Why the AUKUS debate cannot be silenced

Our new series, WAR FOR THE RICH, is a progressive critique of the Federal Government’s defense and foreign policy conduct. Provides in-depth analysis of Australia’s $368 billion AUKUS commitment and the wider militarization of our economy.

It is planned to be held ahead of the ALP national conference (23-25 July), which will shape the Government’s policy platform and strategic direction for at least the next two years, in the hope that, alongside increasing pressure from wider society, these arguments against militarization may be convincing enough to make their mark.

This article is the seventh installment of the From War to Riches: Redirecting Australia’s Future series. you can readother parts of this series HERE. The next episode will be released soon.

Chapter 7: 1984 warning: Why the AUKUS debate cannot be silenced

Looking back at Labour’s US alliance wars in 1984, it was more important than ever that the party did not silence grassroots opposition to AUKUS at a time when Australia faced a much more uncertain strategic future, writes David Higginbottom.

IN THIS SETUP War to Riches The series examines a pivotal moment in Labor Party history when the party leadership crushed a grassroots rebellion against the US alliance.

While enforcing party discipline today AUKUS The strategic risks of the submarine program, which is estimated to cost $368 billion, are much higher.

The year was 1984. George Orwell‘s Nineteen Eighty Four It had become shorthand for a society in which language was manipulated, dissenters were controlled, and official orthodoxies seemed inevitable. In Australia the reality was less dystopian, but its political resonance was clearly visible.

At the time, Australia was witnessing a massive, organic uprising against the nuclear arms race and the deepening integration of the Australian continent into the nuclear warfare apparatus of the United States. Palm Sunday peace rallies had grown to include hundreds of thousands of citizens. Again hawke The government had steadily retreated from its previous anti-uranium policies and remained firmly committed to the nuclear agreement. American alliance.

When ALP National Conference The party leadership, meeting in July 1984, strengthened the orthodoxy of the alliance. Grassroots withdrawal efforts ANZUSNear facilities such as Pine Gap and a ban on nuclear-powered ship visits was rejected after fierce debate. The leadership stood firmly on the side of the US alliance and offered only a minor stipulation to thwart this attack. actual American navy ships moving home. This was an indication that the executive had control over a party that was seeking a more independent foreign policy.

Sticking to old tactics of unquestioning alliance loyalty is no longer just democratically risky; It is strategically reckless.

The lesson of 1984 is clear: When party leadership imposes rigid adherence to the US alliance against mass grassroots opposition, the opposition splits the progressive vote.

Today the ALP is facing a very similar grassroots revolt over the AUKUS submarine program and facilities expansion, which is estimated to cost $368 billion. rotating US bomber deployments and the lack of parliamentary control over war powers. Once again we hear the political language that Orwell warned against; Phrases like “strategic precision” and “interoperability” are used to disguise dependence, loss of sovereign choice, and staggering opportunity costs.

But the strategic reality of 2026 is fundamentally different from the Cold War certainty of 1984. Sticking to the old tactics of unquestioning commitment to alliances is no longer just democratically risky; It is strategically reckless.

The erosion of American supremacy

In 1984, the United States was a confident superpower engaged in bilateral combat with the Soviet Union. Today, we are witnessing the undeniable erosion of the undisputed superiority of the United States and the painful emergence of a more multipolar global order.

The illusion of America’s predictability is shattered Donald Trump‘s first presidency and the intervening years led to a further deepening of this structural structure. Washington’s unreliability.

“America FirstThe ” doctrine is not a temporary aberration but a permanent feature of the modern Republican Party. J.D. Vance to have they positioned themselves As ideological heirs of this movement, we advocate a selective, transactional approach to external engagements that views allies as liabilities rather than partners.

While the United States remains the world’s dominant military power, it is a dangerous fantasy to assume that Washington will seamlessly and selflessly undertake Australia’s security indefinitely. At the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, we are integrating our most sensitive military capabilities into an empire that is in relative decline, whose domestic politics are increasingly unstable and inward-looking.

We are pouring our national wealth into nuclear-powered submarines designed to project force against the nation that secures our standard of living.

china reality

The difference between the Cold War threat of 1984 and today’s economic reality could not be starker. The Soviet Union was a real ideological and military enemy with which Australia had negligible economic ties. Today, the primary target of the AUKUS pact is China.

However, China is Australia’s indispensable trading partner. It constitutes one quarter of our total trade in goods and services. $326 billion is staggeringand accounts for approximately 30 percent of our global exports. Our national prosperity, the financing of our hospitals and the transformation of our energy grid depend largely on this economic relationship.

We are pouring our national wealth into nuclear-powered submarines designed to project force against the nation that secures our standard of living. This substitution of a military posture for the difficult and necessary work of regional diplomacy and conflict prevention is a profound failure of statecraft.

A selection for the 2026 Conference

When delegates gather at the Adelaide Convention Center from 23-25 July 2026 ALP National ConferenceThey need to look back at the ghost of 1984.

They have the authority to demand that the government divert our national wealth from war to human security. They may insist that the decision to go to war should rest with Parliament, not the unchecked executive. They may refuse to consent to the militarization of our economy and the surrender of our strategic independence.

It is time to choose true independence over the illusion of alliance security.

David Higginbottom is a member of the coordinating committee. Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) and coordinator of the Make Peace Our Priority campaign (mpap.au).

This article, FROM WAR TO RICH, is the seventh in a multi-part series examining the true costs of our current defense trajectory and exploring the alternatives suggested by Make Peace a Priority (MPAP) offer.

Read other parts of this series: