In 1951 Australia turned to its newfound “great and powerful friend” America, consummating the move by signing the ANZUS treaty. ANZUS remains seriously misunderstood by most Australians, especially among the ageing ranks of conservative aficionados in Australia where it has the status of a holy cow. This is despite the fact that the treaty is only an agreement to “consult” if ever Australia’s security is threatened. It is no guarantee that the US will come to Australia’s defence, whatever threat may arise.

The naive belief that Washington unconditionally cares about Australia has always been one of the sillier (and very dangerous) myths peddled by supporters of the ANZUS alliance. The point is that the US will only offer Australia protection if and when — and only if and when — it is in America’s interests to do so.

Liberal/Country/National coalition governments have been the most subservient in demonstrating their commitment to the US, throughout the Cold War and since. It was the Menzies Government that took Australia into the Korean War and the Vietnam War, ostensibly to demonstrate Australia’s unconditional loyalty to the US under the terms of the ANZUS alliance. In the former case, the war ended in a stalemate. The stand-off between North and South Korea remains to the present day. In the Vietnam War, America and its allies (including Australia) suffered a humiliating defeat.

And then there have been America’s wars ever since – Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gulf, etc. Liberal and National governments have been hugely enthusiastic backers of Australia’s participation in them all. All of those wars have resulted in failure if not defeat, despite the terrible costs to the country in blood and treasure. The Coalition is intent on maintaining a “China scare”, demanding ever greater expenditure on defence. (This is despite the myriad over-spends and related incompetence in the Defence Department.) The Albanese government limps along in the wake of this sad record, unable (or unwilling) to mount a robust attack on the imbecilic line that the Coalition has adhered to for so long.

War is a grossly expensive undertaking, a grim price that conservative governments in Australia have been more than willing to pay, at the cost of health, education, housing and related welfare services. What will Peter Dutton’s foreign policy be like if he becomes prime minister?

Dutton has commented that he thinks Trump has been “shrewd” and “reasonable” in his approach to Israel’s war on Gaza. Just as Trump appears to admire dictators like Russia’s Putin, Hungary’s Orban and Türkiye’s Erdogan, so Dutton appears to have an underlying admiration for Trump’s bully-boy approach to international affairs. He unapologetically copies the Trumpian populist style. He advocates a very strong pro-Netanyahu line on Israel, echoing Trump, and he is aligned with America’s strategy of encircling China in an attempt to block that country’s projection of power in the Asia Pacific.

It is true that Dutton has distanced himself from Trump’s outrageous lie that Ukraine started the war with Russia and that President Zelenskyy is a dictator. But he has not been at all critical of Trump’s following of Moscow’s line that for peace to be achieved, Ukraine must give up the eastern territories that Russia has invaded, and that it agrees not to join NATO. Dutton’s silence on Trump’s demands on Ukraine is ominous. Is he in agreement with Trump, or not? Meanwhile, in the event of a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia, would he agree to send Australian peace-keeping forces to ensure the terms of the agreement were met?

But the most serious issue is China. There is no doubt that Dutton is a “China hawk”. He thinks of China in Cold War terms, regarding it as an emerging and threatening big power seeking to replace America’s hegemony in the region. His response is to want to see China kept in its place, limited by America’s dominance in the region, with US allies ready to leap to Uncle Sam’s side should there be any showdown between Washington and Beijing.

How would a Dutton government respond if a war did break out between China and the US over Taiwan? Back in 2021, Dutton was absolutely clear about this: “It would be inconceivable that we would not support the US in action if the US chose to take that action.” The old Coalition tradition of siding with our “great and powerful friend” is alive and well, at least in Dutton’s mind, or so it seems. This ignores the fact that increasingly Australian voters do not want to be involved in another American war. Moreover, voters are waking up to the fact that the US is becoming an unreliable ally. Scales are falling from eyes, at last.

The Trumpification of America’s traditional allies is a wonder to behold. Together with J.D. Vance, he has embarked on a series of spiteful confrontations with long-established allies: Canada, the UK, France, much of the EU, Japan, South Korea. Simultaneously he is collaborating with Putin in the Kremlin on Ukraine. And he is imposing comprehensive tariffs on major US trading partners.

Australia may not be let off Trump’s tariff hook. Will Australian steel and aluminium be subjected to tariffs? Will other exports into the US also be subjected to tariffs? At the same time, Elbridge Colby, one of Trump’s leading advisers, is demanding that Australia increase its defence spending from 2.2 % to at least 3%. What if we don’t? What if we can’t?Would this result in Australia being punished by Washington, even cut adrift?

Are these emerging realities the actions of a “shrewd” and “reasonable” man? What does this mean for Australian foreign and defence policy? Does it mean holding fast to the Coalition tradition of “all the way with the USA”? Is Dutton determined to hold Australia to an alliance with an America that nonetheless shows all the signs of isolationism and unreliability as an ally?

Richard Marles needs to answer these questions too.

https://johnmenadue.com/is-peter-dutton-the-tip-of-a-trumpist-foreign-policy-for-australia/

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.