In Brief
US President Donald Trump's ‘America First’ policies and unpredictable leadership style are undermining Australia's traditional alliance with the United States. Unlike the post-World War II era of benign US hegemony, Trump's administration imposes tariffs even on allies and demands unquestioning support for controversial policies. Australia should develop closer economic ties with regional neighbours and adopt a ‘hedging’ strategy between great powers rather than remaining hostage to the United States' increasingly erratic foreign policy decisions.
As the editors of East Asia Forum pointed out in June 2025, ‘we have to get used to a world without the leadership of the United States’. By that, they meant the constructive, stability-enhancing variety that underpinned the so-called rules-based international order that US hegemony did so much to create.
There’s a debate to be had about just how diligently the United States ever subscribed to these principles, but there is not much doubt that the Trump administration will continue to provide leadership of a sort, just not the type its traditional allies like Australia might actually want.
The difference between the 2025 era and the first few decades after World War II are instructive and sobering. At the height of the Cold War, when there were real doubts about the future of democracy and free market capitalism, it is understandable that policymakers in Australia and the rest of the ‘free world’ wanted access to US markets while they relaxed under its nuclear umbrella.
This period marked the climax of benign liberal US hegemony, from which allies in particular benefited. The contrast with the Trumpian ‘America first’ agenda and the imposition of tariffs on countries — like Australia, which actually runs a trade deficit with the United States — is remarkable. Though policymakers in Australia feel duty-bound to argue that the alliance with the United States is unaffected by US President Donald Trump’s trade and strategic policies, the arguments are increasingly unpersuasive.
As many observers point out, Trump’s personality and domination of the policy agenda in the United States means that policies are unpredictable, frequently alienate long-term friends and undermine whatever remains of the United States’ celebrated ‘soft power’. Unfortunately, rather than pushing back against such ill-conceived and mutually destructive policies, other countries and institutions are competing to ingratiate themselves with ‘daddy’, as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, described Trump.
Unpalatable and even unimaginable as it may be, the rest of the world has to deal with the consequences of a transformation in US domestic politics and an erosion of the famous checks and balances that were supposed to guard against despotism, corruption and incompetence. And yet, we should remember that even under more traditional leaders, not only was the United States capable of embarking on epic and avoidable follies — such as the Iraq war — but Australia actively supported them.
If ever there was an opportunity for Australian policymakers to demonstrate that they are listened to and taken seriously in Washington, this might have been the moment to speak up rather than obligingly fall into line. The same dynamic is in play as the United States unilaterally breaks international law and threatens to further destabilise an already chaotic Middle East. But there is little chance of Australian policymakers offering unsolicited advice or even independent commentary.
On the contrary, Andrew Hastie, shadow defence minister, criticised the Albanese government for its ‘ambiguous’ response. Apparently, the government supporting illegal unilateral attacks on Iran is not enough for the coalition, despite there being ‘no credible indication’ of an active nuclear weapons program in Iran. Yet the enduring reality is that security remains an issue on which the government is desperate not to be wedged politically, no matter what the cost may be to its credibility or the public purse.
The result is that Australia finds itself in a position where no one in the Australian government is prepared to think about, much less talk about the possible implications of Trump’s behaviour for what Foreign Minister Penny Wong calls Australia’s ‘historic relationship’ with the United States. Wong warned that people ‘who take self-satisfied potshots at America’s imperfections would find the world a lot less satisfactory if America ceased to play its role’.
If that was ever true it is not now and a constructive debate should be encouraged, especially about the possible role Australia may have played in facilitating the attack on Iran. Australia has to face the possibility that the United States under Trump’s leadership is part of the problem rather than the reflexive solution to Australia’s imagined strategic problems and economic future. Most fundamentally, Australia has to face the prospect that it will have to live ‘without America’.
It is not impossible. Australia has remarkably fortunate geography, making the country ‘relatively easy and inexpensive to defend’, and rich in the sort of resources that could make us an even more important and respected independent actor in the region of which it is always going to be a part. Establishing even closer economic relations with Australia’s neighbours, including China, and joining Southeast Asia in developing a strategy of ‘hedging’ between the great powers, might be one way of engineering a more sustainable future. This is something that Wong has hinted at without following through.
The alternative is to be hostage to the whims of a man who thinks he ‘runs the world.’
If people do not resist him, that is just what he — and his possible successors — might do, with all too predictable and avoidable consequences.
Mark Beeson is Adjunct Professor at the Australia-China Relations Institute, the University of Technology Sydney.
