Labor’s progressive patriotism collides with AUKUS

Labor’s attempt to frame AUKUS as an expression of progressive patriotism raises difficult questions about ideology, coherence and Australia’s defense priorities, writes Dr James Beattie.

Minister of DEFENSE INDUSTRY Pat Conroy tried to attract the attention of his idea AUKUS embodies “Progressive patriotism” its last National Press Club address.

Maybe Conroy was trying to pour cold water on you. internal Party dissident and it continues public concern about the deal. Or perhaps, as I will argue in a moment, it was more about trying to distract Labor from the Senator Pauline Hanson‘s particular flavor of patriotism, but without sacrificing the rhetorical and emotional appeal of the flag.

Even his 2024 Press Club addressMinister Conroy touched upon the defense as follows: “Something progressive.”. But he – and Labor more generally – appear to have been underexamined about how Australia’s continued marriage to AUKUS might reconcile a triple ménage à trois with progressivism. Let’s try to separate it here.

First, is the concept of progressive patriotism coherent as a stable political position, and do we need to twist progressivism beyond recognition to claim that AUKUS is an example of it?

political progressivismlike most widely understoodIt focuses on things like expanding state funding of health, education, and welfare, redistributing wealth, advancing social equity, recognizing both materially and symbolically the primary sovereignty of Indigenous peoples, and favoring multilateralism, internationalism, disarmament, and international law.

Although progressive governments are generally suspicious of militarism, arms stockpiling, and involvement in great power politics, they do not automatically favor pacifism, pure political neutralism, or open internationalism. Progressive forms of patriotism have a history dating back to at least the 1940s. George Orwella democratic socialist and even Virginia WolffONE openly internationalistHe had developed ideas that clearly shaped the idea that progressivism could be compatible with a form of patriotism.

In this respect he is a notable forerunner of Orwell. R. H. Tawney. A wide variety of names emerged on the way to the ALP’s discovery of this concept, from British musicians to leftist activists. Billy Bragg and former British Labor Prime Minister Gordon Brown I tried to thread a delicate needle ‘outward-looking and internationalist patriotism’As Brown said.

some progressives We insist that nations can and should both develop strong military and defense capabilities and make sound investments in prosperity initiatives, especially in the current global context. But other progressives, e.g. International Union of ScientistsThey opposed increasing military spending traditional Latin proverb “If you want peace, prepare for war,” he said, upside down.My si vis tempo, my para tempo”: “If you want peace, prepare for peace.”

Those with long memories will remember that the Labor Party was for the most part openly anti-war and gun control focused. This was the Labor Party finalized the withdrawal Australian troops arriving from Vietnam in 1973 and pushed Australia away Transition from “forward defense” policy to “continental defense” policy.

This change never fully occurred. Australia, for example, remained and remains firmly entrenched in the European Union. ANZUS Treaty. And the decades since that treaty was signed in 1951 have not resulted in the emergence of any convincing government seriously committed to a strong progressive stance on militarism, non-participation in US-led wars and foreign invasions, and genuine Australian autonomy in defense and military matters.

Moreover, although Australia I’m still a signer staunch supporter of the 1970s Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear WeaponsUnlike New Zealand, we have never had the privilege of being an asset. suspended from ANZUS For taking a principled stance against the presence of nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered ships on our sovereign territory. To date, New Zealand has been partially removed from ANZUS and shows no signs of change its nuclear weapons-free stance even under the current conservative government.

This strikes me as progressivism, as opposed to the ALP’s commitment to “full steam ahead” on the almost half-trillion-dollar nuclear submarine program, which is tightly tied to the US strategic posture towards China. AUKUS explicitly involves the deployment of Australian-owned nuclear-powered submarines in Australian territorial waters, and American nuclear-powered ships routinely using our military bases as part of our “sovereign” military capability.

Additionally, AUKUS does not require the Government to: approve or reject that these ships carry nuclear weapons.

Despite these difficulties, Labor has demonstrated a seemingly unwavering commitment to AUKUS, now making it the flag bearer of its progressive form of patriotism. So is this a defensible position?

First, exactly what understanding of patriotism does Secretary Conroy have in mind? He doesn’t give a clear answer to this question other than branding it “progressive.” But he is trying to steer Labor away from One Nation and Pauline Hanson’s patriotism brand “populist” As opposed to “progressive.”

However, this situation also brings with it a problem that seems insurmountable for the party. If AUKUS is an example of progressive patriotism, why are we seeing the Liberal Party and National Party lining up behind Labor to support the deal? One Nation, policy page It doesn’t even have a policy on defense, it also clearly AUKUS pro-participated in the dance.

If we follow the logic of this conga line, it seems that the Coalition and One Nation have now emerged as progressive. So if Labor insists on sticking with AUKUS through good times and bad, and showcases it as a central part of its progressive patriotism, then it needs to recognize that Australia’s three most successful conservative parties are also along for the ride as progressive patriots.

Either they all take the “progressive” jersey, or Labor will be forced to retreat from the idea that AUKUS is somehow part of a progressive agenda (patriotic or otherwise). Or, in a burst of economic, moral and military sanity, the Government could always abandon AUKUS.

Minister Conroy could have swept this issue under the carpet by framing the Government’s commitment to progressive patriotism within more socially focused, nation-building policies and commitments, leaving AUKUS quietly in the background in the hope that no one would remember it.

This would not resolve the logical tension that conservative support for AUKUS creates in Labour’s struggle to appear progressive. But this may have persuaded some to think that there was a significant distance between Labour’s increasingly sweetened patriotism and that of Pauline Hanson. self-identification like “A patriot and an unashamed nationalist”.

But if this were their strategy, the discussion of progressive patriotism at this press conference would be completely irrelevant, and the Minister of Defense Industry would not be its natural advocate. The Government is therefore making a strategic mistake by citing progressive patriotism to fund AUKUS.

Linking the deal to progressivism of any kind is unlikely to broaden public support for it, and Labor may just be scoring an own goal as it pushes for political “product differentiation”.

If the Government’s promotion of the submarine deal as a form of progressive patriotism is allowed to slip seamlessly into the already disorganized AUKUS discourse, what next? Maybe the Prime Minister will take a leaf from the US Secretary of War Pete HegsethCould you change ‘s “Department of War” playbook and rename the Australian Department of Defense the “Department of Peace”?

This could put George Orwell at risk of a delayed plagiarism lawsuit. 1984 real estate. But any company that supplies at least pork lipstick will make big profits.