John Menadue argues it is time for Australia to separate itself from US policy and preparations to confront China militarily.

I have outlined earlier the brutal consequences for Australia in persisting with Defence Minister Marles’ policy of integrating Australia into US war preparations against China.

Assuming the Albanese Government is open to withdrawing from US military action against China, the prime minister’s burst of foreign policy energy in the Pacific and PNG was probably intended to serve as a reminder to the Trump administration of Australia’s contribution to global security, through regional effort. Our diplomatic and security effort in the Pacific has underpinned our security relationship with the US since the Vietnam war. But will it outweigh the US fixation on enveloping Australia into its attempt to demolish China as a global rival?

Australia must recognise it is merely one of America’s pawns in dominating the Indo-Pacific. President Obama claimed in 2010 that willing “allies” are critical to its strategy. Today, the US hegemonic objective is emboldened by belief that technology enables the US to rise above “mutually assured destruction”, through its Golden Dome defence. Thereby allies become dispensable.

Which takes us to the contradictory heart of Australia’s security policies. Our foreign policy, unlike Marles’ defence policy, focuses on preserving peace in our region. Seeking “equilibrium” between nations. That has been challenging and costly, supporting relations with diverse nations across a vast strategic backyard. But our subservience to the US on defence undermines the credibility of that policy. Australia has become nonsensically nuanced in its relations with Pacific nations. While we are an enormous beneficiary of China’s growth and we exploit its possibilities, we do not assist our Pacific neighbours to emulate our actions. We cannot expect to be seen as genuine while insinuating US attitudes towards China onto our Pacific partners.

So, the Pacific is not the diplomatic device it once was – riven with contradiction and overwhelmed by US fixation on China’s demise. If Albanese is relying on our foreign policy in the Pacific to gain US acceptance of our withdrawal from its military plans against China, he will be disappointed.

But how does Australia step aside now, after a politically disgraceful 15 years of embracing US plans? The Trump administration has been overt in brushing aside the interests of any who do not meet its demands, with punitive measures.

There are no easy prescriptions for an Australian strategy for survival independently in a singularly uncertain world. We have sensible options but it won’t be easy – “If you’re not at the table, you’re on it” (former Secretary State Antony Blinken). Only the best, with demonstrably independent stature across our national endeavour, should be invited to join a prime ministerial review of options for Australia to chart our self-reliant future.

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