By Andrew Klein 

The Core Dilemma: Prosperity Versus Primacy

Australia stands at a strategic crossroads, paralysed by a fundamental contradiction. Its official posture, articulated in documents like the 2024 National Defence Strategy, frames the nation’s security as inextricably dependent on upholding a “rules-based order” through deepened alliance integration, primarily with the United States. Yet, this commitment functions increasingly as an ideology of primacy—a determination to restore and maintain U.S. military dominance in the Indo-Pacific as the non-negotiable foundation of Australian policy. This ideological stance directly conflicts with Australia’s geographical and economic reality.

The cost of this contradiction is not abstract. It manifests in the surrender of sovereign decision-making, where Australian foreign and defence policy is made congruent with Washington’s strategic needs, effectively reducing the nation to a “first strike target” in a U.S.-China conflict it has no independent interest in starting. It creates a dangerous incoherence with China, Australia’s largest trading partner, which is explicitly excluded as a security partner in official strategy despite being central to national prosperity. This path, driven by alliance loyalty over strategic independence, is vividly illuminated in two critical arenas: the colossal AUKUS submarine programme and the simmering tensions of the South China Sea.

The AUKUS Submarine Deal: Vassalage in Exchange for Technology

The AUKUS pact, specifically Pillar 1 focused on delivering nuclear-powered attack submarines to Australia, is the ultimate expression of strategic subordination presented as strategic necessity. The programme’s sheer scale and terms reveal the mechanics of modern vassalage.

· The Staggering Financial Tribute: The programme carries an estimated cost of $368 billion over its lifetime. This represents the single largest defence investment in Australian history, a financial anchor that will dictate budgetary priorities for decades and divert resources from urgent domestic needs in health, climate resilience, and infrastructure.

· Dependence and Uncertainty: The deal’s architecture makes Australia wholly dependent on its partners. The UK will build the first new “SSN-AUKUS” boats, with Australia’s first domestically built submarine not expected until the early 2040s. More critically, the planned sale of up to five U.S. Virginia-class submarines in the 2030s is now under a cloud due to a formal review launched by the U.S. Trump administration. This review questions whether the sale serves an “America First” agenda, forcing Australia to wait anxiously for a verdict on a cornerstone of its defence strategy.

· The 50-Year Bond: In response to this U.S. uncertainty, Australia and the UK moved to sign a separate 50-year defence treaty in July 2025, cementing their bilateral commitment to AUKUS. This move underscores that the partnership is not merely a procurement agreement but a generational geopolitical lock-in, binding Australia’s strategic identity to Northern Hemisphere powers for the next half-century.

The AUKUS deal is less about submarines and more about a public transaction of sovereignty. Australia pays immense financial tribute and surrenders long-term strategic autonomy in exchange for a place within an Anglo-American technological sphere, all to signal unwavering commitment to a U.S.-led order whose credibility is waning.

The South China Sea: The Theatre of a Contested Order

If AUKUS represents the costly hardware of allegiance, the South China Sea represents the fraught diplomatic theatre where the contested “rules-based order” collides with hard power and economic gravity. Here, Australia’s aligned posture forces it into a conflict with its major trading partner over disputes in which it has no direct stake.

China’s expansive claims, based on the “nine-dash line” and enforced by coast guard and maritime militia, have been rejected by a 2016 international tribunal ruling. However, Beijing has continued to build military outposts and assert control, creating a constant source of tension.

The response from Southeast Asian claimant states—Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei—reveals the practical dilemma Australia ignores through its ideological stance. These nations do not see a binary choice between the U.S. and China but navigate a complex middle ground.

· The “Shelving Disputes” Strategy: Most claimants have adopted versions of a Chinese-promoted “shelving disputes” approach. Vietnam formalised this in a 2011 agreement, while Malaysia and Brunei pursue pragmatic engagement, avoiding public confrontation with Beijing. Even the Philippines, which has recently taken a firmer stance under President Marcos Jr., continues deep economic engagement with China.

· The Economic Imperative: The reason for this is unequivocal: China is the largest trading partner for Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines, with two-way trade amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Confrontation carries a devastating economic price. As a result, ASEAN as a bloc remains divided, struggling to form a cohesive response despite decades of dialogue.

· Australia’s Misaligned Posture: Into this nuanced landscape, Australia inserts itself as a vocal supporter of “freedom of navigation” operations and a staunch backer of the Philippines, conducting joint patrols and expanding U.S. base access. This aligns perfectly with Washington’s strategy but puts Australia at odds with the more cautious, economically-driven approaches of the region itself. It prioritises demonstrating alliance loyalty over fostering regional diplomatic cohesion, making it an instrument of U.S. policy rather than an independent regional power building consensus.

The Path of Strategic Independence

The alternative to this subordination is not isolationism but a genuinely independent strategy grounded in Australia’s unique geography and interests. Such a strategy would recognise several pillars:

1. Realistic Assessment: Acknowledge the reality of a multipolar region and the relative decline of unipolar U.S. dominance.

2. Diplomatic Primacy: Elevate diplomacy and confidence-building with all regional powers, including China, as the primary tool of security. Champion the UN Charter over the vague and contested “rules-based order.”

3. Inclusive Security: Understand that security is indivisible; Australia’s safety is linked to the security of all nations in the region, not achieved against them.

4. Economic Integrity: Decouple trade from strategic hostility, recognising that prosperity with China is not a security threat but a national interest to be managed.

5. Sovereign Defence: Invest in credible, affordable self-reliance focused on the defence of Australian territory and approaches, rather than expeditionary capabilities designed for coalition warfare in distant theatres.

The current course sacrifices sovereign agency on the altar of an alliance, entraps the nation in the financialised “fiat war economy” of perpetual preparation, and forces a confrontational posture that contradicts economic and geographic reality. The AUKUS submarines and the South China Sea posture are not symbols of strength, but symptoms of a strategic failure of imagination—the inability to conceive of an Australian future not defined by its support for another great power’s primacy. A secure and prosperous future lies not in becoming a more committed deputy, but in reclaiming the sovereign right to chart a unique course, at peace with its geography and its neighbours.