Australia’s silence in America’s war

Australia’s continued commitment to the US alliance has been framed as a strategic necessity, but has increasingly faded into silence in the face of war and diminishing democratic values, writes Dr Judy Hemming.

HISTORY has been kind to Australia’s current government, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. This is because very few governments are presented with a clear choice and the inescapable task of decision-making during their term in office.

In particular, when and how will Australia take the necessary steps to distance itself from its long-standing alliance with the United States and undertake the various evolutions required for its national defense as a sovereign country?

This question cannot be answered with the traditional answers that legitimized the alliance in the past. These were reasonable – just – but only when faced with ill-met challenges; Despite the growing empirical evidence about the alliance, there was always a whiff of half-truths about them.

What makes this inevitable now are the daily demonstrations of American political violence and unnecessary cruelty; They confirm what many analysts and commentators have hesitated to conclude for several years but now judge to be logically necessary: The United States is in the grip of a particular form of fascism of its own making.

The current manifestation of this is the war waged by the United States and Israel primarily against Iran. (This is an abbreviated definition, of course, because within the action-reaction cycles of the initial U.S. and Israeli strikes, the area of operations expanded to many countries in the Persian Gulf, the broader Middle East, and sea lanes as far as the western Indian Ocean.)

In short, this is the war of choice for aggressors, but not only that; It begs the mind to list the violations: just war doctrine; is illegal under international law and unconstitutional under U.S. law. His spy belli it was imaginary; its goals were contradictory and confused, and its means of ending were never clearly stated.

However, it causes death and destruction at the level that modern weapons are designed to achieve and is a source of major disruption to the global economy and therefore to the daily lives of billions of people.

In Canberra, by mid-March 2026, the language was full of euphemisms and ambiguity, as if the denial of what had just been described warranted engaging in a semantic exercise. The reason for such vile timidity has to do with President Trump’s notorious reactions to those who displease him.

Tentative conclusion: Australia is intimidated and unwilling to risk the price of candor. AUKUS It will be purchased in part by silence in the face of brutality.

But mid-March brought with it some sign of encouragement. Australia, which has sent defensive aircraft to the Gulf, has (along with several US allies) refused to provide naval forces to secure the Strait of Hormuz. Whether this was a decision of principle or determined by the capability of the Royal Australian Navy is an open question. The hope is that the former will prevail.

But the language used in Washington, D.C., and Jerusalem continued to demonstrate a self-indulgent, that is, uninhibited and obscene, tendency towards costs and consequences.

And when we take a look at the genesis of American arrogance and the established long-term trends of political, economic and social forces in the United States (the direction of the country), there is no real possibility of its potential to subvert and change politics on a global scale for the sake of its selfish ends.

Moreover, from the perspective of a critical citizen, that is, a citizen who pays attention and waits for the political power to justify his actions in the first place and then be held both accountable and responsible for them, the continued commitment to the alliance is not only a mystery but also a source of personal and national embarrassment.

When asked whether the total number of dead and wounded in all the US-favored wars in which Australia contributed was worth the consequences – which were, in fact, defeats and predetermined defeats.

Informed, thoughtful, and historically distinguished Americans have not failed to give the world ample warning of what would happen if their always over-hyped political system (generously described as a republic of powers and balances) was found guilty of misleading advertising.

After its conclusion Constitutional Convention in 1787 benjamin franklin asked by Elizabeth Willing Powell whether the outcome of the negotiations will be a monarchy or a republic. There was an awareness – perhaps a premonition – of the fragility of the new political order when the answer was: “Republic, ma’am, if you can hold it.”

It is worth pausing to consider this event (the Convention) as an example of what follows in the alliance relationship: statements of principle and fact that will lead even cursory inquiry to degenerate into fantasy and the corresponding willingness of Australian political leaders to believe them or find them suitable for the purpose of mass persuasion of the public.

The Convention, with all its republican garb, was both a momentous event and a document of appalling hypocrisy signed by the so-called and loosely defined “Founding Fathers”; Among these defenders of freedom was the aforementioned Franklin. John Hancock, patrick henry, thomas jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, James MonroeAnd george washingtonperson who owned at least 1000 slaves among them. The record shows 12 US presidents They had owned slaves at some point in their lives.

The point of this story is to provide an arbitrary basis for an understanding that is necessary for “we the people” in middle and smaller powers like Australia because governments insist on both manufacturing threats and idealizing the protectors everyone is said to need. So the story is a provocation, a reminder to think independently.

So good that the president Donald Trump It’s no surprise. While slavery in the USA was transformed into other obscene forms of paranoid discrimination (which Richard Hofstadter), the drumbeat of Australia’s subservience to the United States was constant. Unquestioning loyalty, voluntary blindness, sound and hearing impairment rigidity long after it has passed Statutes of Westminster (1931) And Westminster Adoption Act Statutes (1942).

But for the Australian political leadership, the alliance years since 1945 have mostly been sleepwalking. Even though presidents occasionally warned their countries and the world that domestic forces were a threat, there was no awareness that what were now called “turning points” were imminent or might actually have been reached.

As if created by the Second World War Franklin Delano Roosevelt1938 stern warning somehow irrelevant:

“…If American democracy ceases to advance as a living force striving day and night to improve the lot of our citizens by peaceful means, then fascism and communism will gain strength in our soil, perhaps unconsciously, aided by old-style Tory republicanism.”

It was a stupid impeachment of the president Dwight D. Eisenhowerfarewell address He warned the nation once again in 1961; this time on the dangerous impact that a permanent military-industrial complex could have on democratic politics:

“The combination of a massive military establishment and a major arms industry is new in the American experience… But we must not fail to grasp its serious consequences… we must guard against the military-industrial complex gaining undue influence, whether it wants it or not.”

Yet the somnambulism continued, and honesty requires that Eisenhower himself was hardly innocent of contributing to the presidential legacy that, over time, created a permissive environment for lethal and dangerous American adventurism.

What is so striking is that the components of this legacy are real and historically verifiable, and not the stuff of some weird novel.

Among the things that should be included in accounts of the success stories of various presidents and/or their time in office are:

known role of mafia/mafia;
the president’s cognitive impairment;
voter fraud;
deliberate fraud regarding the Soviet threat;
rejection of international agreements that lead to war and general disregard for international law;
other parties encouraging war to benefit America;
support for authoritarian and fascist regimes;
overthrow of democratically elected foreign governments;
making agreements in bad faith;
unconstitutional and illegal actions requiring removal from office;
deliberate deception as to the justifications given for resorting to wars; And
failure to accept constitutional restrictions on the president War Powers Act/Resolution.

While much of the above applies to President Trump, the obvious is acknowledged: He is a particular example of corruption and political pathology, and even the mainstream media are slowly and reluctantly coming to that conclusion—some, after much thought, also coming to the fascist tone of his administration.

So far none of the above seems to matter. Australia’s political leadership remains silent on articulating the preferred policy. From where? If Australia’s declared interests and values are to be taken seriously, then an alliance with the US is beyond unreasonable; It’s a threat, and it’s been around longer than most people would like to admit.

If sovereignty has a content, and if this content is the obligation to experience independence, then it is surely time to oppose it. Donald HorneIt has been a decades-long mockery that Australia must sever its umbilical cord with the United States in order to still survive. Lucky Countrybut it is no longer governed by second-rate politicians.