In an era where the established norms of global power dynamics are rapidly evolving, Australia is confronted with the reality that the America once perceived as a steadfast ally may not return to its former self.
As we look towards 2028, it is increasingly apparent that the geopolitical landscape will be different, and potentially more fraught with challenges.
Polling from The Australia Institute, conducted in February 2025, highlights a significant sentiment among Australians, with 44% advocating for a more independent foreign policy.
This shift in perspective reflects a broader reassessment of Australia’s relationship with the United States and its role on the global stage, indicating that traditional alignments may no longer suffice in ensuring national security.
Those who argue for a continuation of the status quo and rely on a return to a stable America overlook the increasing risks posed by bad-faith actors in the international arena.
The belief that Australia can simply weather the turbulent political climate crafted by figures like Donald Trump or that unwavering allegiance to his version of America guarantees security is shortsighted.
Supporters of the AUKUS deal and those who exhibit blind loyalty to the US often inflate threats from nations such as China while ignoring the potential repercussions of unconditional alignment with the US.
The inherent dangers include the possibility of miscalculations or intentional provocations that could lead to armed conflict between major powers.
Moreover, emerging global threats such as climate change, pandemics, nuclear threats, and the disintegration of the rule of law demand a broader conceptualization of security that current leaders have yet to fully grasp.
While the Australian government claims to recognize climate change as a significant threat, actions do not align with this rhetoric.
Despite a 2024 agreement with Tuvalu emphasizing a shared commitment to addressing climate-related security challenges, Australia’s financial support for fossil fuel producers sharply increased in 2023-24, totaling $14.5 billion.
This hypocrisy raises serious questions about the nation’s genuine commitment to protecting its citizens and the environment.
The Australian government’s commitment to upholding international law, another stated cornerstone of its policy, also faces scrutiny.
Recent remarks by Defence Minister Richard Marles, when pressed about US offenses against international law, reveal a troubling unwillingness to unequivocally reject such behaviors.
His response emphasizing Australia’s longstanding alliance with the US as a pillar of national security falls short of addressing the fundamental obligation to uphold international law.
It is alarming that a Labor government refrains from clearly affirming its dedication to international legal frameworks, which are critical not only for Australia but also for maintaining global stability.
By prioritizing alignment with a figure like Trump—widely regarded as destabilizing rather than supportive of lawful norms—Australia risks sacrificing its foundational responsibilities.
The pressing question arises: what constitutes real security?
As the US grapples with internal turmoil driven by Trump’s actions that dismantle global norms and exacerbate crises, Australia must reassess its security paradigm.
A profound shift in understanding is needed—real security transcends the mere avoidance of war.
Historically, foreign and security policy has been predicated on the assumption that conflict is an inevitability, leading to a pessimistic view of international relations.
Prominent voices often frame the current geopolitical climate as the worst since World War II, invoking fears of a so-called ‘new Cold War’ and urging that great power competition is beyond our control.
Such rhetoric, while appealing, serves to absolve those in power from accountability for their policies and decisions that have contributed to current conditions.
The characterization of Australia as perpetually threatened by distant enemies fosters a reliance on hegemonic powers, reinforcing a narrative that requires unquestioned allegiance to another state’s interests.
This detrimental viewpoint undergirds the AUKUS agreement, which supporters falsely portray as a necessary measure for national protection while arguably further entrenching fears and inciting hostility.
While there are valid concerns regarding China’s influence, the framing of it as an immediate threat is misleading; it is crucial to recognize the importance of diplomacy and constructive engagement.
Rather than defaulting to military posturing, Australia has historically succeeded through cultural exchanges and dialogue—approaches that must not be abandoned.
A clear understanding of national interests and values is essential for navigating our foreign relations effectively.
The reality is that Australia currently finds itself navigating an increasingly contradictory foreign policy landscape which undermines the democratic values both Australia and the US espouse.
Australia’s foreign policy operates in an obscured atmosphere, particularly evidenced by the secretive nature of the AUKUS agreement, which emerged from behind closed doors with little public input or accountability.
The absence of democratic oversight in critical security decisions illustrates a troubling trend that undermines both public trust and effective governance.
Had AUKUS undergone rigorous scrutiny through democratic channels, its questionable implications for security and fiscal responsibility might have been addressed.
Secrecy breeds insecurity, and thus, we must confront the notion that a robust alliance must simultaneously champion both security and transparency.
In its current form, the AUKUS alliance operates against the principles of transparency and accountability essential for a genuine democratic partnership.
A healthy alliance would prioritize truth and protect individuals—regardless of nationality—who expose wrongdoing or war crimes.
It would elevate accountability and ensure that allies support each other in the pursuit of a shared democratic vision.
In contrast, Australia’s current trajectory does not reflect that commitment.
A true alignment derived from mutual respect and shared values would avoid falling into the trap of enabling the negative impulses of allied leaders for self-serving ends.
This pathway toward a more transparent and democratically engaged alliance is achievable and necessary for Australia’s future.
Investment in actual security encompasses addressing pressing social inequalities, climate action, and public health, not merely channeling resources into military capabilities.
Australia possesses significant economic resources and opportunities, ranking as the 13th largest economy in the world—a position of power that can be leveraged toward constructive global engagement.
Instead of allocating a projected $368 billion toward escalating arms, Australia could invest in protecting communities and addressing the climate crisis through appropriate firefighting resources and environmental protections.
The government’s annual spending on firefighting resources, totaling $125 million, stands in stark contrast to its military ambitions.
Over a three-decade horizon, this expenditure pales compared to AUKUS’s budget, yet prioritizing practical security measures could save lives and enhance safety.
With the current climate emergency and public safety at stake, Australia could instead lead efforts to create a more resilient society modeled on successful policies from countries like Norway.
By directing resources toward education and sustainable practices, Australia could construct a brighter, safer future.
Such choices signify a commitment to collective security that moves beyond archaic understandings of national defense.
Australia can redefine its alliance with the US from one predicated on historical norms to one reflecting democratic solidarity and mutual respect.
This necessitates actively supporting those elements within the US that align with democratic values while pushing back against the negative impulses of American leadership.
Australia and the broader international community possess the agency to shape their destinies rather than capitulating to the whims of uncertain leadership.
As echoed by the Board of the Doomsday Clock in early 2025, inaction amid visible global crises indicates a failure of leadership and foresight.
The impending consequences of neglecting to prioritize necessary actions are catastrophic but not unavoidable.
The potential for change and improvement exists, and Australia can play a significant role in redefining what security looks like in a rapidly changing world.
Acting decisively on climate change, upholding nuclear non-proliferation, and fostering the rule of law could establish Australia as a leader in building a more stable global landscape.
However, ongoing reliance on an antiquated view of security underscores the need for significant change in perspective and approach.
Australia must assess its potential to cultivate a more meaningful role on the global stage, where genuine safety derives from proactive engagement rather than passive reliance.
Australia stands at a crossroads, facing the choice of continuity in ineffective policies or the proactive pursuit of a new vision of national and global security.
The urgency to embrace a post-American world—whether one welcomes it or not—demands an unwavering commitment to shaping a more equitable and secure future on the global stage.
The time has come for Australia to acknowledge its position of influence and make deliberate choices that clearly prioritize the well-being of its citizens and the planet.
A world after America is possible.
Australia has the opportunity to choose to build that world responsibly, with a clear vision of security that truly reflects the needs of its people.
image source from：https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-lets-rethink-australias-national-security-and-focus-on-fairness-and-climate-action-not-blind-fealty-to-the-us-258064
