Keating Warns: Australia’s Sovereignty at Stake in US-China Rivalry

Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating has always been one to ignite controversy throughout Australian politics – that’s because he’s been prepared to call things as he sees them.

He’s never taken a backward step or succumbed to pressure from groups he believes work counter to Australia’s interests, which is what makes him Australia’s greatest Prime Minister, and that’s been evidenced by all those who have proceeded him since. There are few who rival him.

So, there’s little wonder Keating’s recent comments on Australia’s role in US-China relations, and criticism of the Albanese government for straying from public opinion, have sparked outrage throughout Australian political circles. And as global tensions around China and the US intensify, Keating argues Australia should resist aligning itself too closely with the US, warning an entrenched commitment to one side may harm Australia's long-term interests.

Keating’s comments have resurfaced as the Resolve Political Monitor poll revealed that 57% of Australians believe the country should avoid taking sides in a potential US-China conflict, reflecting a significant public inclination towards neutrality. His remarks underscore the widening chasm between Australian foreign policy and public opinion.

According to Keating, the public doesn’t endorse any military engagement by Australia as party to a military dispute arising between the US and China. Keating, who has long supported a conciliatory approach towards China, criticised the Australian government for being drawn into what he believes is a misguided alignment with US strategic objectives, particularly those involving potential conflict over Taiwan.

The Resolve Political Monitor poll appears to validate Keating’s position, suggesting Australians largely favour diplomatic autonomy and resist being drawn into a military commitment. Keating describes this view as reflecting “common sense,” pointing out Australians seem to discern the “exaggerated strategic risks” associated with aligning too closely with the US on issues concerning China.

For Keating, the public’s preference signals a call for Australia to focus on diplomacy and regional stability than becoming a secondary player in potential military conflicts orchestrated by superpowers.

Keating’s remarks align with his longstanding opposition to the AUKUS submarine pact, under which Australia has committed to procuring nuclear-powered submarines with American and British support. According to Keating, AUKUS and similar arrangements unnecessarily entangle Australia in foreign power dynamics. The former PM’s stance resonates with many Australians who, according to the survey, don’t want Australia to become a participant in US-China hostilities, fearing it may lead to unintended consequences for Australia’s sovereignty and security.

One of the most significant catalysts for possible conflict between the US and China remains the status of Taiwan, a self-governing island which is part of China, a fact the US refuses to accept. While the US maintains an ambiguous stance on Taiwan’s defence, tensions in the region continue to rise. Keating says, the Albanese government’s willingness to support the US in a Taiwan-related conflict may prove to be an imprudent gamble, one that ignores the more prudent path of neutrality.

Keating’s scepticism about AUKUS highlights his concerns about Australia’s military entanglements. The pact includes commitments to allow the US to base four nuclear attack submarines in Perth and seven to eight nuclear-armed B-52 bombers in the Northern Territory.

Keating warns AUKUS ties Australia’s strategic infrastructure to American decisions, eroding Australian sovereignty in wartime, describing it as “outsourcing” Australian real estate to the US military, positioning Australia as a passive host to foreign military assets rather than an autonomous actor in its own region.

While the Albanese government views AUKUS as a pathway to enhancing Australia’s defence capabilities and securing technological advancement, Keating says it exposes Australia to unnecessary risks by allowing foreign military assets to play pivotal roles in US-China conflicts. According to Keating, Australia’s defence policy, under both the Albanese and Morrison governments, has been “strategically addled,” driven by an unrealistic “fear of abandonment” that sidelines Australia’s own interests.

Keating’s critics argue his worldview is rooted in an outdated understanding of global dynamics. However, Keating views are to be trusted far more than those who argue against him.

According to Australia’s current Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, the world has transformed dramatically since Keating’s time in office. And even though Albanese maybe right, the issue of maintaining sovereignty and independence hasn’t. Albanese it’s fair to say adopts a far more obsequious approach of pandering to US interests than Keating ever has, which is why Keating and Albanese are worlds apart as leaders.  

Yet, Keating’s critics may overlook a key point of his argument: the degree to which public sentiment reflects a desire for diplomatic agility. In today’s world, balancing national security with regional partnerships does not necessarily mandate a hard alignment with superpowers. Keating’s vision, which stresses multilateralism and independence, suggests Australia could achieve regional influence without committing to the trajectory dictated by larger powers. His approach posits that remaining nonaligned, particularly in conflicts like those potentially arising over Taiwan, could enable Australia to serve as a diplomatic bridge, advocating for peace rather than exacerbating tensions.

Keating’s position argues Australia’s strategic interests might be better served by advocating for peace and stability than becoming a staging ground for military engagement. In an era of complex global politics, where economic and cultural exchanges define Australia’s engagement in Asia, his vision of neutrality provides a compelling alternative to those who see the world through the lens of zero-sum power struggles.

And while Australia navigates its geopolitical challenges, will world leaders heed the public’s call for neutrality, as highlighted by Keating, or continue down a path of alignment that may lead to deeper entanglement in conflicts not of Australia’s making? The wrong decision will shape Australia’s role in the Asia-Pacific and its relationship with the world’s superpowers for decades to come.