Donald Trump’s decision to eviscerate the Voice of America has alarmed allies and delighted notional foes. America’s supporters in Australia needn’t worry, though, there are still enthusiastic institutionalised defenders of the alliance.

Even before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, many people in Australia and elsewhere were convinced it was it was a disastrously ill-conceived and unnecessary folly that was certain to end badly. It wasn’t necessary to be a “security expert” to have reservations about the entire project. In fact, it may have been a distinct advantage not to be one of the specialists who shape American and Australian strategic policy given the uniformity of opinion that distinguishes such people. Needless to say, the Howard Government took no notice of the major protests that erupted in opposition to Australian participation.

America’s strategic policy during the presidency of George W. Bush was dominated by the so-called “ neocons” who had long argued for a more muscular approach to foreign policy, but this doesn’t really explain why they were able to form a “coalition of the willing” with their more enthusiastic Anglosphere allies. Even the UK, which had wisely resisted being drawn into another equally unnecessary and unproductive conflict in Vietnam, was enlisted, on the basis of what we now know was very dubious, if not deliberately dishonest, “intelligence”.

In Australia’s case participation was inevitable. When has Australia not gone along with the US, no matter how irrelevant such a conflict was to this country’s uniquely favourable strategic circumstances? Such an outcome was even more likely, of course, when the prime minster of the time was John Howard. He had already used the attacks of 11 September to invoke the ANZUS treaty and justify Australia’s support of the US.

Embedding the alliance

And yet there was another, less obvious, but more enduring legacy of this period that continues to shape Australian perceptions of the US, which may be called upon to play a more prominent role given the increasingly destabilising presidency of Donald Trump. True, he hasn’t started a war thus far, but Australian public opinion has rapidly turned against him, to the point where Trump is seen as a greater threat to world peace than Xi Jinping or even Vladimir Putin.

The last time scepticism about the behaviour of our notional security guarantor plunged in this way, Howard stumped up $25 million to establish the United States Studies Centre, which one of its most influential supporters, the former Australian, Rupert Murdoch, said was designed to combat “ anti-Americanism”. Given the unwavering support that the Murdoch press has offered to the alliance between the US and Australia, the USCC might seem redundant, but not only does the Sydney outpost continue its work, but it has been joined by another in Perth.

Indeed, the University of Western Australia also hosts its own champion of the alliance and militarism more generally, the Defence and Security Institute, which is designed to “build partnerships in defence and security research, policy, engagement, and education”. UWA is consolidating its unfortunate reputation for cozying up the defence industry (and the resource sector) while not welcoming critical thinking of a sort that would seem a prerequisite for those “seeking wisdom”, to quote its motto.

While the USCC has, at times, tried to present itself as a conventional centre of academic activity, and has been roundly criticised for its troubles by conservative critics, its loyalty to the alliance remains unchanged, no matter who is in the White House. Indeed, it proudly boasts that “solutions for the alliance” is one of its key goals. It even has a special initiative for “ women in the alliance”, some of whom, like Geraldine Dooge, we might have hoped would know better. Still, it’s one in the eye for critics of the ABC’s alleged anti-Americanism.

Even the increasingly problematic, expensive and widely condemned AUKUS project enjoys enthusiastic support from the USCC, with one of its researchers assuring readers that it “will endure and continue to be Australia’s best bet”. More importantly, one of its most prominent staff members, Peter Dean, was the lead author on the influential 2023 Defence Strategic Review, which nominated AUKUS as a priority because “our Alliance with the United States will remain central to Australia’s security and strategy. The United States will become even more important in the coming decades”.

Some things never change

To be fair, the Review was written before Trump was re-elected, but this has not stopped the USSC from doubling down on its support for the alliance and spruiking the supposed economic benefits of the AUKUS project. Dean has even gone so far as to suggest that “AUKUS is better off under Donald Trump than it was under Joe Biden”. Given that Australia has just handed over a downpayment of $800 million with no guarantee that it will ever have anything to show for it, he may be right. After all, Trump can recognise a sucker when he sees one.

Trump may also be pleased about the continuing, largely uncritical support, the US receives from its influential supporters in Australia. And yet, as Binoy Kampmark argued in P&I, the USSC “should be treated for what it is: an agent of foreign interference and ideological meddling”. This is, after all, the way that the Confucius Institutes are treated, and they do nothing more than teach Mandarin and introduce people to Chinese culture. They have yet to produce a report that champions the strategic and business merits of closer ties with China, for example. That such a thing is literally unthinkable tells us much about how some ideas have become the incontestable conventional wisdom.

The limited nature of the policy debate in Australia leads to pointless and unnecessary participation in conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. Thankfully, arguing for a more independent Australian foreign policy is not such an eccentric and lonely business as it was 20-odd years ago. Indeed, while the Australia Institute is not dedicated exclusively to critiquing relations with the US, it provides a home for a new generation of analysts who are not wedded to the alliance. Likewise, a number of prominent politicians and even former military personnel have made major criticisms of AUKUS, albeit long after they are in a position to do anything about it or the alliance more generally.

Nevertheless, ingratiating themselves with the US remains the default setting for Australia’s major political parties and the strategic elites that advise them; even when the White House is occupied by someone who plainly unfit for the office, and who has little understanding of, or sympathy with, the alliance relationships that have underpinned American hegemony since World War II. While more people seem to realise that there are tangible disadvantages to being an anxious, over-enthusiastic ally, not many of them have any influence over policy. Until Australia finds its own voice, that is unlikely to change.