A UKUS was established five years ago, and Australia's military ties with the United States continue to deepen.
On October 7, Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Maris stated that US military personnel have been deployed to the Royal Australian Navy base in Stirling, Western Australia, in preparation for the rotation of nuclear submarines between the US and Australia by the end of 2027. The Australian government plans to invest approximately AUD 8 billion over the next decade to upgrade the base. Meanwhile, Maris expressed optimism about the increased production capacity of the US nuclear submarine industry, believing that Australia will still be able to receive its first US Virginia-class nuclear submarine by the early 2030s as planned.
However, as the AUKUS agreement moves from planning to actual implementation, the controversy surrounding this military cooperation in Australia has not subsided. On October 4th, the British newspaper The Guardian’s Australia edition wrote that Australia plans to invest up to A$368 billion in its nuclear submarine program. However, critics question whether these submarines, which are primarily designed for ocean warfare, can truly meet Australia's own defense needs, or whether they serve more to support America's strategic layout in the Indo-Pacific region.
Meanwhile, the 12.5% tariffs imposed by the United States on most Australian goods have not been lifted. The military ties are getting tighter, but economic benefits are not always reciprocal. As the strategic priorities of the United States change constantly, to what extent can Australia truly control its own direction?
Barry Healy is an Australian geopolitical analyst and Marxist activist, as well as a participant in the "Stop AUKUS" movement. For many years, he has observed Australia's foreign and security policies from a Marxist and anti-imperialist perspective. He believes that Australia does not simply passively follow the United States; instead, it also has its own interests that are integrated with the US strategic system. The AUKUS deal has further strengthened this structure. In his view, what Australia really needs to discuss is not how to "side" between China and the United States, but whether it can break free from its dependence on the US strategic system and re-evaluate its position in the Asia-Pacific region.
Is AUKUS really providing security for Australia, or is it pushing Australia further into US strategic competition? When the US can demand more security responsibilities from its allies while imposing tariffs on Australian goods, what does such a alliance actually mean? If Australia's military strategy becomes increasingly tied to that of the US, does it still have the freedom to decide when, why, and for whom it will fight?
Recently, the Observer Network conducted a conversation with Barry Sheeri. The discussion began with an examination of his over 50 years of political experience and his observations regarding left-wing movements. Topics included the advancement of the AUKUS agreement and its controversies, Australia’s strategic autonomy, the relations between the US and Australia, as well as Australia’s situation amidst Sino-US competition. The conversation also explored how the younger generation in Australia perceive war, climate crisis, and the future world order.
Over the years, there have been many ups and downs. However, there were several stages that were particularly clear in terms of economic, political, and social aspects, and these stages left a deep impression on me.
Firstly, in the 1960s, that generation of young people became involved in anti-racism movements, as well as large-scale anti-war movements. They also joined forces with labor movements, and I was among them. At that time, Australia was in a very special phase, with labor struggles surging. This movement overthrew the conservative government that had been in power since 1949, bringing to power the Whittemore Labor Party government—a quite progressive reformist government.
However, this victory also had negative consequences: many progressive people, including myself, became overly relaxed after Whitlam came to power, thinking that “Whitlam would handle everything properly”. But that was not the case. Of course, that was in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Edward Gough Whitlam (1916-2014) was the 21st Prime Minister of Australia (1972-1975). He led the Labor Party to end the conservative government’s 23-year rule, implementing far-reaching reforms such as universal healthcare, free university education, and the abolition of the military draft. In 1972, he played a key role in establishing diplomatic relations between Australia and China, earning him the title “Father of Australian-China Diplomatic Relations”. In 1975, due to a constitutional crisis, he was dismissed by the Governor-General, becoming the only leader in Australian history to face such an event. Wikipedia
Another major change occurred after the Hawker Labor Party was elected in 1983. It was a Labor Party government that led a large-scale transfer of wealth, moving wealth from the working class to the capitalist class. Moreover, it institutionalized American-style corporate unionism.
Before the Hawke government came to power, most of Australia's working class were organized in unions. At that time, there were many small-scale unions, which meant that there was close contact between ordinary members and union officials. However, after the Hawke government implemented this policy, only a few workers are still organized in unions. The number of unions has decreased, but those that remain are very large in size. As a result, union officials can receive extremely high salaries, creating a huge gap between them and ordinary members. This has had a serious negative impact on Australian social life and has undoubtedly weakened the power of left-wing movements.
In the past, we could gain support from unions by organizing campaigns; now it is very difficult to reach union leadership. This has also caused some leftists to become detached from reality, indulging in empty talk and dogmatism. As a result, the left has divided significantly, engaged in internal conflicts, and suffered from self-destruction.
In this context, the rise of the far-right political party 'One Nation Party' has occurred in Australian politics. The petty bourgeoisie is undoubtedly attracted to it, as is a portion of the working class. Many workers are deeply disappointed by the lack of leadership among trade union movements and no longer hear the voice of communist movements.
