By Denis Hay

Description

Australia US alliance has costs. Learn how this impacts Australians and how reallocated funds could benefit citizens.

Introduction

Australia and the United States have been strategic allies for over seventy years. This Australia US alliance, often celebrated with the phrase “old allies and true friends,” is rooted in shared history and mutual defence agreements like the ANZUS Treaty.

However, many Australians are now questioning if the costs of this alliance—both in terms of military and economic impact—outweigh the benefits. This article explores the consequences of Australia’s allegiance to the U.S., the human costs of U.S. interventions, and how Australia’s financial resources might better serve its citizens’ social well-being.

1. The Costly Legacy of the Australia-U.S. Alliance

– Historical Overview: Australia US alliance began formally with the ANZUS Treaty in 1951. Through wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Australia has stood beside the U.S., incurring both financial costs and human losses.

– Casualty Estimates: The human toll of this alliance is staggering. The wars led by the U.S. have resulted in estimated casualties of over 200,000 American troops, 60,000 Australian troops, and millions of civilians globally. For instance, the Iraq War alone caused around 500,000 civilian deaths and displaced over 3 million people.

– The Refugee Crisis: The consequence of U.S.-led wars has been a refugee crisis affecting countless lives. Countries like Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan have seen millions of citizens fleeing war zones, often with little support from Western nations. Australia’s involvement in these wars contributes to a moral responsibility for the refugee influx, yet the country struggles to support displaced persons adequately.

2. The Social Cost of Alliance-Bound Military Spending

Military funding without public transparency.

– Military Expenditures at the Cost of Social Welfare: Australia’s defence budget has increased significantly, with estimates of $48.7 billion given in 2023. Much of this spending is tied to keeping military readiness to support the U.S. in conflicts. These funds could otherwise enhance healthcare, education, and housing for Australians.

– Impact on Public Services: Redirecting even a part of the defence budget could fund initiatives like universal healthcare, improved mental health services, and housing for the homeless. For example, just 10% of the current defence budget could support building 10,000 public housing units annually or fund a significant expansion of mental health services for underserved communities.

– Consequences of Refugee and Displacement Crises: Australia’s participation in U.S.-led interventions indirectly contributes to refugee crises that strain social services and humanitarian aid. Public sentiment on immigration has also been affected, often creating divisive views within Australian society about who should be supported and who is viewed as a “burden.”

3. A Call for a More Independent and Socially Conscious Foreign Policy

Australia’s alliance with the United States has provided strategic support over the decades, yet many argue that it is time for Australia to pursue a foreign policy that is more reflective of its own interests, values, and the well-being of its citizens.

Despite growing public interest in a more independent, socially conscious approach, Australian governments have hesitated to diverge significantly from U.S.-aligned policies. This reluctance may stem from multiple factors:

1. Fear of Political and Economic Repercussions:
– Australian policymakers often cite strategic security concerns as a reason for adhering closely to U.S. foreign policy, fearing that any independence might jeopardize Australia’s access to American intelligence, technology, and defence resources.

– Economically, a close alliance with the U.S. bolsters trade relations and provides access to powerful American markets. For some politicians, the potential economic fallout of alienating a significant trading and security partner outweighs the call for a more independent stance.

2. Lack of Political Courage and Vision:
– Some critics argue that the Australian government lacks the courage to challenge established norms or take bold steps toward an independent foreign policy. This lack of vision may stem from a longstanding alignment with U.S. interests that has become entrenched in Australia’s political and diplomatic culture.

– Breaking away from such a powerful ally requires a willingness to redefine national priorities, a path that requires courage, strategic foresight, and often a willingness to face criticism from powerful interest groups invested in maintaining the alliance.

3. Disconnect from Public Opinion:
– Surveys show that Australians increasingly favour a more balanced, socially conscious approach to foreign policy, especially as they see the domestic impact of military spending and U.S.-influenced policies. However, successive Australian governments have often ignored this sentiment, raising questions about whether the government genuinely prioritizes the public’s voice in its decisions.

– Some argue that this disconnect reflects a broader issue in Australian politics, where major policy decisions—especially those tied to foreign relations and defence—are made with limited transparency or consultation with citizens. This trend can foster disillusionment among the populace, who may feel that their preferences for a peaceful, independent stance are disregarded in favour of political expedience.

