Defence Minister Richard Marles’ support for US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s call for increased Asia-Pacific security contributions, particularly to counter China’s military build-up, has sparked significant backlash.
Prime Minister Albanese has reportedly been upset by Marles’ stance. Albanese recently criticised a security think tank report warning of Australia’s unpreparedness for regional conflict, showing his sensitivity to escalating military rhetoric. Marles’ alignment with Hegseth, especially amid pressure from the Trump administration to raise Australia’s defence spending to 5% of GDP (from the current 2.02%), directly contradicts Albanese’s more cautious approach. This has created tension within the government, with Albanese likely viewing Marles’ comments as undermining his authority and Australia’s independent foreign policy.
Australians, too, are frustrated. Many see this as a repeat of Peter Dutton’s failed strategy of aligning closely with the Trump administration, which contributed to his election loss. Scores of comments on X reflect this sentiment, with some calling Marles’ approach “America-friendly” and a betrayal of national interests. Others argue that the focus on military spending – potentially at the expense of social programs, community infrastructure, and welfare – prioritises US agendas over domestic needs. For instance, there’s concern that funds could be better used to build a better society rather than fueling what some see as a provocative stance against China.
China, predictably, has reacted strongly. Beijing issued statements condemning Hegseth’s rhetoric as “defamatory,” accusing the US of being the true hegemonic power destabilising the Asia-Pacific. China also dismissed comparisons between Taiwan and Ukraine as “unacceptable,” asserting Taiwan as an internal affair. Marles’ call for transparency on China’s military build-up, made at the Shangri-La Dialogue, was met with silence from Beijing, which instead sent a low-level delegation to the summit, signaling its displeasure. China’s criticism extends to the broader US-led push, including the AUKUS pact, which Marles defended as “on track” despite regional unease.
Additionally, an overwhelming number of commentators on social media have criticised Marles for potentially escalating tensions with China. They argue that Australia should avoid provocative actions – such as sending warships near China’s coast – and focus on diplomacy rather than aligning with a US administration that has slashed Pacific aid and abandoned the Paris Agreement, moves that Pacific nations have also criticised.
Overall, the criticism paints Marles’ alignment with Hegseth as a risky move that alienates his own government, frustrates Australians wary of US influence, and provokes China, all while regional stability hangs in the balance.
The backlash reflects deep concerns about the implications of Marles’ stance, both domestically and regionally. The tension with Albanese, public frustration, and China’s response highlight the complexity of Australia’s position in this geopolitical context.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
US Defence Secretary, Hegseth, jets into Singapore and tell the largely Asian delegates at the Shangri-La Dialogue that they must spend more on armaments and weaponry to counter China in what could only be preparation for WWIII.
Being a bit of a cynic on these matters I have to ask, where will all these Asian countries including Australia purchase their weaponry ? A rhetorical question perhaps as Hegseth doesn’t expect us to buy from China does he : what he and his boss want us to do is buy from good old Uncle Sam – it’s no coincidence that the first overseas visist by the Trumper was to Saudi Arabia to sell them more armaments but in their case the bogey man was said to be Iran.
Another rhetorical question: are these arms salesmen [Hegseth and Trump] on a commission, isn’t that how it works ?
Perhaps Mr Hegseth would do us all a favour and support Ukraine in its efforts to liberate themselves and stop selling weaponry to Israel !
More inflamatory, hyocritical and hysterical rrhetric from the worlds worst terrorist the USA. Australias alignmnent with the USA will be to our detrimemt if war breaks out and as usual the USA loses. The USA couldnt beat North Vietnam in a war, yet it arrogantly thinks it can beat a very well armed China.
Politically generated fear, does Marle’s really believe China is going to attack us? Doesn’t he realise America only promotes war to improve it’s military industries bottom line.
America wants the EU and most of the so called “free world” to increase the amount they spend on military equipment, which America is only to willing to sell them.
The only thing to be scared of, is American greed and it’s arms industry.
Marles is a warmonger in thrall to the US military Industrial complex. Hegseth is a warmongering dunderhead. They make a disturbing team and Albanese should be starting to see that Marles is harming our relationship with our biggest trading partner. I personally hope China keeps to just talking about invading Taiwan rather than actually doing it because I believe Taiwan has the right to be viewed as its own independent (and democratic) country. Back to Marles and his assurances AUKUS is alive and well confirms his stupidity. Albanese needs to act on his reported reservations and dump him. It would look messy but is necessary for Australia’s long-term interests vis-a-vis both the US and China.
If it wasn’t for Labor’s antiquated factional deals, Marles would be looking for another job.He should be moved along as a matter of course.
He hasn’t read the room.
Thanks for this article, Michael.
AUKUS has resurfaced as an issue with coverage on French Television through Channel 2 of Paris. Was all this part of an Australian coup by Scott Morrison against Malcolm Turnbull with support from Boris Johnson and Joe Biden with the support of military industrial complexes of the Anglo countries?
