Australia is well aware it is not at the geopolitical centre of the world but in the last 125 years it has earned its place — diplomatically, militarily, economically and by its long time support of rules-based international law.
Nevertheless, it is but one of over 200 countries across the globe of which 195 are currently recognised as sovereign nations.
It ranks 55 out of 223 countries when it comes to population size.
As well as being considered an advanced economy, usually ranked in the global top twenty for national economies and gross domestic product per capita. While according to International Monetary Fund data, based on the Purchasing Power Parity weight (PPP) of its own gross domestic product it contributes 0.95 per cent of the combined gross domestic product of the World in 2025. Which probably places it in the top 10 per cent based on PPP weight.
Australia could be considered one of the Middle Powers and, in these uncertain times when one of the two Great Powers, an increasingly erratic United States of America, publishes the following national defence strategy, everyone in Australia should note its contents.
It will add much needed context to the decisions made by the Australian Government over the coming decade.
IMAGE: US 2026 National Defense Strategy (2026USNDS) cover page
Late on 23 January 2026 in Washington DC the renamed U.S. Dept of War released its 34 page "2026 National Defense Strategy" (2006NDS).
This strategy document signals that it is U.S. President Donald J. Trump's intention to review all existing defence and security treaties, pacts, agreements and partnerships. Perhaps even ripping up some or all if the mood takes him.
The bottom line of this 2006NDS document is;
the United States sees its current allies as having an obligation to defend U.S. military/trade interests around the world, however it doesn't see itself as having the same full reciprocal obligations to protect these allies when they are under threat.
"Model" allies will fund their own defence & purchase their war matériel from U.S. industries or their commercial partners; and
There is a stated intention on the part of the U.S. for its Trumpian-style bullying of allies to continue.
The document is quite clear about the American position on specific topics.
European interests no longer matter to the United States. Europe must defend itself & the U.S. will give limited materiel/technical assistance if its own interests are involved.
To that end America intends to remain involved with NATO as one of its member nations via the U.S. Dept. of War to better account for the Russian threat to American interests. At the same time the 2026NDS indicates it will scale back financial support of NATO as it prioritises defending the U.S. Homeland and deterring China.
Canada and Mexico as only two nations sharing land borders with the United States are expected to gear their security strategies to defend the US homeland.
Israel will continue to receive unspecified U.S. support as a valuable ally in the Middle East. It is seen as coming close to the expressed ideal of a model ally.
South Korea is to receive more limited support in its region.
The US will continue to strike at "Islamic terrorists" in Africa and aggressively prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The US 2026NDS also pays particular attention to the Indo-Pacific, which it expects "will soon make up more than half of the global economy". The focus is on the Western Pacific "First Island Chain"
 |
| Source: Researchgate, Overview map of First and Second Island Chain Source: Catama (2015) |
from Japan through Okinawa onto Taiwan and the northern Philippines before ending in Borneo.
There is an underlying assumption that America's allies in the Western Pacific will align themselves with U.S. foreign and defence policies with regard the Western Pacific because they would also view China as dangerous to their interests.
With the Trump Administration preferred scenario being the United States and its allies fortifying and policing this island chain as a way of restricting China's navy and its sea trade — thus allowing the U.S. to take the lion's share of future trade growth anticipated in the Indo-Pacific.
There is no specific mention of Australia in the entire 2026NDS document. This complete lack of reference to Australia in a document, signalling an attitudinal change to alliance per se on the part of the United States and a commitment to review existing alliances, throws a high level of uncertainty across, at last count, 253 bilateral treaties, agreements and conventions in force between the U.S. and Australia.
A level of uncertainty which may become uncomfortable when it comes to the U.S. plan to contain China in the Indo-Pacific.
In this, the 2nd Trump Administration's position departs markedly from the 2022NDS of the Biden Administration which placed value on its relationship with Australia.
Excerpt from the Biden US 2022 National Security Strategy
The United States in this reworking of its national defence strategy states that it "will prioritise addressing the most consequential and grave threats to Americans’ interests. We will revamp our network of allies and partners to meet the threats we face."
So how is the rest of the world reacting?
The World, Berlin Edition, 26.01.26: "Right from the introduction written by Defense Secretary Hegseth, it becomes clear once again that Trump wants a complete break with the system the West built after 1945....The multilateral institutions built after the horrors of World War II, which underpin democratically mandated international law, are incompatible with "America First"; for Trump, they are merely an illusory "abstraction."....Trump's America does not want to isolate itself. But the sole principle of future defense is to focus on US interests."