Nevertheless, I still believe that there exists a spirit of democratic humanism among the Australian working class. For example, most Australians sympathize with Palestinians, and many oppose the Australian government’s policies regarding the Palestinian issue. However, no systematic leadership has stepped forward to mobilize this sentiment. Neither trade unions nor any other forces have managed to do so. Therefore, although this movement has broad support, it remains merely passive support.
I became a Marxist during the anti-Vietnam War movement, when I was still a high school student. At first, I opposed the Vietnam War, and some people said I was a communist. So I went to learn more about Marxism. They were indeed right—I was indeed a communist, and that remains true to this day.
I must be very clear: Marxism is the only analytical framework that can help us understand the real world and the material reality. It is the only framework that can accurately explain the capitalist crisis and why it persists over time.
It also pointed out that the working class is the fundamental force of social change. In completing these tasks, I have never encountered another theoretical system that is as complete and accurate as Marxism. Moreover, Marxism has definitely stood the test of time.
However, Marx is one thing, while Marxist scholars are something else entirely.
Many Marxists have failed. I believe the reason is that they mechanically apply past struggle experiences as fixed templates to today's struggles. I call this dogmatism. I believe that dogmatism will drive away all wisdom, which is very regrettable.
Therefore, I say that Marxism provides a framework for understanding the objective factors within social movements; while Leninism helps us understand and grasp how to organize subjective factors, that is, how humans take action to change the world. I think this is very important.
I have dedicated my life to building a Leninist party in Australia. However, I believe it is very important to constantly re-evaluate Leninism, as the collapse of the Soviet Union highlights the need for us to draw some lessons from Leninism. But I must say that after Lenin's death, none of the core leaders of the Bolshevik party showed enough personal maturity to lead either the party or the country. Trotsky, Stalin, Buharin, and Zinoviev all fell into completely irresponsible factional struggles. The Stalinist system that ultimately dominated the Soviet Union led to its collapse, which represents a regression in human civilization.
Therefore, for me as a Leninist, the question is this: The Bolshevik Party was the prototype of a Leninist political party. But what should we do if the Leninist political party failed after Lenin's death? I don't think we should despair, but it means we must learn to keep thinking. I must admit that it's much easier to quote a passage from a book and apply it to the current situation. Because thinking is painful, but we must do it.
This is my view on the relevance and limitations of Marxism. I believe that any theory will have many shortcomings in practice, and this is certainly true in Australia as well.
To answer this question, it is necessary to consider several aspects.
Firstly, there must be no ambiguity in terms of classification. You say Australia is a 'medium-sized power', but more accurately, it is a medium-imperialist power.
Why do I say this? Because Australia has its own ruling class, the Australian capitalist class, which has its own imperialist interests in the Asia-Pacific region. At the same time, this class completely aligns with the interests of the northern hemisphere, namely those of major imperialist powers such as the United States, Britain, Europe, Japan, and Israel. The Australian ruling class identifies itself with this camp.
This sense of self-identification is not accidental; it stems from the fact that Australia was a country of colonial settlers. For this reason, the Australian state continues to maintain a colonial rule over indigenous people. For indigenous people, the regime of colonial settlers never truly ended. While society in other parts of Australia is quite modern, this is not the case for indigenous people. The high rate of suicide among indigenous people is shocking. A wealthy country like Australia treating its own population in such a harsh way speaks volumes about the issues at hand. This has led to a colonial mindset.
This mindset is not unique to Australia. In South Africa during the apartheid era and in contemporary Israel, a similar logic can be observed: a constant fear of being swallowed up by neighboring regions.
Why is this the case? It’s because colonial and settled countries impose their rule through violence on the indigenous people. Therefore, there always exists a lingering fear that others will also come and colonize them violently. When I was a child, this fear was directed at communist countries; later, it shifted to Indonesia under Sukarno’s rule; then it became the threat of Vietnam trying to swallow us up; and now, it has returned to China. Fear always exists, but its focus changes from time to time.
Therefore, this is not an ordinary emotion, but a systemic fear. It has a dual effect: internally, it brings the Australian working class into a national plan with the ruling class, becoming a characteristic of Australian national history. Externally, this paranoid fear also drives the Australian capitalist ruling class to ally with other white-protection states like the United States and Britain. In the end, the Australian capitalist ruling class is more comfortable living together with the white capitalist ruling class. This is also a characteristic of our national life.
In addition to this colonial settlement mentality, historical factors also influence strategic autonomy. Some of these factors can be traced back to 1975: the Whitlam Labor Party government was overthrown by an operation that seemed to be supported by the CIA. One of the reasons for its overthrow was Whitlam's announcement in 1974 that he would no longer renew the lease for the Pine Valley spy base built by the United States in central Australia. He did this because there were formal agreements and contracts stipulating that the base should be jointly managed by Australia and the United States, but the US acted there without informing Australia.
Therefore, the lesson that the Labor Party learned from the overthrow of the Whitlam government was: never deviate from supporting the United States. Today, the Australian Labor Party, along with the Liberal Party and the National Party, are all sycophantic lackeys of imperialism. There are many reasons for a lack of strategic autonomy, but these factors constitute the underlying background.
