Terms and Conditions Apply.

There is a particular kind of lecture that an Australian politician gives after leaving office. It involves the word "freedom." It involves an appeal to our forebears. And it involves the unstated premise that whatever the United States is currently doing in the world, Australia's job is to show up. Tony Abbott's recent piece in The Daily Telegraph followed the form faithfully. We must stand with the US in confronting Iran. To do otherwise is to look weak, to betray our values, to risk losing our freedom. The sub-text, as always: don't be soft.

The Albanese government declined. Politely, carefully, in the manner of a party that has thought about this and would prefer not to discuss it further. Australia has deployed surveillance aircraft, some missiles, a small contingent in the UAE - defensive, limited and deliberate. It has not committed combat forces. Foreign Minister Penny Wong noted, with some precision, that Australia had not even received a formal request. More to the point: Australia was not warned in advance about the US-Israel operation against Iran. Not consulted. Only notified, at some point, that a thing had happened.

There is a name for a relationship in which one party acts and the other is informed afterwards. Several names, in fact. Alliance is the most flattering.

Abbott thinks this timidity. It is worth sitting with the other possibility: that it is clarity. Because the arrangement Abbott is asking Australia to endorse is not an alliance in any traditional sense. It is closer to what political scientists call, with their careful dullness, patron-client dynamics. You do not negotiate the terms. You are not consulted on the plan. You show up when called, and the relationship is maintained not through reciprocity but through your loyalty, specifically. The patron's obligations are largely theoretical.

This is not a new structure. Australia has been a remarkably consistent follower of US foreign policy for the better part of a century. Korea. Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. Each time the logic was similar: the alliance requires it; to refuse is to weaken the relationship; the relationship is the foundation of our security. Each time, the Americans planned it. The Australians packed their bags. The pattern is old enough that pointing it out has itself become a kind of theatre, acknowledged, absorbed, and set aside.

What has changed is that the current US administration has stopped pretending the relationship is mutual. Allies have watched Washington threaten tariffs on partners, discuss absorbing neighbours, and treat the architecture of international cooperation as a starting position in a negotiation. The "free world" framing, the one Abbott leans on heavily, requires a hegemon that at least performs commitment to the club. When the hegemon has moved on from that performance, the framing becomes harder to sustain with a straight face.

Abbott, to his credit, names the underlying structure clearly. Australia's armed forces, he argues, exist partly to support the United States. Most Australian politicians know this is true. Very few will say it. The reason is obvious: saying it forces the follow-up. An ally contributes forces to a shared cause and has some say in the cause. A client contributes forces to someone else's cause because the alternative, strategic exposure, reduced intelligence access, being left alone in a neighbourhood it cannot insure itself against, is worse. The difference matters. Australia has spent considerable effort not having to choose which of these it is.

The honest version of the conversation goes something like this: the alliance is valuable, probably irreplaceable, and does require real commitments, including risky ones. But the deeper structure, the intelligence-sharing arrangements, the basing agreements, the weapons systems that only function inside the US supply chain, AUKUS itself, is not easily reversed by a press conference. Australia can decline a particular operation. It cannot easily decline the relationship, or the assumptions the relationship carries. Sovereignty, in this context, is genuine but bounded. Canberra knows this. It prefers not to say it out loud.

Abbott invokes the ANZAC tradition. It is a serious tradition, and his invocation is not dishonest, it does involve showing up, including when the cause is not obviously yours. But the tradition also contains, for those who read it carefully, a significant strand of being dispatched somewhere by someone else's decision, in someone else's interest, at a cost that turned out to be rather permanent. The tradition is not only about loyalty. It is also about what loyalty costs, and who pays.

Australia's preference for quiet, low-drama foreign policy is sometimes a genuine strength. It keeps long-term commitments stable. It avoids the kind of daily ideological performance that makes complex bets impossible to sustain. But quietness becomes a liability when the question is not operational but structural, when what needs to be said out loud is what kind of arrangement this actually is, and on whose terms.

Abbott said the quiet part loudly. He was wrong about the conclusion. He was not wrong that there is a question being avoided.

The question is not whether Australia should have gone to war in the Gulf. The question is whether Australia knows the difference between choosing not to, and not being asked.

If you know someone who’d appreciate this, they probably will. Please share. Sharing's nice.
...
If you enjoyed this article and would like to see more, 'Buy the Goose a Coffee →'.
...
The views expressed are those of the correspondent. Factual claims draw on publicly available sources.