4. Influence of External Powers and Lobbying:
– Australian foreign policy decisions are also influenced by lobbying from powerful industries, including defence contractors and political think tanks with ties to the U.S. These entities often push for policies that favour a strong alliance with the U.S., as it aligns with their economic and strategic interests.

– The cumulative effect of these influences can stymie efforts for a more independent policy path, effectively sidelining the public’s desire for a foreign policy that prioritizes social well-being and peaceful diplomacy.

In summary, Australia’s reluctance to adopt a more independent, socially conscious foreign policy is a combination of economic dependency, political caution, and a systemic disconnect from the will of the people.

For Australia to shift toward a foreign policy that truly serves its citizens, it would require not only a realignment of political priorities but also a renewed commitment to placing the public’s interests and values at the heart of its foreign relations.

1. The Historical Basis of Australia-U.S. Relations and Its Human Cost

– Key Events Solidifying the Alliance: From the ANZUS Treaty to joint operations in Vietnam and the Middle East, Australia has continuously supported U.S. foreign policy. While initially a defensive partnership, this alliance has evolved into a broader commitment that often puts Australian lives and resources on the line for U.S.-led conflicts.

– Civilian and Military Casualties: U.S. military interventions have cost millions of lives worldwide. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone resulted in over 3.7 million civilian casualties and displaced tens of millions. Australian military personnel are also affected, with casualties and mental health issues rising from participation in these conflicts.

– Displacement and Refugee Crisis: The impact on civilian populations has led to mass displacement, with over 5 million refugees from Syria alone and countless others from Iraq and Afghanistan. Australia, as a participant in these wars, has a role in addressing the fallout of displacement crises but often falls short in its refugee intake commitments.

2. Australia’s Position on U.S. Leaders and Policies

– Unquestioned Loyalty: Australian leaders often affirm support for U.S. presidents and foreign policies without critical evaluation. This approach reflects a hesitancy to challenge U.S. decisions even when they conflict with Australia’s best interests.

– Impact on Australian Sovereignty: The uncritical acceptance of Australia US alliance policies can undermine Australia’s autonomy. For example, Australia’s alignment with U.S. policies on China has strained trade relationships, affecting vital economic sectors like agriculture, tourism, and education. The result is a compromise of national interests to support a symbolic “alliance.”

3. U.S. Military Interventions, Global Casualties, and the Refugee Crisis

– Scope of U.S.-Led Wars: The U.S. has been involved in conflicts worldwide, from the Middle East to Latin America and beyond, often resulting in widespread devastation. These conflicts have had lasting impacts, including millions of civilian deaths and widespread destruction.

– The Refugee Crisis and Australia’s Responsibility: Australia’s support for U.S. interventions creates a moral obligation to help refugees from war-torn countries. However, current refugee policies fall short, leaving many displaced people without adequate support or protection. Accepting more refugees from conflict zones would reflect Australia’s commitment to international human rights and fulfill part of its alliance-driven responsibility.

4. Australia’s Role as a Supporting Partner and Its Consequences

– Participation in Conflicts and Reputational Impact: Australia’s involvement in U.S. wars affects its international reputation, often casting the country as a secondary player rather than an independent, neutral voice in global politics. This alignment can make Australia appear complicit in conflicts driven by U.S. interests, compromising its image as a peaceful nation.

– Economic and Social Impact on Australians: By aligning with U.S. defence priorities, Australia diverts significant public money to defence spending, reducing resources for vital services. Citizens bear the costs through reduced access to affordable healthcare, housing shortages, and an underfunded education system. The pressure to conform to U.S. policies, especially in the Indo-Pacific, risks escalating regional tensions that could directly affect Australians.

5. The Opportunity Cost: How Military Spending Could Benefit Australians

– Potential Redirected Funds: Reallocating a fraction of the defence budget could dramatically improve social programs. For instance, redirecting $4.8 billion annually could create affordable housing for tens of thousands of Australians, set up universal early childhood education, or fund significant mental health service expansions.

– Impact on Public Health and Education: Public money spent on defence could enhance healthcare access, allowing Australians to receive prompt care and reducing pressure on hospitals. In education, increased funding could mean better facilities, more teachers, and lower tuition fees for higher education, building a stronger workforce and future economy.

– Reducing Poverty and Inequality: Social welfare programs funded through reallocated military spending would support low-income Australians, potentially reducing poverty rates and providing citizens with the resources needed to thrive. A focus on social well-being ensures that Australia prioritizes its citizens’ health and quality of life.

