics surrounding Colby’s lead role in a recent Pentagon review of the AUKUS agreement further underscore this point.
Traditionally, allies may have intense disagreements on various issues, but these disputes should typically be resolved in private discussions.
The Trump administration’s longstanding emphasis on foreign allies fulfilling their financial obligations has been notably apparent in NATO discussions, where pressure has led many European countries to pledge increased defense spending.
It appears that Indo-Pacific allies, including Australia, are now experiencing similar pressure from US officials, including Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, who has pushed Australia to affirm its commitment to raising defense expenditures publicly.
Regardless of the merits of increasing defense spending, singling out steadfast allies like Australia for political scrutiny can be counterproductive.
Successful alliance management necessitates a political environment that does not force leaders of committed allies into difficult domestic situations.
This dynamic is particularly sensitive for nations led by centre-left parties that rely on internal constituencies that often harbor reservations about the alliance with the US.
Navigating these political complexities benefits both countries invested in maintaining a strong Australia-US alliance, including the United States itself.
Historically, previous US administrations dating back to the 1980s have showcased their understanding of this critical alliance style.
Colby’s initiative highlights a trend towards more public pressure on allies, as evidenced by the sources quoted in the Financial Times story being exclusively American officials.
This clearly indicates the intention of the Trump administration to exert public pressure on the Albanese government.
Such a heavy-handed approach, however, could ironically yield the opposite results than intended, especially in Australia where Trump’s legacy continues to elicit significant unpopularity.
Faced with increasing domestic pressures to assert its sovereignty within the alliance, the Albanese government is now likely to resist any perceived overreaching from Washington.
These dynamics pose unnecessary strains on the crucial Australia-US alliance, raising concerns that could have been averted.
A hopeful outcome would be for the Trump administration to learn from this diplomatic misstep and exercise more caution in future interactions.
Nevertheless, if history is a reliable teacher, such changes may not be forthcoming as anticipated.
image source from：lowyinstitute