In Brief
US President Donald Trump's ‘America First’ policies and unpredictable leadership style are undermining Australia's traditional alliance with the United States. Unlike the post-World War II era of benign US hegemony, Trump's administration imposes tariffs even on allies and demands unquestioning support for controversial policies. Australia should develop closer economic ties with regional neighbours and adopt a ‘hedging’ strategy between great powers rather than remaining hostage to the United States' increasingly erratic foreign policy decisions.
As the editors of East Asia Forum pointed out in June 2025, ‘we have to get used to a world without the leadership of the United States’. By that, they meant the constructive, stability-enhancing variety that underpinned the so-called rules-based international order that US hegemony did so much to create.
There’s a debate to be had about just how diligently the United States ever subscribed to these principles, but there is not much doubt that the Trump administration will continue to provide leadership of a sort, just not the type its traditional allies like Australia might actually want.
The difference between the 2025 era and the first few decades after World War II are instructive and sobering. At the height of the Cold War, when there were real doubts about the future of democracy and free market capitalism, it is understandable that policymakers in Australia and the rest of the ‘free world’ wanted access to US markets while they relaxed under its nuclear umbrella.
This period marked the climax of benign liberal US hegemony, from which allies in particular benefited. The contrast with the Trumpian ‘America first’ agenda and the imposition of tariffs on countries — like Australia, which actually runs a trade deficit with the United States — is remarkable. Though policymakers in Australia feel duty-bound to argue that the alliance with the United States is unaffected by US President Donald Trump’s trade and strategic policies, the arguments are increasingly unpersuasive.
As many observers point out, Trump’s personality and domination of the policy agenda in the United States means that policies are unpredictable, frequently alienate long-term friends and undermine whatever remains of the United States’ celebrated ‘soft power’. Unfortunately, rather than pushing back against such ill-conceived and mutually destructive policies, other countries and institutions are competing to ingratiate themselves with ‘daddy’, as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, described Trump.
Unpalatable and even unimaginable as it may be, the rest of the world has to deal with the consequences of a transformation in US domestic politics and an erosion of the famous checks and balances that were supposed to guard against despotism, corruption and incompetence. And yet, we should remember that even under more traditional leaders, not only was the United States capable of embarking on epic and avoidable follies — such as the Iraq war — but Australia actively supported them.
If ever there was an opportunity for Australian policymakers to demonstrate that they are listened to and taken seriously in Washington, this might have been the moment to speak up rather than obligingly fall into line. The same dynamic is in play as the United States unilaterally breaks international law and threatens to further destabilise an already chaotic Middle East. But there is little chance of Australian policymakers offering unsolicited advice or even independent commentary.
On the contrary, Andrew Hastie, shadow defence minister, criticised the Albanese government for its ‘ambiguous’ response. Apparently, the government supporting illegal unilateral attacks on Iran is not enough for the coalition, despite there being ‘no credible indication’ of an active nuclear weapons program in Iran. Yet the enduring reality is that security remains an issue on which the government is desperate not to be wedged politically, no matter what the cost may be to its credibility or the public purse.
The result is that Australia finds itself in a position where no one in the Australian government is prepared to think about, much less talk about the possible implications of Trump’s behaviour for what Foreign Minister Penny Wong calls Australia’s ‘historic relationship’ with the United States. Wong warned that people ‘who take self-satisfied potshots at America’s imperfections would find the world a lot less satisfactory if America ceased to play its role’.
If that was ever true it is not now and a constructive debate should be encouraged, especially about the possible role Australia may have played in facilitating the attack on Iran. Australia has to face the possibility that the United States under Trump’s leadership is part of the problem rather than the reflexive solution to Australia’s imagined strategic problems and economic future. Most fundamentally, Australia has to face the prospect that it will have to live ‘without America’.
It is not impossible. Australia has remarkably fortunate geography, making the country ‘relatively easy and inexpensive to defend’, and rich in the sort of resources that could make us an even more important and respected independent actor in the region of which it is always going to be a part. Establishing even closer economic relations with Australia’s neighbours, including China, and joining Southeast Asia in developing a strategy of ‘hedging’ between the great powers, might be one way of engineering a more sustainable future. This is something that Wong has hinted at without following through.
The alternative is to be hostage to the whims of a man who thinks he ‘runs the world.’
If people do not resist him, that is just what he — and his possible successors — might do, with all too predictable and avoidable consequences.
Mark Beeson is Adjunct Professor at the Australia-China Relations Institute, the University of Technology Sydney.
No comments:
Post a Comment