Australia’s obsequiousness before US power was again on show at the Shangri-La Dialogue, a security forum convened by the International Institute for Strategic Studies to discuss matters relevant to the Indo-Pacific.

What was clear was that the US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth was in a fighting mood. “America is proud to be back in the Indo-Pacific – and we’re here to stay,” he stated in his formal address to attendees. “We have been since the earliest days of our Republic. We will continue to be an Indo-Pacific nation — with Indo-Pacific interests — for generations to come.”

Reiterating the mantra of “achieving peace through strength”, Hegseth stated that the “overriding objectives” of the Trump administration were to “restore the warrior ethos, rebuild our military, and re-establish deterrence.” With the Baden-Powell rhetoric out of the way, he turned his focus on the looming enemy. The Panama Canal was being taken back “from malign Chinese influence”. Internationally, “we are reorienting toward deterring aggression by Communist China”. Beijing dared to seek to become a hegemon in Asia. “It hopes to dominate and control too many parts of this vibrant and vital region.”

The portrait that emerges is standard. China as technological thief; China as marauder against critical infrastructure. This was a state harassing neighbours and seizing and militarising lands in the South China Sea.

Much is made by Hegseth about Chinese ambitions towards Taiwan, with a laboured stress on President Xi Jinping’s claims that Beijing’s armed forces will be ready to invade the island by 2027. It was a threat that “could be imminent”. “The PLA is building the military needed to do it. Training for it every day. And rehearsing for the real deal.”

Hegseth’s speech proved rather odd in how it treated “strategic ambiguity” towards Taiwan. That position, one mushy on the issue of whether the US would defend the island from attack, had been severely compromised by President Joe Biden. What Hegseth failed to do was confirm whether the One China policy retains relevance.

In the flavour of the Trump administration, Hegseth also turned on Washington’s allies, claiming that a “tough love” approach had been adopted. “We ask — and indeed, we insist — that our allies and partners do their part on defence.” This meant “having uncomfortable and tough conversations”. This incitement to add to defence budgets can only serve to further destabilise the region, one already in the grip of an arms race.

With the background coloured, Hegseth could meet Australia’s own Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Richard Marles, on the dialogue’s sidelines. It was time to have one of those uncomfortable, tough conversations. As with previous meetings with US counterparts, Australian officialdom was there to capitulate rather than assert, jump on command rather than stay firmly grounded. What mattered was, in the words of a Pentagon press release, “accelerating US force posture initiatives in Australia”, the advance of “defence base industrial base co-operation, and creating supply chain resilience”. Only the foolish could detect in any of this a sense of independence on Canberra’s part. Such capital had already been spent.

Despite being tenured servitors to the US imperium, playing host to the ever-increasing presence of US Marines, and building up the infrastructure to the north that will position nuclear-capable B-52 bombers alongside the naval infrastructure for visiting nuclear armed submarines, Australia could still be lectured on what to spend on its own defence. This was despite the various obligations of the AUKUS trilateral security pact, which has seen Australian taxpayer funds shovelled into the maw of sluggish US naval shipyards.

According to Hegseth, Australia would have to increase its defence expenditure “to 3.5% of its GDP as soon as possible”. He also welcomed the Precision Strike Missile Memorandum of Understanding on Production, Sustainment, and Follow-On Development. That long-winded measure entails ever increasing interoperability of US and Australian forces on the subject of long-range missile strikes.

The demand made of Australia was welcomed in the warmongering quarter of The Australian, where mouldering members of the Murdoch press empire fear abandonment by the empire. “If the US abandoned its alliance with Australia, we would be utterly defenceless,” writes the anxious Greg Sheridan. “We could quintuple our defence budget and not get a fraction of the security we get from the Americans.”

A spike in defence funding is also being demanded by Washington’s own fifth column in Canberra, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Alex Bristow, senior ASPI analyst, is convinced that Australia should join the spending spree on weapons promised by European states. “While Australia drags its feet, its peers are shifting gears.” Far better to deter a bully — a cheaper prospect — than fighting one.

An absurd scenario is in the offing: the fantasy of acquiring monumentally expensive nuclear-powered submarines that may never see their way into the Royal Australian Navy; and a boosting of a defence budget that is hopelessly distorted by its emphasis on submarine acquisition. To date, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has at least shown a sliver of backbone in promising no such increase along the lines recommended by Hegseth. In the face of more browbeating, that may change.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.