2026-05-05
United States National Security Strategy must trigger a review of Australia’s alliance and of our own National Defence Strategy
By Annette Brownlie, IPAN Chairperson; Jonathan Pilbrow, IPAN Executive Officer; and Vivienne Glance, IPAN Member, former IPAN Coordinating Committee Representative, and member of Greens WA
In the before-Trump era we could comfortably believe that Australia’s interests were in some way aligned with those of the ‘Western world’ as this was defined by the dominant narratives emanating from Washington. However, many of us were aware that the story we were being told did not match the actions of the United States of America, the so-called leader of the free world. Actions such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the on-going blockade of Cuba, the unquestioning support of Israel’s action in Gaza and the West Bank, the fearmongering around the economic and political influence of China, and now the attacks on Iran and the accompanying disruption of the Strait of Hormuz. With Donald Trump in charge, that flimsy mask of virtuous benevolence from the country with the largest military in the world was well and truly taken off.
The blatant aggression that the United States so often adopts to achieve its dominance are laid out in plain English in the recently released United States National Security Strategy (NSS) document. This is a startling and dangerous outline of that country’s ‘America First’, isolationist, race-based stance that is a significant shift in Washington’s past approaches. Here the Western World has shifted to the Western Hemisphere, first defined in the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 to mean the Americas, and then updated by Trump to mean, it seems, anywhere it wants to influence or control. This new world view set out in the NSS seeks to abandon multi-lateral organisations that have strived to maintain global peace since the Second World War and to enact a goal ‘summarized as Enlist and Expand’ (p.16). The actions of institutions, such as the United Nations, are described as ‘sovereignty sapping incursions of intrusive transnational organizations’ (p.9), and there is no commitment to the international rules-based order that our Australian government claims to support.
The NSS is also contradictory: it demands countries bear more responsibility for their own defence but then expects them to align with the USA’s interests when applying it. It is also hypocritical as it ignores the fact that the USA, like Australia, is a country of migrants with a settler-colonial past, and a modern culture that embraces diversity.
The NSS explicitly calls for allies to ‘assume primary responsibility for their regions' by increasing their defence expenditure to 5% of GDP. Yet Australia is actually moving its responsibility in the opposite direction with its deeper integration through AUKUS, including more US bases, and therefore less independent capability. This contradiction exposes how Australia's current policy serves the interests of the USA (e.g. forward deployment in our region, containment of China) rather than genuine regional security. If the USA truly wants allies to take regional responsibility, Australia should develop an independent defence capability and not become more dependent on the USA’s military infrastructure.
The NSS strategy document clarifies that the only interest the United States has in engaging with other countries is to further its own economic interests, which it is prepared to ensure through its military might. The claims of delivering democracy and security are shown as the fiction they are. This strategy illustrates how current so-called allies are expendable if they are not seen as being in the limited commercial interests of the United States. Venezuela is a recent example of this strategy in action. Through sophisticated military action and advanced technology the USA were able to forcibly remove that country’s Head of State, Nicholas Maduro and his wife, and abduct them to New York. The reason given was to improve the production of oil from Venezuela, ostensibly to benefit US interests. The attack on Iran is the latest example of this strategy. The USA has no allegiance to peace or cooperation beyond this limited economic frame.
The NSS's ‘fairness’ doctrine means that the USA will use economic leverage against allies who do not align with the USA’s trade policies. Given that Australia's largest trading partner is China, this creates direct conflict with US economic nationalism. The NSS makes it clear that economic security is national security ‒ and that the USA will not hesitate to pressure allies economically. This is a very significant concern as it exposes Australia to being caught between the USA’s economic demands and our own economic interests. This is further evidence that the deeper our alliance is with the USA, the more that Australian sovereignty and economic independence will diminish.
The Australian Government must re-evaluate our country’s relationship with the United States as a matter of urgency. This must include any support the government is offering for military adventures in Western Asia (Iran and Palestine), and an immediate and comprehensive review of AUKUS.
Australia must not support a strategy that states that ‘The outsized influence of larger, richer, and stronger nations is a timeless truth of international relations’ (p.10). Or one that ‘will organize a burden-sharing network, with our government [United States] as convener and supporter.’ (p.12) Nor should we align with a country that will not hesitate to use military intervention to force its economic dominance over other countries.
The USA is also expanding and strengthening its military through a ‘peace through strength’ approach. To support this, President Trump recently called for an increase in US military spending from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion. In line with the NSS strategy, Australia’s role is merely to uphold USA dominance in the Indo-Pacific and the Asian region, but at what cost to our own national interests?
Recently, the Australian Labor Government has released its own 2026 National Defence Strategy (NDS) and 2026 Integrated Investment Strategy (IIS). The ISS states that this government ‘is investing around $425 billion over the decade to deliver accelerated capability for the integrated, focused force.’ In other words, they are spending over $4 billion of taxpayers’ money per year on such items as weapons, military technology and bases.
The NDS states that this country is committed to maintain the capacity of the Australia Defence Force to:
- Contribute with our partners to the collective security of the Indo-Pacific
- Contribute with our partners to protecting and upholding global rules and norms (p.7)
This means that Australia will in effect double down on its cooperation with the United States in the Indo-Pacific region and just assumes that its values and interests will remain aligned with ours over the next 10 years. After the turmoil of Trump’s second presidency, the USA/Israel-initiated disaster happening in Western Asia, and with the aims outlined in the NSS, it is hard to predict if that is a reasonable assumption for us to make. Given the current disregard for the role of international institutions, what will global norms even look like in 10 years’ time?
If Australia does not review its alliance with the United States, we will be seen to be supporting a dangerous and violent new world order as outlined in the US NSS. Furthermore, we are likely to be even more exposed to current and future American military adventurism overseas, in ways that could harm the interests of Australians and our standing in the world, especially in East Asia and the Pacific.
Header photo: The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) passing under a rainbow. Credit: U.S. Navy Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class James R. Evans. Released by the United States Navy with the ID 080927-N-7981E-418 under Commons Licencing.
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]
An earlier version of this article appeared in IPAN’s February 2026 edition of "Voice".