European Policy Centre 26.01.26: "The Pentagon published its new National Defense Strategy (NDS) late on 23 January, and defence experts across Europe did not have to look hard to spot a strategic shift. The 2026 NDS is not an incremental update but a deliberate reordering of American defence priorities and expectations.
The most consequential shift is the move from integrated deterrence to an explicit hierarchy of priorities. Rather than attempting to manage multiple challenges simultaneously, the new strategy ranks threats and missions plainly. Defending the US homeland and deterring China sit at the top. Everything else, including Europe, is secondary.
Fortress America. Homeland defence now serves as the organising principle of American strategy, not a supporting task. The NDS frames borders, air and missile defence, cyber resilience, and the Western Hemisphere as core military priorities. It openly revives a Monroe Doctrine–style approach, naming Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Gulf of Mexico as key terrain to be controlled and defended. Forward deterrence abroad is no longer the default expression of US security; territorial defence at home is."
Sunday Independent, Dublin, 25.01.26: "The post continued the threatening and menacing tone the president had expressed during his Davos address.
As did the publication of the US National Defence Strategy late Friday night. Released by secretary of defence/war, Pete Hegseth, it's only the fourth sentence of the introduction before Greenland is first mentioned, and then repeated.
It speaks of the need to "secure key terrain in the Western Hemisphere", that the US would "no longer cede access to or influence over" that key terrain, and that the department is providing the president with "credible options to guarantee US military and commercial access to key terrain… especially Greenland".
None of that sounds like a president who has changed his mind on something that has been repeatedly referred to, since inauguration, and for years, as a key priority of this administration, namely "acquiring Greenland".
The Pioneer, New Delhi, 25.01.26: 'The 34-page page document, the first since 2022, was highly political for a military blueprint, criticising partners from Europe to Asia for relying on previous US administrations to subsidise their defence.
It called for "a sharp shift - in approach, focus, and tone." That translated to a blunt assessment that allies would take on more of the burden countering nations from Russia to North Korea. "For too long, the U.S. Government neglected - even rejected - putting Americans and their concrete interests first," read the opening sentence. It capped off a week of animosity between President Donald Trump's administration and traditional allies like Europe, with Trump threatening to impose tariffs on some European partners to press a bid to acquire Greenland before announcing a deal that lowered the temperature.
As allies confront what some see as a hostile attitude from the US, they will almost certainly be unhappy to see that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's department will provide "credible options to guarantee U.S. Military and commercial access to key terrain," especially Greenland and the Panama Canal. Following a tiff this week at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, the strategy at once urges cooperation with Canada and other neighbours while still issuing a stark warning.
"We will engage in good faith with our neighbors, from Canada to our partners in Central and South America, but we will ensure that they respect and do their part to defend our shared interests," the document says. "And where they do not, we will stand ready to take focused, decisive action that concretely advances U.S. Interests." '
The Korean Times, Seoul, 25.01.26: "Seoul is expected to receive a detailed explanation about the new strategy as Elbridge Colby, the U.S. under secretary of defense for policy, arrived here on Sunday for a three-day visit. Colby, who played a central role in drafting the new defense strategy, is scheduled to meet senior South Korean officials, including Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back, to explain Washington’s approach and seek cooperation on implementing the new framework.
Ahead of the visit, the U.S. Department of Defense said Colby would travel to South Korea and Japan to promote Trump’s security approach of “peace through strength.” The Pentagon said the trip emphasizes the importance of U.S. alliances in the Indo-Pacific region as Washington moves to recalibrate deterrence responsibilities among allies....During his visit, Colby is also scheduled to tour Camp Humphreys, the largest U.S. military base overseas. He will travel to Japan following his Korea visit as part of the same regional tour."
The Express On Sunday, London, 25.01.26: "A YEAR ago, newly sworn in President Donald Trump announced in his inaugural address that the "golden age of America begins right now". From that moment, he instituted a "shock and awe" strategy of steering the country hard to the political Right. Having experienced the first Trump administration, the world thought it was prepared, but it did not expect what followed....Most controversially, however, Trump has reshaped geopolitics into one bifurcated between the US and China: Trump's Corollary.....At the one-year anniversary of President Trump's second term, the question is can the "art of the deal" change geopolitics and keep the Nato alliance intact?
