Don't sit on the fence with this one Albanese: Australia must recommit to US alliance as Middle East tensions mount
Anthony Albanese wasn't the only disappointed global leader left in line for an audience with the President when Donald Trump made an early exit from the G7 summit in Calgary.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained that 'many important matters' demanded the President's attention in Washington.
Important compared to what?
At a moment of global conflict there can be few things more vital than reaffirming the bonds with trusted allies.
The contrast with the response to the 9/11 attacks is stark.
Within hours of the attacks, John Howard wrote to President George W Bush, affirming Australia's 'resolute solidarity' with the American people.
The following day he pledged unconditional support for the US 'in any action that might be taken'.
However we choose to judge the course of events that followed, Howard's reaction reflected a clarity of moral purpose that appears to be faltering.
Australia knew where it stood: shoulder to shoulder with the United States in defence of the liberal democratic order.
The Western alliance has grown uncertain.
Under Donald Trump, US commitments have become more transactional. Meanwhile, under Albanese, Australia is hedging like other middle powers, caught between strategic dependence on the U.S. and economic entanglement with China.
Pragmatism in diplomacy is unavoidable, but pragmatism should never give way to ambivalence.
There is little discussion today in Washington or Canberra about the values, the once underpinned our alliances: liberal democracy, personal liberty and the rule of law.
The concept of the civilised West has become so disreputable in some circles leaders hesitate to declare themselves part of it.
Deciding which side we are on when the chips are down is nowhere near as simple as it once was.
Labor's discomfort with these foundations is not new. While historically loyal to Britain, the party was wary of imperial wars and later divided over the U.S. alliance.
Gough Whitlam was openly critical of U.S. foreign policy while drawing closer to Communist China.
At a banquet host by Premier Zhou Enlai in Beijing in 1973, Whitlam declared that Australia's future lay with nations 'with whom we share a common environment and common interests … With no nation is our new aspiration symbolised more than it is with China'.
The trade relationship with China has deepened, growing from almost nothing in 1973 to more than $300 billion in annual two-way trade today.
Yet there has been no equivalent meeting of minds on the profound human values that define civilisation.
Sky News Australia viewers will be familiar with the case of Australian journalist Cheng Lei who spent almost three years as an innocent detainee in China, an experience she compares to being buried alive.
We know that more than a million Uyghurs are suffering a worse fate in discriminatory detention.
China boasts of its intention to seize Taiwan by military force if necessary. Nor is subtle about its projection of naval force close to our shores as it seeks to establish dominance across the Pacific and into the Southern Ocean.
To put it bluntly, there are strict limits to the common interests we share with China so long as it is led by a Communist regime irredeemably opposed to the human values we cherish.
We must enter any dealings with China with our eyes wide open, just as we should with other untrustworthy regimes in Tehran, Moscow and Tehran.
There can be no confusion about which nations we can trust, the nations of a civilised frame of mind, governed by the rule of law, with respect for the rights of sovereignty.
Israel's conflict with Iran is a case in point.
Albanese must look beyond policy disagreements over Gaza and recognise Israel as a fellow liberal democracy under siege by a theocratic regime that sponsors terrorism and seeks its annihilation.
When he next meets with the U.S. President, Albanese must speak with conviction. He should reaffirm that, through thick and thin, Australia stands with the United States not out of dependency, but as a partner in defending the free world. He must be clear that, in this new age of strategic competition, our interests align. We do not seek favours—we seek solidarity.
To adapt the words of John F. Kennedy: the question is not what America can do for us, but what we can do, again, for the alliance that has underpinned our security for generations.
