Trump could sideline Australia in China dealings, expert warns

Canberra should not “over-estimate” the Trump administration’s support for AUKUS as Australia faces an increasingly hostile Indo-Pacific, a US defence consultant has told NewsWire.

Robert Potter is embedded with troops on the front lines in eastern Ukraine advising the US government as a European security expert.

A visiting fellow at the Australian National University, he has had a front-row seat to Washington’s policy shake-ups on Ukraine, which have left the US’s closest allies — including Australia — wondering where they fit into Donald Trump’s America-first agenda.

According to Mr Potter, the question is not where they feature in the US President’s plans but whether they do at all.

“Donald Trump certainly favours a more direct approach,” he told NewsWire.

“The approach that the current administration seems to favour is a direct DC-Beijing relationship, similar to the DC-Moscow relationship playing out with Ukraine.”

He said his native Australia risked getting sidelined on China, much like Europe has on Ukraine.

“Leading from behind through alliances and creating a web of deterrence has underpinned Indo-Pacific security,” Mr Potter said.

“If the current administration prefers to deal directly with Beijing, even if they’re dealing with them in a robust and strategically decisive fight, it doesn’t mean it’s going to be favourable to allies.”

Mr Trump has made clear he considers China the greatest threat to American power.

His administration has slapped tariffs of 20 per cent on Chinese imports in addition to blanket 25 per cent imposts on steel and aluminium.

Defence Minister Richard Marles discusses the future of AUKUS amid the commencement of US steel and aluminium tariffs on Australia. “We are working with the United States to bring into being AUKUS because AUKUS is in the strategic advantage of the United States,” Mr Marles told Sky News Australia. “It makes sense for the US to have an ally in Australia with this [nuclear submarines] capability.”

But Mr Potter warned against assuming a hawkish strategy with Beijing translated into backing Australia’s trilateral defence pact with the UK and the US.

“If your position is that AUKUS is safe because the US is focused on Asia, I think you may not be seeing that the alliances are not the focus of the security policy, even if the region is the focus of the administration,” he said.

“So I think those two things should be treated with a degree of scepticism and not conflated too quickly.”

The Albanese government has insisted the US’ security commitments to Australia remain steadfast despite crumbling support for other allies.

Richard Marles met with his defence counterparts in Washington last month.

The official purpose of the Deputy Prime Minister’s trip was to confirm the transfer of $US500m — the first of several AUKUS-related instalments totalling $US3bn.

He returned spruiking the strength of the Australia-US alliance.

Even as Australian smelters brace for Mr Trump’s levies on steel and aluminium, Anthony Albanese said: “We support AUKUS and so does the United States.”

He told reporters: “That’s been confirmed in the discussions that I’ve had with President Trump and it’s also confirmed across the Congress and across the Senate in a bipartisan”.

Mr Potter took a different view, saying the US has shifted toward a “very transactional” lens on its role in global security.

“You see that in Ukraine, where the US is trying to push Ukraine into giving up 50 per cent of its critical resources,” he said, describing the deal as “Versailles Treaty territory”.

“It’s not clear the degree to which Australia should feel reassured by any of that.

“And I haven’t seen the administration making much effort to reassure its other partners that similar treatment wouldn’t be possible.

“So I think if you’re looking at this, you’re looking at the uncertainty spectrum of the relationship (which) is quite high right now, and until things become clearer, treading carefully makes a lot of sense.”

New friends

In January, the Jacques Chevallier, a supply ship attached to France’s nuclear-armed and powered Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, docked in Darwin.

The crew had made a two-month journey servicing the French flagship as the carrier strike group conducted freedom of navigation missions from the Mediterranean to the edge of Australia’s maritime territory.

The Charles de Gaulle was in the region for a French-led defence exercise “to ensure maritime security of the three major straits of the Indonesian arc”.

Australia was among the eight countries to partake.

French ambassador Pierre-André Imbert told NewsWire the aircraft carrier’s “deployment is an illustration of France’s capacity to act in the region, should the international situation so require”.

“France is an Indo-Pacific power thanks to its territories both in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean but also thanks to its constant diplomatic, military and economic presence,” he said.

“Our strategy is to maintain an open space based on respect for international law and multilateralism, as well as peace and development.”

Mr Imbert said that as “partners, neighbours and allies, France and Australia work closely to demonstrate their commitment to these shared values and goals”.

He stopped short of pointing to any one country, but a few weeks later, Chinese warships were circumnavigating Australia and carrying out live fire drills under the auspices of upholding free seas.

Warning of a “new Indo-Pacific missile age”, Labor has been pumping tens of billions into building up Australia’s offensive and defensive capabilities, as well as bolstering the country’s defence industry base.

Defence spending has been tipped to grow by some $50bn by 2033, with the Albanese government preparing for a major conflict by 2034.

Mr Potter said that while he was “not sure the French are a like for like replacement to the United States” to guarantee Australia’s security, he believed “it’s certainly in our interest to try to engage Europe, even if without the US”.

He said France and similar European naval powers deploying into the South China Sea was “unrealistic”, but that cutting off crucial Chinese oil routes from the Middle East was “a battle they would win every day of the week and twice on Sunday”.

“Going solo straight up north against an Asian enemy that has a real navy is a bad idea,” he said.

“But there are places where their navy could be hugely useful in a conflict.

“And at the very least their economic involvement in cutting ties with China would be a vital component to any strategy to manage a crisis with Beijing.”