canberratimes.com.au/story/922…

US President Donald Trump is letting it be known that he is considering pulling the United States from NATO, and perhaps some of America's alliance relationships. This is in part because of his anger, embarrassment and frustration that his European allies, and even some of his Asian allies such as Japan, South Korea and Australia, did not automatically follow the US, or Israel for that matter, into his war against Iran. His fury was redoubled when many of the European nations, including England, gave chapter-and-verse explanations about their reservations, ones also being voiced in the US.

The war aims were far from clear, the reasons for it were being made up and changed as Trump went along, the urgency never explained. Trump had no exit strategy. His bombast, and, even worse, the noise coming from the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, was a distinct turn-off, and, in any event, never reflected the truth of the conflict. To Europe, indeed, it looked precisely the sort of conflict in which the US has become enmired and enmeshed, and generally defeated, since Korea. It was not a war that US allies had helped plan. It was not a war about which they were consulted. Most had made their opposition clear well before bombs were hitting schools or popes were becoming agitated. No one felt any sort of instinctive duty to stand by an old friend.

Trump may hope that NATO countries, learning that he is serious, might fall into a heap of apologies, with renewed unwilling military investment, and reparation presents such as Greenland. But I doubt he has his hopes up. The disdain is mutual.

He has been disparaging European and NATO leaders for decades and has talked of walking away from NATO before. He has been increasingly indifferent to Ukraine's interests in its defence against a Russian invasion and has made it clear that he expects Europe to assume the whole burden, if it wants to. He, and the Vice-President, JD Vance, seem not to care much about Ukraine.

Trump has hurled insults and abuse, and European leaders have become increasingly frank with their populations about their reservations concerning the value of the US as a great and powerful ally. Especially under Trump. But Europe has seemed quite conscious that even a more steady, steadfast and patient successor American president will be unable to restore the old status quo. Unlike Australia, most NATO countries have had a dialogue with their citizens and their neighbours about their concerns with the American government.

The NATO countries and alliances Trump is talking of walking away from have not lost their desire for collective security, even if they have declining faith in whether America will be by their side. They fear Russian aggression. They understand that the western alliance embraces Asia and Pacific nations as much as Europe and the Atlantic. Increasingly they are thinking about practical ways of drawing into their plans Australia, Canada, and key western-oriented nations such as South Korea, Japan and Singapore. They maintain close relationships with countries such as the ASEAN nations and India, who are also concerned about mutual defence in superpower politics.

Australia and other Asian powers are closely involved in informal contingency discussions. They are well aware of NATO thinking about possible future western security arrangements that do not involve the US, let alone US military leadership. In some respects, people are hardly talking about anything else. The personality, the moods and the character of Trump are key national security questions.

The scenarios include America picking up its toys and going home to be a truculent isolationist state, the US retaining an eye on its hegemonic interests but no longer much concerned with collective security, and even the US playing some sort of lone ranger. No one assumes that the US will change sides, or totally disengage, or that it will stop pressing most of its interests in the Pacific neighbourhood. But they do expect that American policy will remain erratic and unpredictable, on the existing Trump model. It's assumed the US will decline to take up a lead role as an international citizen, let alone with a chequebook. And further, that the US will become increasingly indifferent to international human rights concerns, and matters of the environment, the international movement of peoples, the functions of United Nations agencies and international development matters.

If there is any serious break-up, it is unlikely that it will follow any initiative, ideas, or even outbreaks of courage or common sense coming from Australia. It is already clear that the governing Labor Party does not have the stuff for that. Indeed, during the period in which the US has become estranged from old friends, the Australian political, intelligence and defence establishment has moved closer to America, but without any sign that our servility is building up credit in the bank.

Hard thinking about the future of US engagement with the world necessarily involves considering the future of the ANZUS and AUKUS agreements, and the risk that either or both could simply be torn up in a fit of American anger at Australia, or at the world. Trump has very elastic ideas about when and whether treaties are for the long or the short term. He is often described as transactional in his relationships and his values, but this involves little sense of enduring friendships and relationships. It's more a matter of "what have you done for me lately?". The working assumption is that the benefits of deals or arrangements flow primarily towards the US, and that they are up for renegotiation if the flow changes.

There are big opportunities in the way the US is nursing its wounds. Australia is being pushed by circumstance towards a more independent defence and foreign policy, whatever the feeling in some quarters that we must stick close to nanny. But what if the initiative for some split up is not to be an Australian one, but an American one? What if western nations still want viable security arrangements and relationships, even if America doesn't want to play?