Whether one likes him or not, Trump is now one of the most consequential presidents in history. His embrace and deployment of American self-belief and military prowess have set him apart from recent predecessors.
Dramatic change does always come at a cost and the question remains whether the old alliances that held together in the previous world order will adapt to the new one."
In Australia the response is along the lines of....
Embassy of Australia, 2026, Australia and the United States: "Australia and the United States established diplomatic relations on 8 January 1940. Following the establishment of Australian and US Legations in March and July 1940 respectively, the White House announced the elevation of the Legations to Embassy status on 9 July 1946. Australia's first Ambassador to the United States, Norman J O Makin, presented his credentials to the US Government on 11 September 1946. The first US Ambassador to Australia, Robert Butler, presented his credentials on 25 September 1946......A central pillar of relations between Australia and the United States is the 'ANZUS' Treaty, which was originally an agreement between Australia, New Zealand and the United States. The ANZUS Treaty was signed by the parties in San Francisco in 1951 and entered into force in 1952. The ANZUS Treaty underpins the Australia-United States Alliance. It binds Australia and the United States to consult on mutual threats, and, in accordance with our respective constitutional processes, to act to meet common dangers. Australia invoked the ANZUS Treaty for the first time on 14 September 2001 in response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September."
SBS News online, 31 January 2026: "Donald Trump has started 2026 with US military strikes on Venezuela, threats of an invasion into Greenland and a continuation of his administration's tariff trade war with friends and enemies alike.
While such shocks have become familiar during the controversial president’s two terms in office, they are increasingly testing the tolerance of America’s partners and prompting fresh questions in Australia.
Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, highlighted these concerns in his address to the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this month.
"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. And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along, to hope that compliance will buy safety. Well, it won't. So, what are our options?"
In response to President Trump's trade tariffs and his stated desire to make Canada the 51st state of the U-S, Mr Carney's government has chosen to move Canada away from its historically close relationship with its southern neighbour.
Dr Emma Shortis, director of the International and Security Affairs Program at The Australia Institute, is one of a number of foreign policy experts who argue it's time for Australia to do the same.
"This is a president who is unconstrained and who is incredibly dangerous. And for Australia to tie not only our own security, but the security of our region to that again, is incredibly risky and undermines our regional relationships. That risk will only increase as Australia remains tied to this rogue power that is going to continue acting out. There's not many universes in which Trump's behaviour becomes constructive."
A November YouGov poll, commissioned by The Australia Institute, suggests that only 16 per cent of Australians believe the United States is a “very reliable” security ally while a previous poll in May found that 54.2 per cent wanted a more independent foreign policy.
So what has led so many to question an alliance that has defined much of modern Australian history?
The economy and national security are two key pillars of the US-Australia relationship often cited by Labor and the Coalition.
Dr Shortis argues the economic relationship with the US has become increasingly volatile under President Trump.
"The Trump administration has ripped up Australia's free trade agreement with the United States. It is trashing all the rules of global trade, which were of course imperfect, but which for the most part benefited Australia and created prosperity in Australia. Trump is trashing that and that is a risk to our security, our economic security."....
It can be difficult to understand what this decoupling of the US and Australia could look like.
Dr Emma Shortis says a first step from the federal government could be scrutinising the deals and alliances it holds with the US such as the AUKUS submarine deal, which could cost Australians up to $368 billion.
"So I think a starting point is with democratic accountability and scrutiny of the deals that we have with the United States in the first place. And I think what that could look like, for example, is a parliamentary inquiry into the AUKUS submarine deal, which the United Kingdom has had an inquiry, the United States has had its own review. There's no reason that Australia can't have a review of its own. That will bring up many questions I think about Australia's broader relationship with the United States issues of sovereignty and independence. And I think that can, I suppose, get the ball rolling in what a reframed relationship with the United States might mean."
What leaders like Canada's Mark Carney are pushing for is middle power countries like Canada and Australia to draw closer together in favour of orbiting a major power like the US or China.
"The middle powers must act together, because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu. But we believe that from the fracture, we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just. This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and most to gain from genuine cooperation."
Dr Shortis says this focus on interdependence is key.
"So building up our regional relationships in particular around climate action and around public health, around education, around the things that really do make us safer. And building our networks and relationships in that way, much in the way that Mark Carney described. Building coalitions, building alliances around shared interests and around shared values."....
