By Jim Hayes

In the lead up to Anthony Albanese’s trip to China to talk to his counterpart there, Premier Xi Jinping, the China threat to Australia claim raised its ugly head once again. It was lapped up by the usual media hacks. We’ve heard stories about a ship cruising the Indian or Pacific Ocean perhaps veering a little closer to Australia posing a tangible threat. What about the one that the Chinese might send spies into Australia? Then there is the repeating story about the Chinese acting aggressively, when they object to an Australian battleship cruising within sight of their coast in the South China Sea.

Australia’s national sovereignty is under attack. Not from China but from the United States. This takes several forms. Economic power through its multinational corporations is formidable. The subversion of the Australian Defence Forces to the military command in Washington is a reality. So is the political alliance that defines the United States as the senior partner and Australia the junior one without equality of rights. United States military installations are dotted across the country.

These are powerful reasons why a succession of Australian governments has long been so compliant to Washington’s wishes. The Albanese government is no different. This political subversion underlines the encroachment on Australia’s sovereignty. Can it be said that this is in our interest? Why don’t those who point a finger at fictional Chinese threat concern themselves with the tangible encroachment of the United States? The question answers itself.

There are the fluffier accusations of Chinese military build-up and undermining of what is called the “international rules-based order.” Both beg an answer. China is the one military surrounded by military bases and a naval presence, and its military is confined to Chinese territory. The United States is the one who has made its “pivot to Asia,” declared the Indian and Pacific Oceans as its spheres of interest, and vows to use all means contain China’s economic rise and influence. Australia a brought along for the ride.

rds about the rules-based order. This is a term imposed by Washington to replace international law when it pulled out of international institutions and resurrected the concept of “American Exceptualism.” It means an order where Washington calls the shots with impunity.

Not a good position to be in when President Donald Trump imposes tariffs everywhere, including Australia, and threatens global conflict, even war, against any nation standing in the way of American dominance.

A sign of where we are heading is the demand on nations within its sphere of influence to up their military spending. This is code for wearing the costs of Washington’s geopolitical ambitions.

Albanese’s current visit to China has a greater than usual importance in the present circumstances. He went there to deliver Washington’s message on matters like Taiwan, the South China Sea, and a range of other issues. At the same time, Anthony Albanese is under a lot of pressure to show some independence for domestic and diplomatic legitimacy, stand up for Australia’s real interests, engage in the Asia region, which is increasingly building a good relationship with Beijing. In Australia, the call for more indp0endence in foreign and domestic policy is getting louder. His and his government’s future may rest on howe he performs in these areas.

Washington is now openly talking about charging Australia more than the initial $368 billion for the AUKUS submarines which may not even be delivered. This is an awkward reality that Albanese doesn’t need, especially when the pivot of the political, economic, and military alliance is directed against China.

Then there is the dependence of the Australian economy on trade with China, coupled with the fact that the emerging economic opportunities lie in the east and not in the west. The emphasis has rightly been on growing this trade relationship. This has seen a telling changer in the language coming from Australia, which is less aggressive. This is a step in the right direction. But only one step in the bigger journey to assert Australia’s independence.

Asserting independence does not means becoming a subsidiary of another nation. It means the capacity to make decisions according to one’s own interests, and for the nation to build relationships with all nations as an equal and through mutual respect. It would be a good thing if this visit has propelled Australia little further in this direction.