Nick Cater is a senior fellow of the Menzies Research Centre
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
34 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Donald Trump hints at regime change in Iran while declaring 'MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN' after US strikes
President Donald Trump on Sunday said there may be a regime change if Iranian leadership cannot "MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN," following strategic U.S. strikes on key Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday. In a post to Truth Social, the president questioned why there would not be a leadership shift following the devastating blow to the country's nuclear program. "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???" he wrote. "MIGA!!!" Earlier in the day, Trump announced the B-2 stealth bombers credited with strategic attacks landed safely at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, applauding their efforts. "The GREAT B-2 pilots have just landed, safely, in Missouri," he wrote. "Thank you for a job well done!!! DONA[L]D J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!" The president added that the damage to the sites was "monumental," pushing back on skepticism from critics about the success of the operation. "The damage to the Nuclear sites in Iran is said to be 'monumental,'" he wrote in a separate post. "The hits were hard and accurate. Great skill was shown by our military. Thank you!" More than 125 aircraft were involved in the strikes in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, including seven B-2 stealth bombers, multiple fourth and fifth-generation fighters, dozens of air refueling tankers, a guided missile submarine and "a full array" of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft. Fox News Digital's Stephen Sorace contributed to this report. Originally published as Donald Trump hints at regime change in Iran while declaring 'MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN' after US strikes
Sky News AU
37 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
'Flat-footed': Prime Minister Anthony Albanese convenes National Security Committee 24 hours after US strikes on Iran
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has convened a meeting of the National Security Committee of Cabinet almost 24 hours after the United States conducted strikes against Iran. The committee includes Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Defence Minister Richard Marles, and other cabinet members. Mr Albanese has not made a public appearance since US President Donald Trump confirmed the strikes on Sunday. Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Penny Wong finally expressed support for the US attacks on Monday after initially failing to back Australia's closest ally. 'What happens now matters. We do not want to see escalation. We call for diplomacy, de-escalation and dialogue,' Ms Wong said at a doorstop press conference on Monday. 'The world does not want to a full-scale war in the Middle East.' Ms Wong also told reporters that Australia was 'not a central player' in the Israel-Iran conflict. Two Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) planes landed in Dubai on Sunday ahead of repatriation flights for Australians stranded in Israel. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) there were about 2,900 Australians in Iran and 1,300 in Israel who were seeking to leave the region. Acting shadow foreign affairs minister Andrew Hastie, in response, criticised the Albanese government for being "flat-footed" in its response to the conflict on Monday. 'I think, though, what yesterday demonstrated was that the prime minister's flat-footed," he told the ABC. "His instincts aren't great on this, and he should have called a NSC (National Security Council) meeting yesterday for an event of such significance." Shadow competition minister Dave Sharma also told Sky News that Australia had made itself 'irrelevant' through the conflict. 'We had (Defence Minister) Richard Marles… calling for de-escalation at the very same time, almost, that US B2 bombers… were striking nuclear targets in Iran,' he said. 'No one listens to our views seriously anymore on these issues, particularly in the Middle East.' Just hours before President Donald Trump confirmed the US had destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities, Mr Marles had called for 'de-escalation'. "The Iranian nuclear ballistic missile program is most definitely a threat to the peace and stability of not only the Middle East," he told Sky News on Sunday. 'We have used our voice to urge de-escalation. And that's our position in respect of both the Iranian program, but also, more specifically, in respect of this conflict.' Mr Marles was asked if he was having '$1 each way' by not explicitly supporting the US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, prohibiting their access to world-ending technology. The Defence Minister stumbled over his answer as he attempted to explain the government's stance on the matter. 'Uh, uh. Um, I'm... articulating the Australian government's position. That's the only thing I can articulate,' Mr Marles said. 'We are making it clear that we see that the Iranian program represents a threat to the peace and stability of the region and the world... 'What we're saying in relation to this specific conflict is that we are worried about its prospect for escalation.' Roughly 24 hours later, Ms Wong insisted the government was 'very clear' in its support for US strikes against Iran. 'Australia has been clear, along with the international community, that Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon,' she told reporters at Parliament House. 'We support action to prevent that from occurring and this is what this was.' Her comments mark a notable shift in tone from the carefully worded government statement released on Sunday. That initial statement did not include any reference to Australia 'supporting' the US action.
The Advertiser
44 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Most voters want AFL stadium deal redo, poll shows
