Australia has refused to go to war with China over Taiwan

The Trump administration has been having a rough few months.

Domestic chaos - fuelled by the use of black clad, masked para-military squads to deport illegal immigrants - has fused with the deepening foreign policy crises resulting from Trump's support for the doomed right-wing Zelensky and Netanyahu regimes.

And if this were not bad enough, last week Trump escalated his disruption of the global economic order by imposing yet more tariffs on the EU and other countries that are ostensibly American allies.

Add to that the establishment of an "Alligator Alcatraz" in Florida and Trump's recently revealed threat to "bomb the sh*t out of Russia and China," and it's no surprise that even Trump's core MAGA supporters are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with a president who promised them that he would swiftly end the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza and restore America's economic prosperity. They are also up in arms at the White House's refusal to release Jeffrey Epstein's client list, suspecting a self-serving cover up.

Prominent Trump supporters are now openly critical, and Trump's dissatisfaction with inept cabinet members Pete Hegseth and Pam Bondi is clear for all to see. More ominous, perhaps, is the calculated silence of Vice President J.D. Vance in recent times.

Even in Australia there are signs that the American hegemony is beginning to crumble.

Last week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took the extraordinary step of refusing to reassure Trump that Australia would assist America militarily if it went to war with China over Taiwan.

Albanese's reluctant assertion of foreign policy independence was somewhat surprising given that, until now, he has been a keen supporter of Trump's foreign policy. Albanese remains a committed funder of the Zelensky regime, and Australia has consistently aligned itself with US policy in Gaza.

The Australian leader enthusiastically embraced the AUKUS military agreement with America and the UK, when it was entered into by his predecessor, Conservative Prime Minister Morrison, and has echoed - albeit more moderately - the narrative surrounding a perceived China threat.

Albanese's previous reluctance to assert its foreign policy independence is a consequence of Australia's longstanding dependence on America - together with Albanese's pragmatic decision to adopt wholesale the Conservative coalition's foreign policy framework so as to neutralise foreign policy as a domestic political issue.

This foreign policy capitulation was also designed to mute criticism from the pro-Trump, pro-Israel, anti-China and anti-Russia Murdoch media empire - which incessantly promulgates various rejigged Cold War conspiracy theories demonising China, Russia, and the Palestinian cause.

Albanese, of course, has has not succeeded in placating Murdoch - and it is a measure of his abject weakness as a political leader that he refuses to openly attack the owner of Fox News who peddles the same discredited dogmas in Australia that he does in America. It is Albanese's most egregious failure as prime minister to have permitted Murdoch to frame the foreign policy public debate - such as it is - in this country.

Why then has Albanese belatedly decided to stand up to Trump?

Primarily because the fundamental irrationality at the heart of the Trumpian agenda has now become glaringly obvious - even to political leaders as maladroit and supine as Albanese.

Trump's efforts to dismantle the rules-based world order have, paradoxically, only strengthened China, Russia and BRICS. Meanwhile, the American proxy wars in Ukraine and Gaza continue to intensify. Nor has Trump's green lighting of Netanyahu's recent attacks on Iran destroyed that country's nuclear capacity.

Trump has shown skepticism about NATO, and his commitment to defending allies like Australia is unclear. The recent inquiry launched by Pete Hegseth into the AUKUS compact may signal intentions to withdraw from the agreement.

The AUKUS deal - which obliges Australia is to pay $360 billion for a few submarines that may or may not be delivered years down the road - is not only economically profligate, but it ties Australia to Trump's military agenda.

Why would Albanese give a commitment to Trump to provide militarily assistance should America be unwise enough to commence a war with China? Australia has no strategic interest in defending Taiwan, and only the most ideologically deranged of Murdoch journalists could believe that Australia and America could defeat China militarily in a war in Southeast Asia.

Despite advocating for a reduced global footprint, Trump continues to promote the concept of American global leadership. He may still pursue conflict with China, possibly to shift attention from persistent domestic and foreign challenges.

China is Australia's most important trading partner and Trump sought last week's assurance from Albanese while the prime minister was in China on an important five-day visit. The trip included a meeting with the Chinese president - something, by the way, that Trump has denied Albanese to date.

Trump was well aware of this, and he well knew that, if Albanese had given him the assurance he sought, China would have immediately retaliated by imposing trade sanctions on Australia.

The contrast between Trump's treatment of Albanese and Xi Jinping's - at their private lunch last week Xi committed China "unswervingly towards ongoing cooperation and common understanding with Australia" - is stark and telling.

Meanwhile, as the US shifts away from traditional diplomacy, China and Russia have deepened their diplomatic engagements.

Trump's domestic policy measures also warrant reconsideration by Western political leaders. The scenes of masked ICE officers clashing with protesters in California have drawn comparisons to past episodes of American civil unrest. Many observers were alarmed when Senator Alex Padilla was manhandled by officers for raising questions at a press conference.

Additionally, the administration's suppression of dissent - including defunding public broadcasting and pressuring media outlets to silence critical voices - raises concerns about media freedom and civil liberties.

The perceived harshness of Trump-era policies contributed to Albanese's election success. Many Western voters reject combative political behaviour, and Australian voters were similarly put off by Peter Dutton's emulation of Trump's combative style.

There are two key takeaways for Western leaders from Trump's treatment of Albanese, and Albanese's decision to resist his demands.

First, that the Trump administration is facing deep internal and external challenges, and its foreign policy approach may become increasingly erratic and unilateral. Second, that Trump may prioritize his administration's objectives even at the expense of partners. Albanese was placed in an extremely difficult diplomatic position this week.

For many mainstream Western leaders, these insights may be more than a little uncomfortable - particularly those who continue to support US foreign policy and seek approval from the administration.

There are also domestic pressures, including media outlets aligned with Trump, that make it difficult to oppose his influence. Unsurprisingly, the Murdoch press criticised Albanese for "neglecting the US alliance" and "putting the region in danger."

Nevertheless, as the inconsistencies within Trump's foreign policy become more apparent, political leaders in the West who value sovereignty and economic stability may feel compelled - as Albanese did - to redefine their alliances and pursue a more independent path.

If they fail to do so, they may face a similar fate to Trump's most obsequious and compliant ally - Vladimir Zelensky.

(RT.com)