America, after all, is doing exactly the same thing at their end, and will not be asking our views about their options. America's more craven fifth-columnists here may hope that Australia emerges at the other end even more closely connected to America, but it won't happen simply because they want more sucking up. And they cannot deny the real possibility that America may consciously go another way without any regard for old associations or agents in place here. Trump is not sentimental about such matters.

It's a debate now being forced on us, not of our own choosing. An independent assessment of where our defence and foreign policy interests are usually begins as a question of whether we'd be better off going it alone. But what's now involved is more a matter of alternative arrangements if the old ones become unworkable. This debate assumes we'll be looking for new friends in continuing security arrangements. These new friends will be old and reliable friends in new roles, with whose strategic thinking and defence doctrines Australia is familiar. The impetus for talking about it, locally, or in conversations with others, need not be (though it should be) factored around domestic issues of pride, and nationalism, our geography and culture. It's about judging our own future national interests. It need not be seen as a declaration of independence from an overbearing and ailing former partner who has become too eccentric, so much as a simple adaptation to a new reality forced on us by external pressures.

Albanese and the Labor party could engage in such a debate, and in such a transition without being seen (other than by The Australian and the Strategic Policy Institute) as surrender monkeys. In just the same manner as discussing a future national defence policy, it is, after all, simply prudent planning. It's acknowledging that the world is changing rapidly, that there are new challenges and threats, and new opportunities to define our place in the region.

Particularly if, or as, old realities cease to be, and some of our partners walk away. Presiding over such a discussion need not involve the government's repudiation of its nuclear submarine deals, although the deal may collapse as a consequence of decisions made elsewhere and imposed upon us. I think that it would be a sign of our regional maturity if Australia made such a decision independently of aligning itself with NATO, Japan and Korea. Likewise I do not think it inevitable that an honest discussion will always have Australia in formal alliance relationships with nations permanently pitted against Russia and China, or even potentially Israel. But it is plain that Albanese and his colleagues are up to only tiny steps, not grand ones.

It should, of course, be occurring with a real dialogue between government and the Australian population, as well as with friends and neighbours. And even with nations in the region, such as China and potentially India with whom we have potential differences. Consultation is not simply a matter of talking behind closed doors with "stakeholders" - those with a vested interest in the status quo. It involves being open to new ideas - always a challenge for Albanese.

Australia under Albanese may have managed the trading and security relationship with China more successfully than previous conservative governments. Yet Albanese and the Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, and even the odd defence chief cannot help making ritual hostile noises about China, mostly to placate US opinion. One would think from the chatter of the stakeholders that Australia now sits in the default position of thinking it would join the US in defending Taiwan if China attempts to invade. Two years ago, the working assumption was otherwise, and, if the position has changed, it has not been discussed with the primary stakeholders - the Australian people. It is an effect of the secretive way that defence policy is being made. It would not enjoy majority Australian support, and would be very damaging to Australia's short, medium and long-term national interests.

We should look to the recent conflicts in Iran, Palestine and Ukraine. In each, our great and powerful friend had access to overwhelming superior force, whether by themselves or with Israel. In none of these wars has that power yet prevailed in changing the power structures. In none have threats and tantrums, whether directed at popes, US allies, or even at the supposed enemy, worked much either.

Even if Albanese is too timid and frightened to organise such a debate, he must recognise that things have changed dramatically over recent months. There's no longer a general international conspiracy to keep quiet about Donald Trump or his cabinet ministers, in the hope that he will not be provoked. No longer any value in hiding in the hope that he might not notice you and thus avoid imposing a new tariff. If all the nations Australia holds in greatest regard are focused on what to do about Trump, will they see an Australian unwillingness to offend as cowardice? Is our silence a failure to attend to our own sovereign interests?

Albanese made a very bad mistake in initially embracing the American and Israeli war in Iran. He was the only American ally (apart from Israel) to do so. He quickly backpedalled when he found himself alone in no-man's land. He had at least the common sense to avoid offering Australian assistance (or Australian lives) to the US, despite reproaches from Trump. Trump's desperation to get oil moving past the Strait of Hormuz will increase as it impacts on world economic health and stock markets. Australian involvement with European nations in a plan excluding the US, assuming it goes ahead, is another matter, perhaps a dress rehearsal for just the new combinations and arrangements on the drawing boards. Loyalty is a two-way street.

• Jack Waterford is a former editor of The Canberra Times.

#AusPol #WhyTheFuckIsLabor #HahahahaLiebs #NatsAreNuts #GreensYEAH #VoteGreens #VoteProgIndies #PHONkedinthehead
#USPol #TuckFrump #FuckRWNJs #magamorons #FuckChristoFascists #FuckAllReligion #OrangeOaf #HeyFascistCatch