The cracks in the empire: America’s allies are drifting away

Australia must seek a more balanced and honest partnership with the United States – one that primarily serves Australian interests.

Most of the Western world is preparing for a shift in their relationship with the United States, as the once-unshakable alliances that defined global politics in the post-war and Cold War eras are beginning to erode, replaced by a cautious pragmatism among America’s closest partners. The assumption that Washington would always be the uncontested leader of the free world is being reconsidered as allies – quietly or openly – recalibrate their strategic positions.

The dynamic between the United States and its allies is changing dramatically, and trade disputes, inconsistent foreign policies, domestic upheaval, and an erratic approach to international commitments have led these partners to reassess their long-standing ties. Canada has also responded with its own economic measures, imposing tariffs in retaliation.

Its Prime Minister (as of last week) Justin Trudeau has gone beyond traditional diplomatic protests, urging Canadians to personally disengage from American economic and cultural products, when he suggested “we’re going to choose not to go on vacation in Florida… we’re going to choose to try to buy Canadian products and forego American products… and, we’re probably going to keep booing the American anthem.” These remarks were made not from a fringe activist but from the leader of a G7 nation – a clear sign that even America’s closest neighbours are growing weary of Washington’s shifting priorities.

The British government is firming up its stance on NATO, evidence of its frustration with the American leadership, and in the post-Brexit landscape, is increasingly seeking to redefine its role within the Western alliance.

Yet, despite these global undercurrents, Australia remains notably silent. Unlike Canada and Britain, where leaders have at least acknowledged changing realities, both the Australian government and the opposition continue to echo the same unwavering rhetoric about the U.S. alliance. The usual platitudes regarding American leadership are repeated with near-religious fervour, while the rest of the world watches and wonders – why are they doing that?

For decades, Australia has been a steadfast ally of the United States, but history shows that this loyalty has not always been reciprocated. Australia followed the U.S. into Vietnam under questionable circumstances, joined wars in Iraq – twice, despite widespread skepticism – and committed forces to Afghanistan, a conflict that, in hindsight, offered little strategic benefit to Canberra or, perhaps, even to the United States.

Yet, Canberra’s alignment with American interests is like an instinctive reflex action, as if questioning the alliance is taboo and diplomatically unpalatable. This loyalty contrasts with the aggressive approaches of other Western allies, who are reasserting their independence on global security and economic policy.

Despite these realities, the shifting nature of the U.S.–Australia relationship is downplayed at home. This alliance should be a major political issue – a topic of national debate and even an election-defining discussion – but it isn’t. Instead, it remains cloaked in an aura of unbreakable commitment and clichés, ignoring a growing sense that Washington is no longer the reliable partner it once was and that this situation has changed rapidly.

As the world increasingly moves beyond automatic deference to American leadership, Australia is one of the few nations still clinging to the old but changing order. But for how much longer? With U.S. influence in flux, the question isn’t whether the alliance will face challenges, but when.

Why a submissive Australia won’t question the alliance

Anthony Albanese’s careful approach to foreign policy is nothing new. As a Prime Minister who values caution and steadiness, he has done all he can to keep Australia’s alignment with the United States beyond debate. But at what cost? Australia’s subservience to Washington has become a self-imposed straightjacket, preventing any meaningful discussion of what the nation actually gains from this long-standing arrangement.

The leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton, meanwhile, would never contemplate opposing U.S. policy, as his instincts and behaviours mirror hardline Trumpian Republican stances. The Coalition opposition, much like Labor, seems intent on avoiding any debate over U.S.–Australia relations, preferring to stick to the grandiose talking points about the “unbreakable” bond between the two nations. Yet this tactic is becoming less tenable. The geopolitical landscape is evolving, and sooner or later, Australia will have to confront an uncomfortable question: beyond serving American strategic interests, what exactly does this alliance achieve for Australia?

Australia’s role as Washington’s obedient partner is well documented. Pine Gap? Created in 1966 without hesitation, and even led indirectly to the dismissal of prime minister Gough Whitlam, after he had considered closing the base down in 1975 with the completion of the initial nine-year treaty. Troops to Iraq and Afghanistan? No resistance and presented without debate. AUKUS? A staggering $368 billion for nuclear submarines that may never be delivered. The pattern is clear: the U.S. demands, and Australia complies. This is not a partnership in the true sense – it is deference, with Canberra appearing more eager to placate Washington than asserting its own national interests.

Despite this track record, foreign policy is largely absent from Australia’s political conversations. It’s rarely discussed during election campaigns, partly because neither major party sees any benefit in doing so and the last time foreign affairs took centre stage in an Australian election was in 2001, under the shadow of the 9/11 attacks in New York. Since then, talk of Australia’s global position has been side-lined, and political leaders have prioritised domestic concerns which, of course, is understandable – domestic concerns will always trump international issues when it comes to elections in Australia. But that silence can’t last forever.

The United States is growing more unpredictable by the day, yet Australia remains unwilling to acknowledge it. While Canada adopts retaliatory economic measures and Britain quietly distances itself from certain American military positions, Australia clings to habit. Even the Labor Party, historically more inclined to question blind loyalty to Washington, avoids breaking ranks, perhaps in the fear is that the Coalition could exploit any deviation on national security grounds.