I have a draft article on this issue.
Keep up the cryptic comments Harry Lime!
Harry Lime: Agreed. Retched mediocrity aka Richard Marles has an ego much bigger than any of his abilities and little likelihood of improving the necessary skills while in office.
.
Without a doubt Mediocrity is the greatest challenge that LABOR has to four successive terms in government to rectify the past nine (9) years of corrupt COALition maladministration & misgovernment. His ego games already evident in the right-left factional fight over Ministries, shows that he puts personal aggrandisement before every consideration of national well-being.
Talk about Marles not reading the room! Utterly predictable that he should be enthralled by the wretched tattooed incompetent alcoholic bed-hopping freak Hegseth. Anyone with a skerrick of common sense wouldn’t touch the toxic American carpetbagger with a ten-foot pole. Czesław Przybyszewski, a 3.05 metre Polish giant, said he wouldn’t touch him either.
Contrarian view perhaps, but the reason we need to increase defence spending is because we now can’t rely on the US, not because we’re “America friendly”. Australian officials, including Wong, have been warning about the threat China is to regional peace and a rules based global order. China overtly state they will “reunify” with Taiwan by any means necessary, including military force. This needs to be deterred and prevented, and the risk to Australia prepared for. Aus Defence spending needs to be nuanced. Yes AUKUS submarines a centre piece, but a lot of the spending needs to be on Australian national resilience. Seeing early signs with Korean military gear now being manufactured in Aus (note not all just US products), and of course Aus shipbuilding, but we should be doing more, especially on things like strategic fuel reserves and a merchant fleet.
It is a big, rubbery topic area, and Harry is one to have a go, more a duck than century. But, is Marles a friend of us here, or a lacker, slacker, whacker? You and I want peace, decency, prosperity, dialogue, diplomacy, agreements… so let us aim better. As for Hegseth, a magnified vacuum, Trumpery is his master. It is not our fate. The clarity and wisdom of Macron is inviting, so.., consider.
Harry, do you really think China is going to attack us and if you do, please tll us why?
China already has a large stake in Australia and lots of their children study here, just why would you risk going to war, when you are getting what you want now?
As for AUKUS, do you really think two or three second hand subs would defend our country? There is nothing to stop China, if they chose to attack us now, Trumps got his handsful with the Middle East, the Ukraine plus internal issues.
For the record, I would like to point out that I am no relation to this Harry Two.And I have ALWAYS considered that UFUCKUS the worst decision we have ever made.It is the greatest load of bullshit and wasted taxpayers money in the history of the universe…or any other place.
Thee simple truth is Hegseth is a complete and utter FLOG. I cannot even begin to imagine why anybody, even with just a modicum of brain cells, would even contemplate listening to a single word from the mouth of the most unqualified, idiotic, moronic Defence Secretary in history.
What China decides re. Taiwan in China’s business and China’s business alone. If interfering western countries think they can countermand or influence China’s decision-making on this matter, they are seriously deluded; China is more than capable of managing the ‘Taiwan question’ alone, as is her right to so do.
Let’s not overlook the fact that after the historic battle for control of China after WWII between the Communist Party and the Kuomintang, the latter, on losing, stripped the Chinese treasury of its wealth and fled to Taiwan with the bullion.
The only reason Americans are shitting themselves over this is that Taiwan is the world’s leading computer chip manufacturer, as well as being a constant customer for American military hardware… both of which will cease to be active on American terms once China reclaims the island.
I find it amazing how the tired old trope of ‘maybe China will attack Australia one day, and we have to be prepared’ still gets shunted out on an almost daily basis, and gets used to justify everything from the price of eggs to the multi-squillion dollar commitment to buy submarines that will never eventuate. Ferchrissake, people, get over it!
It was General Chiang Kai-shek,Canguro,latterly known in Goon circles as Cash Mai- Chek.But you already knew that.He’d be amazed by the rape and pillage going on in the country of ‘our great friend”
Harry Lime, early…
paul walter..what?
Harry Lime…wot you said in the comment early just before Roswell.
Thanks Michael, good work.
There’s little doubt that our Mr. Marles is an exemplar, both of the ALP factional system and the “Peter Principle” – quite apart from being noted as member for Washington DC in today’s Crikey.
Of the substantial issues, I have the benefit of the comments of those before me, all of whom I thank for their forthright views – one of the valuable aspects of this site.
The critical theme here is war with China.
Put simply, I cannot abide the thought of Australia being involved in any (further) armed conflicts. This is why I can have no truck with the “China hawks” and others who favour war. Mind you, I’m still waiting on a cogent reason why the US currently thinks it a good idea to go to war with China – let alone be the winner – and this, irrespective of Taiwan, the current casus belli.