Rethinking Australia’s Foreign Policy Approach for the Future

As global dynamics shift, Australia faces a critical juncture in deciding how to position itself on the world stage. A key element of this decision lies in its relationship with China, a rapidly growing economic and political power in the Indo-Pacific region.

While the Australia US alliance has historically shaped much of Australia’s foreign policy, the rise of China presents an opportunity for Australia to pursue a balanced, independent approach that prioritizes regional stability and mutual benefit.

1. China’s Role as Australia’s Major Trading Partner:
– China is Australia’s largest trading partner, accounting for a significant portion of exports, including resources like iron ore, coal, and agricultural products. This trade relationship has been essential to Australia’s economic growth and resilience, underscoring the importance of keeping stable, positive relations with China.

– A positive relationship with China allows Australia to diversify its economic base, securing trade routes and investment opportunities that support domestic industries and create jobs. Recognizing the economic interdependence between the two nations is crucial for Australia’s long-term prosperity.

2. Promoting Regional Stability and Security:
– As a dominant power in the Indo-Pacific, China’s influence on regional security is substantial. Building a constructive, diplomatic relationship with China could position Australia as a mediator and stabilizer within the region, promoting dialogue over conflict.

– With rising tensions between the U.S. and China, Australia has a unique opportunity to champion a foreign policy that values peace, cooperation, and shared interests, rather than one that escalates division. This approach would reduce the risk of Australia being drawn into potential conflicts that do not serve its national interests.

3. Economic and Diplomatic Benefits of Non-Alignment:
– Pursuing a balanced, non-aligned foreign policy allows Australia to maximize opportunities with both the U.S. and China without compromising its autonomy. This strategic flexibility enables Australia to navigate global challenges with a focus on pragmatic solutions, rather than binding alliances that may not reflect its priorities.

– A positive relationship with China also opens doors for Australia in sectors like tourism, education, and technology exchange, strengthening its role as a competitive player in a globalized world. By fostering a mutually beneficial relationship with China, Australia can boost its own economic stability while creating avenues for collaborative development in the region.

4. Preparing for a Multipolar World:
– The global power landscape is shifting from U.S.-led dominance to a multipolar world where countries like China, India, and emerging economies play a larger role. For Australia, recognizing and adapting to this reality is crucial for staying relevant and resilient in the international arena.

– By setting up positive relations with China and other regional powers, Australia can position itself as a collaborative partner within the Indo-Pacific, focused on sustainable development, technological advancement, and climate action. This approach aligns with Australia’s interests and presents a model for peaceful coexistence amidst competing global influences.

Building a positive relationship with China offers Australia a pathway toward economic security, regional stability, and greater independence on the world stage.

A foreign policy that prioritizes balanced, cooperative relationships—especially with influential regional powers—strengthens Australia’s ability to chart its own course, promoting peace and prosperity for its citizens.

Conclusion

Australia US alliance has served strategic purposes in the past, but as global dynamics shift, it’s vital to reassess whether the benefits of this alliance outweigh the costs. The loss of lives, the displacement of millions, and the diversion of public money from critical social services highlight the urgent need for a foreign policy that prioritizes Australia’s long-term interests and humanitarian values.

By adopting a more independent stance, Australia could enhance the social well-being of its citizens and contribute to a more peaceful, stable global community.

Question for Readers

Do you think Australia should pursue a more independent foreign policy? How would re-allocated funds affect the quality of life for Australians?

Call to Action

If you found this article insightful, explore more about political reform and Australia’s monetary sovereignty on Social Justice in Australia: https://www.socialjusticeaustralia.com/. Share this article with your community to help drive the conversation toward a more just and equal society.

Click on our “Reader Feedback” menu. Let us know how our content has inspired you. Submit your testimonial and help shape the conversation today! Additionally, leave a comment about this article below.

Referrence:

The U.S. is almost always at war: https://johnmenadue.com/the-united-states-empire-is-almost-always-at-war-2/

If Trump returns to the White House, should we rethink the US alliance?: https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/if-trump-returns-to-the-white-house-should-we-rethink-the-us-alliance/

The World According to Trump: https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the-world-according-to-trump-w-col?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=778851&post_id=151352525&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=3pjw6x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

What from Trump? | The West Report: https://youtu.be/N4GK0sY-cgc?si=rSnuxzRydMAUpiNQ

This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia.