Anthony Albanese’s recent John Curtin oration sparked hope among some that Australia might pursue a more independent foreign policy.

Invoking Labor legend John Curtin’s wartime leadership, Albanese implied he would lead the nation through a modern-day economic battle for Australia. He would demand respect from the world’s two most powerful leaders. Australia would “think for itself” by asserting “progressive patriotism”.

The rhetoric won plaudits, but a closer look at the speech reveals the substance is not there. Australia remains as dependent on the American empire as ever.

As Gareth Evans has remarked, “The reality is that we are militarily as enmeshed with the US as we have ever been, becoming ever more so, and that our capacity for independent, sovereign, decision-making is becoming ever more at risk.” Many external observers are blunter. They dismiss Australia as a vassal.

Hopes for ‘independence" fade when the speech’s central historical comparison is interrogated. By invoking Curtin’s December 1941 declaration that Australia would “look to America free of any pangs as to our traditional links with the United Kingdom”, Albanese positioned himself as a leader prepared to disagree with the US, if only when led by Donald Trump. The parallel appeals to Labor nationalists. Just as Curtin had to navigate between sovereign interests and loyalty to both old and rising allies during World War II, contemporary Australia must balance alliance commitments with independent thinking.

Yet this comparison obscures more than it reveals. Curtin’s pivot to America came in the depth of what historian John Darwin called the “strategic abyss” of the British Empire. Britain could no longer defend Australia, and the US had only just entered the war. Germany controlled most of Europe and was on the verge of conquering the Soviet Union. When Singapore fell, so did the hold of Britain over its Asian empire, including India. Japan controlled much of China and was on the march. The axis powers were close to victory.

Today’s circumstances are fundamentally different. China is Australia’s largest trading partner, not an invading army. Indeed, it manufactures close to a third of the world’s products. Asia, Africa and Latin America are no longer divided up into colonies, protectorates and treaty-ports controlled by warring territorial empires. The “threats” requiring American protection are largely manufactured by the interests of Washington’s militarised politics. If they would forsake the status of “primacy” and learn to live respectfully as equals with the world, there would be no need for war or demanding their allies spend 5% of GDP on defence.

The rhetoric of “progressive patriotism” is also hollow. Albanese may please some party loyalists by pinching patriotic language from conservatives, but the phrase is borrowed directly from US Democratic Party discourse. It represents the same global trend of centrist parties wrapping themselves in nationalist rhetoric to respond to populist backlashes. This is a reheated American political slogan delivered in an Australian accent.

The speech lacks policy substance. On every major issue, Australia remains locked in strategic dependence. The AUKUS submarine deal — costing $368 billion and more with delivery dates stretching into the 2040s and beyond — represents the most expensive foreign policy folly in Australian history. But this ship of fools sails on.

Moreover, the US Government is now extracting a blood price from Australia in exchange for the belated dud subs. The Australian reported that Defence Minister Richard Marles had declared Australia was “all in” for a potential war with China. Marles appears to be echoing not Curtin, but Robert Menzies’ 1939 declaration that because Britain was at war with Germany, Australia was at war with Germany. The parallel is exact: because the American Empire views China as a strategic competitor, Australia must view China as an enemy. This is not independence. It is Australian elites fawning on the Washington Gang.

The government’s response to Gaza provides another telling example. Despite overwhelming public opposition to Israel’s actions, Australia has fallen into line with American positioning. Australia supported illegal American strikes on Iran without question. Yet we sanction Russian singers, because we believe in international law. At the Quad meetings, Australian officials repeated the same tired talking points. This is not the behaviour of a country thinking for itself.

Perhaps most troubling is the complete failure of the speech to engage with the transformed global landscape. There’s no acknowledgment of America’s diminished role in the world, no serious consideration of the multipolar reality emerging around us. The rise of BRICS, the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, India’s successful pursuit of multi-alignment, and other manifestations of the new global order are simply ignored. It’s as if Australian policymakers stopped thinking in 1999 during the intoxicating omnipotence of the American unipolar moment.

The historical moment demands genuine strategic thinking, not rhetorical distance from Trump to cloak absolute loyalty to American interests. Countries across the world are adapting their foreign policies to new realities. Within Europe, dissent from American bullying is slowly growing, and will be strengthened by the consequences of NATO’s Ukraine fiasco. Indonesia’s president attended the St Petersburg International Economic Forum despite American pressure. India maintains strategic autonomy while engaging with all major powers.

Australia could follow this path. Our geographic position, economic relationships and multicultural ethos provide unique advantages in a multipolar world. We could become a genuine multi-aligned power, facilitating dialogue between many friends rather than cheerleading for one team only. We could leverage our relationships with China, America, India and Indonesia to serve regional stability rather than preserve the US’ historically anomalous military dominance of the West Pacific.

At precisely the moment when Australia needs genuine multi-alignment and strategic thinking about its place in a multipolar world, our leaders are doubling down on dependence while dressing it up in the language of sovereignty. Patriotic language is being used to mask continued subservience to American imperial interests. The rhetoric of independence conceals the reality of dependence.

Albanese’s progressive patriotism is the latest refuge of a scoundrel.

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