Australia's Foreign Policy Meekness in the Trump Era: A Dangerous Silence
Australian foreign policy has reached a point of remarkable simplicity in the current global climate. Both the current government and any potential alternative coalition would prefer to avoid international attention for as long as possible. This cautious approach reflects a desire to navigate the turbulent waters of the Trump administration without attracting unwanted scrutiny or demands from the United States leadership.
The Changing Global Landscape
The political and diplomatic establishment in Australia understands clearly that the conclusion of the Trump era will not signal a return to previous norms. The concept of rules-based international order, frequently referenced by Defence Minister Richard Marles, appears increasingly outdated. Significant transformations have occurred within the American political system that challenge traditional assumptions about constitutional governance and international cooperation.
The United States Supreme Court has fundamentally altered the balance of power through decisions that appear to expand presidential authority beyond historical limits. This judicial shift has created uncertainty about the boundaries of executive power, with implications extending far beyond American borders. The court's reluctance to provide clear reasoning for its decisions has left both domestic and international observers struggling to understand the new parameters of presidential authority.
Trump's Unconstrained Approach to Power
President Donald Trump has demonstrated a willingness to exercise power in ways that disregard established international norms and legal frameworks. His administration has treated tariffs as instruments of foreign policy rather than economic tools, adjusting them according to personal preference rather than consistent principles. This approach extends to international relations, where Trump has shown little regard for traditional diplomatic protocols or international legal institutions.
The president has openly challenged the applicability of international law to his administration's actions, responding aggressively to international tribunals that attempt to hold non-American leaders accountable. Within the United States, Trump has blurred lines between personal interests and official duties, engaging in business activities while claiming exemption from conflict of interest regulations that apply to other government officials.
International Responses and Australian Caution
Trump's unpredictable foreign policy moves, including his interest in Greenland and arbitrary tariff impositions, have prompted unusual resistance from traditional American allies. European nations have demonstrated unexpected unity in response to American pressure, refusing to simply accommodate demands that contradict established agreements and principles.
This resistance stands in stark contrast to Australia's more cautious approach. While other nations have developed coordinated responses and alternative strategies, Australia has maintained a lower profile. This difference became particularly evident during the Greenland controversy, where Canada's Mark Carney delivered a powerful critique of Trump's approach while Australian leaders remained largely silent.
Canada's Alternative Vision
Canadian leadership has articulated a compelling alternative to simple accommodation of American demands. Carney's address to Davos participants presented a clear-eyed assessment of the changing global order and the challenges facing middle powers. He acknowledged the rupture in international systems while advocating for collective action among nations that share common values.
"It seems that every day we're reminded that we live in an era of great-power rivalry, that the rules-based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must," Carney observed. "Faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along, to accommodate, to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety."
This analysis could easily apply to Australia's current foreign policy posture. While Canada has actively pursued diversification of trading relationships and developed strategic autonomy in critical areas, Australia has maintained a more reactive position.
The Cost of Australian Silence
The Australian government's cautious approach has potentially minimized immediate risks but comes with significant costs. Australian citizens receive daily reports about Trump's actions and their global consequences but hear little from national leaders about how these developments affect Australia specifically. This silence extends to crucial areas including:
- Details about AUKUS and defence arrangements
- Clarity on trading relationships and economic impacts
- Explanation of Australia's strategic position in the changing world order
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has maintained notable secrecy about matters that should properly be part of public discussion. This approach leaves Australians without a clear understanding of how their government is navigating the complex challenges presented by the current international environment.
Building National Resilience Through Dialogue
The absence of substantive dialogue between government and citizens about Australia's place in the world creates several concerning outcomes. Rather than fostering national unity and shared purpose, the current approach may contribute to feelings of isolation and uncertainty among Australians. As global systems fracture, the need for transparent communication and inclusive decision-making becomes increasingly urgent.
Carney's vision for middle powers offers a potential alternative path. "In a world of great power rivalry," he noted, "the countries in between have a choice - compete with each other for favour or combine to create a third path with impact." This perspective challenges the assumption that accommodation represents the only viable strategy for nations like Australia.
The conversation about Australia's international relationships and strategic positioning is not merely a privilege of democratic governance but a fundamental requirement for national resilience. As the global order continues to evolve, Australia faces critical decisions about how to assert its interests and values in an increasingly unpredictable world.