Australia has lost sufficient blood and treasure in other people’s wars and has nothing to prove to anyone; certainly not to our “great and powerful friend”. The belligerence of the Americans, as currently represented by Mr. Hegseth, should make us stop and think – particularly as we have allowed a fair chunk of Northern Australia to become an armed camp – complete with nuclear armed bombers.
It is mere obfuscation to call these B52s “nuclear capable”. As if the moment war is declared, or for the purpose of a surprise attack from this end, those bombers are going to fly all the way back to the US, or some other base, tool-up with nukes and then fly back here, or on to China ?? I don’t think so, and neither should you – the nukes are already here, and here to stay, and whether they get to be used won’t be up to us; that’s just another matter on which we won’t be consulted.
It’s also a fair bet we won’t be consulted about any declaration of war; no sir, we will be expected to join the fun. In my view, if we insist upon maintaining “the alliance” then a competent ally when asked to jump, would not just say “how high” but rather would query the necessity to jump at all. Consequently Australia should immediately tone down the rhetoric, especially from Mr. Marles and others and stop its maritime patrols in and over the South China and East China Seas. The Chinese of course are already aware of our recent hysterical response to a few Chinese war ships tootling along our coastline.
However, and as a consequence of developments in Northern Australia, if the US is intent upon war with China, then Australia will be one of several launch pads into conflict, a conflict that would make us a very large target for incoming hypersonic Chinese missiles – likely fired from Chinese subs. Will you say you’re glad you don’t live in Darwin or near Pine Gap?
Also, and in the event of war with China, how do we persuade internationally owned and crewed commercial shipping to continue coming here? Are we to expect every single ship carrying fuel, food and equipment (and prepared to take the huge risk), be escorted by an American flotilla to guard against Chinese interception?
Conclusion: Our first investment in security should be diplomatic. The government should prioritise its investment in diplomacy across the region to promote security, including trade security.
https://theconversation.com/australias-plan-to-protect-its-trade-in-war-is-flawed-we-cant-do-it-with-nuclear-submarines-256557
Marles, the perfumed one, realizing that he is a poor fit in New Look Labor, is perhaps angling for a lobbying job in the defence industry. Starmer P.M. of the U.K. is ordering lots of new submarines. I wonder if, like the existing decrepit fleet, the nuclear codes for the warheads will be held by the Americans?
In 1972 the Shanghai Communiqué was delivered jointly by the US and China.
The U.S. side declared: ‘The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position.’
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth says America would go to war to stop China invading Taiwan. The question is why are a new and inexperienced US administration now seeking to disturb the situation as regards the PRC
and Taiwan ?
A good question Terry. I think it’s pertinent to note that ever since the United States switched diplomatic recognition to Beijing from Taipei in 1979, America’s relations with the government in Taiwan have been for the most part unofficial. Since then however, successive American administrations have gradually departed from the earlier “static” position of the joint Declaration to one that favoured a degree of ambiguity – something that became more apparent under the Obama administration and allowed surreptitious arms sales to Taiwan.
Things changed rather abruptly under the “guidance” of ex-CIA director and Secretary of State Pompeo in the first Trump administration. Official exchanges with Taiwan increased, and Pompeo saw no reason to disguise his vehement anti-PRC views – declaring more than once that China constituted America’s biggest threat.
Perhaps the best example of the change occurred in early January 2021, at the very end of the Trump administration, when Pompeo … announced the removal of State Department restrictions on meetings with Taiwanese officials, a move that could heighten tensions with Beijing….In a State Department press release, Pompeo called Taiwan a “vibrant democracy” and a “reliable partner of the United States,” lamenting decades-worth of complex restrictions regulating diplomatic relations. According to Pompeo, the restrictions were in place to “appease the Communist regime in Beijing. https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/01/pompeo-lifts-major-us-taiwan-restrictions-heres-what-he-did/
The Chinese response to this (via their foreign ministry) was to call on the US to abide by the promises it made when relations were established in 1979 and keep its contacts with Taiwan informal.
The question being asked at the time was: “Why is Pompeo doing this now?”, and the answer seems to have been overtly political. As one commentator noted:
In other words, if President-elect Joe Biden maintains the policy shift, his relationship with China may be rougher. If he reinstates the guidelines for dealing with Taiwan, he “creates a political vulnerability that he’s being soft on China”….On both sides of the political aisle in the U.S., the appetite for firmer policies against China seems to have increased over the past few years. Most China-related legislation that has come up for a vote in Congress recently has passed with strong bipartisan support, if not unanimity. https://www.npr.org/2021/01/15/956868817/as-pompeo-dumps-rulebook-for-u-s-taiwan-relations-some-see-trap-for-biden
The cynic in me reckons that presently the US cares little for Taiwan’s democratic status or its sovereignty and more about continuing arms sales and, above all, keeping Taiwan’s large and immensely valuable semi-conductor industry out of the hands of the PRC.
So apart from poking China in eye, perhaps it has always been a case of Follow the money.