Both major parties are out of step with state voters in their unwavering support to build a $945 million stadium in a deal for an AFL team, a pre-election poll suggests. With a snap election weeks away, Tasmanian voters were surveyed on their attitude to the deal struck with the AFL to build a roofed stadium at Macquarie Point. The Hobart stadium is a condition of the licence for the Devils' inclusion in the competition in 2028. The online poll of 842 voters, conducted by YouGov on behalf of progressive think tank The Australia Institute from July 12 to 16, indicates most Tasmanians believe the stadium deal is unfair. More than two out of three (69 per cent) support Tasmanian parliament renegotiating with the AFL to avoid constructing a new stadium. Support to renegotiate was strongest among independent (81 per cent) and Greens voters (78 per cent). The idea was only mildly less popular with Labor supporters (71 per cent). Liberal voters were the most likely to disagree with the proposition (38 per cent) but a majority (56 per cent) still wanted parliamentarians to return to the negotiating table. More than two in three also believe the AFL is treating Tasmania unfairly in its requirements for granting Tasmania a license to join the national competition. Perhaps surprisingly, more men (72 per cent) than women (65 per cent) agreed with the statement. Over 65s were particularly scathing, with four out of five miffed with the AFL's treatment. Some analysts have described the Tasmanian election as a referendum on the stadium, but both Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff and Labor leader Dean Winters have been unwilling to budge on their support. The AFL has been staunch in its refusal to renegotiate the deal, declaring the stadium remains a non-negotiable for the Devils' licence. The Australia Institute's strategy director Leanne Minshull described the stadium deal as a "dud" and one of the most one-sided in Australian sport. She said residents of the Apple Isle were rightly appalled by the AFL's treatment, which effectively amounted to putting a "gun to the head of Tasmanians". "Whoever wins the state election on July 19 must stand up to the AFL and stand up for Tasmanians," she said. "This state deserves to have a team in the AFL, but Tassie taxpayers don't want to be on the hook for a billion-dollar indoor stadium they don't want." Final approval of the stadium is expected to come down to a vote of parliament. Both major parties are out of step with state voters in their unwavering support to build a $945 million stadium in a deal for an AFL team, a pre-election poll suggests. With a snap election weeks away, Tasmanian voters were surveyed on their attitude to the deal struck with the AFL to build a roofed stadium at Macquarie Point. The Hobart stadium is a condition of the licence for the Devils' inclusion in the competition in 2028. The online poll of 842 voters, conducted by YouGov on behalf of progressive think tank The Australia Institute from July 12 to 16, indicates most Tasmanians believe the stadium deal is unfair. More than two out of three (69 per cent) support Tasmanian parliament renegotiating with the AFL to avoid constructing a new stadium. Support to renegotiate was strongest among independent (81 per cent) and Greens voters (78 per cent). The idea was only mildly less popular with Labor supporters (71 per cent). Liberal voters were the most likely to disagree with the proposition (38 per cent) but a majority (56 per cent) still wanted parliamentarians to return to the negotiating table. More than two in three also believe the AFL is treating Tasmania unfairly in its requirements for granting Tasmania a license to join the national competition. Perhaps surprisingly, more men (72 per cent) than women (65 per cent) agreed with the statement. Over 65s were particularly scathing, with four out of five miffed with the AFL's treatment. Some analysts have described the Tasmanian election as a referendum on the stadium, but both Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff and Labor leader Dean Winters have been unwilling to budge on their support. The AFL has been staunch in its refusal to renegotiate the deal, declaring the stadium remains a non-negotiable for the Devils' licence. The Australia Institute's strategy director Leanne Minshull described the stadium deal as a "dud" and one of the most one-sided in Australian sport. She said residents of the Apple Isle were rightly appalled by the AFL's treatment, which effectively amounted to putting a "gun to the head of Tasmanians". "Whoever wins the state election on July 19 must stand up to the AFL and stand up for Tasmanians," she said. "This state deserves to have a team in the AFL, but Tassie taxpayers don't want to be on the hook for a billion-dollar indoor stadium they don't want." Final approval of the stadium is expected to come down to a vote of parliament. Both major parties are out of step with state voters in their unwavering support to build a $945 million stadium in a deal for an AFL team, a pre-election poll suggests. With a snap election weeks away, Tasmanian voters were surveyed on their attitude to the deal struck with the AFL to build a roofed stadium at Macquarie Point. The Hobart stadium is a condition of the licence for the Devils' inclusion in the competition in 2028. The online poll of 842 voters, conducted by YouGov on behalf of progressive think tank The Australia Institute from July 12 to 16, indicates most Tasmanians believe the stadium deal is unfair. More than two out of three (69 per cent) support Tasmanian parliament renegotiating with the AFL to avoid constructing a new stadium. Support to renegotiate was strongest among independent (81 per cent) and Greens voters (78 per cent). The idea was only mildly less popular with Labor supporters (71 per cent). Liberal voters were the most likely to disagree with the proposition (38 per cent) but a majority (56 per cent) still wanted parliamentarians to return to the negotiating table. More than two in three also believe the AFL is treating Tasmania unfairly in its requirements for granting Tasmania a license to join the national competition. Perhaps surprisingly, more men (72 per cent) than women (65 per cent) agreed with the statement. Over 65s were particularly scathing, with four out of five miffed with the AFL's treatment. Some analysts have described the Tasmanian election as a referendum on the stadium, but both Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff and Labor leader Dean Winters have been unwilling to budge on their support. The AFL has been staunch in its refusal to renegotiate the deal, declaring the stadium remains a non-negotiable for the Devils' licence. The Australia Institute's strategy director Leanne Minshull described the stadium deal as a "dud" and one of the most one-sided in Australian sport. She said residents of the Apple Isle were rightly appalled by the AFL's treatment, which effectively amounted to putting a "gun to the head of Tasmanians". "Whoever wins the state election on July 19 must stand up to the AFL and stand up for Tasmanians," she said. "This state deserves to have a team in the AFL, but Tassie taxpayers don't want to be on the hook for a billion-dollar indoor stadium they don't want." Final approval of the stadium is expected to come down to a vote of parliament.