Still, Australia is not without leverage. Though it may lack Canada’s economic might or Britain’s global weight, it has options – particularly concerning AUKUS. This was a hastily brokered under the unpopular Scott Morrison government in 2021, and even Donald Trump seemed to be unaware of it when asked about it last week.

If a future U.S. administration deprioritises or cancels it, Australia will have little to show for a massive financial outlay. Even Elbridge Colby, Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense, recently suggested selling submarines to Australia under AUKUS would be “crazy” if tensions between China and Taiwan arise. Renegotiating – or withdrawing altogether from the AUKUS deal – would not be an act of rebellion but a rational move in the country’s own interest.

The British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has already shown that challenging U.S. policy need not destroy alliances. His public support for Ukraine, despite America’s antagonism towards President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, proves that a nation can maintain strong ties with Washington while exercising its own judgment, and Australia has every right to do likewise. The concern that any challenge to U.S. policy might lead to political backlash ignores the reality that many voters are ambivalent or would actually favour a reassessment: according to the Pew Research Center, 60 per cent of Australians in 2024 had an unfavourable view of the United States, a number which would have dropped even further since the inauguration of Trump in early 2025.

The real question is whether anyone in Canberra has the courage to act. Maintaining the status quo – quietly accepting every American directive while pretending there’s nothing to discuss – may seem like the easiest option, but it’s just an illusion. As global circumstances change, this silence will break – whether through political upheaval, electoral realignment, or pure necessity. The only uncertainty is whether Australia will set its own course or simply react when it can no longer avoid doing so.

Australia must stand up and reclaim its national interest

For too long, Australia has walked on eggshells with its relationship with the United States, as though any minor step away from a complete alignment would be catastrophic. But standing up to Washington need not be reckless; instead, it would affirm Australia’s sovereignty. Far from weakening the alliance, it could bolster it by establishing a more balanced and transparent foundation. Politically, challenging the U.S. might even prove advantageous.

Given this situation, what is the Albanese government so afraid of? The U.S. is a powerful country but it’s not invincible. Its leadership grows more chaotic, and its strategic goals shift unpredictably. Blindly adhering to Washington – despite self-destructive or counterproductive policies – is not sound diplomacy; it’s submission, and no self-respecting country should be placing itself in this position.

Honesty is what the alliance lacks the most. Simon Crean, the then opposition leader in 2003, made that clear when he told U.S. President George W. Bush that true friends can disagree, emphasising that “honesty is the foundation stone of that great Australian value, mateship”. That kind of candour has been missing from Australia’s foreign policy for years.

No one expects Albanese to confront the United States aggressively, even if he should. No one is suggesting he threatens to close Pine Gap in protest over tariffs or military policy which, as Whitlam discovered in 1975, could be politically dangerous move for him. But acknowledging that the alliance is deeply skewed would be a start. Whether it’s AUKUS, the Iraq War, Afghanistan, or trade disputes, Australia often bends to American demands in exchange for little more than vague assurances of security and partnership.

This lack of transparency extends beyond defence matters to the broader political landscape. Politicians, the media, and the political establishment rarely address the reality that the U.S. often treats Australia as a subordinate. When Western Australian Premier Roger Cook candidly called U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance a “knob” and suggested that Trump represents uncertainty – if not outright danger – he gave voice to what many people already believe. The fact that this moment of honesty was so surprising illustrates the deep-seated reluctance to discuss Australia’s true status in this alliance.

If a state premier can speak frankly, why can’t the Prime Minister? Why can’t federal leaders question American policies that don’t align with Australian interests? Why must major defence and foreign policy decisions be rubber-stamped by Washington before Canberra can even debate them?

Australia’s alleged lack of leverage is often cited as an excuse for inaction, but that rationale doesn’t hold water. Britain has shown that even the closest U.S. allies can stand firm when they choose. Canada has levied tariffs in defiance of American economic pressure. Smaller nations across Europe and the Pacific have asserted their independence when dealing with Washington.

There are many things Australia could do. It could rethink its participation in American military ventures and avoid being dragged into conflicts irrelevant to its own security. It could use its influence in the Pacific and Southeast Asia to balance China on Australia’s terms, rather than uncritically following U.S. directives, which ultimately damage Australia’s diplomatic, economic and political interests.

Stepping away from automatic deference is not disloyalty; it’s an act of self-respect. It would signal to Washington that Australia is an equal partner, not a subservient ally. Crucially, it could also be politically advantageous – the Australian electorate is far from oblivious to the dysfunction in Washington.

Before long, the U.S. alliance will inevitably become a national issue, as global events are changing too rapidly for America’s dominance to continue unchecked. The real question is whether Australia will redefine its global role proactively or wait until circumstances force it to respond. If it waits, it risks missing a critical chance to reshape its position on its own terms. If it acts, Australia may finally gain a more balanced and honest partnership with the United States – one that primarily serves Australian interests.