LATIKA M BOURKE: Albanese, Wong, Marles to blame for Colby’s Pentagon AUKUS review that makes China the winner

The only winner from Elbridge Colby’s move to launch an “America First” inquiry into whether the United States should quit AUKUS is China.

And the tragedy is that it is entirely the making of the Prime Minister, his staff, his Cabinet and the America First crew who prize tactics over the long-term outcome.

And it was entirely preventable. The Prime Minister should have been raising defence spending on his own bat and not waiting to be told, forced, humiliated or threatened in a game of international Russian roulette. It adds unnecessary pressure to his prospective first meeting with US President Donald Trump at the G7 in Canada this weekend.

The Prime Minister has landslide-winning domestic political skills but comparatively poor instincts when it comes to foreign policy and national security. He seemingly fails to grasp the political advantage in depriving the weakened Coalition of one of its two biggest strengths.

And the shock-and-awe announcement out of Washington that the $368 billion program could be at risk, shows that he has been served poorly by his Department, which was formerly led by Glyn Davis and his national security advisor, Kathy Klugman.

Stephen Kennedy, the new head of Prime Minister and Cabinet and former Treasury Secretary, has much work to do. He should be advising the Prime Minister to end, without delay, any stand-off between the government and the Trump Administration over defence spending before the leaders potentially meet in Alberta.

The time for Mr Albanese to have made that decision on his own terms was two budgets ago, after the release of the Defence Strategic Review. Now he is in the worst position, and one that is his own fault if it is judged that he is bending to Trump’s will when and if he does raise defence spending.

It is not just at the bureaucratic and staffing level where he has been let down. Mr Albanese should also be asking questions of his Cabinet, which has allowed complacency and arrogance to infect Australia’s foreign policy.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong, who seems to limit Australia’s strategic remit and ambition to being big sister to the Pacific nations and cousin to ASEAN, deserves blame.

But top of the list is the uniquely weak Defence Minister Richard Marles.

The Prime Minister insists he will fund capability and not defence by a crude and unaccountable yardstick measure. In this case, Mr Marles should have been presenting the Prime Minister, daily if need be, with the extensive shopping list outlined in the defence review and securing the capabilities it cited.

If he hasn’t, why not and if he has, why hasn’t he been effective, given he is a prime ministerial loyalist and the Deputy Prime Minister?

Mr Marles also failed to register MAGA’s polite warning to lift his game, when Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of Defence, privately asked him to raise Australia’s spending from the projected 2.3 per cent on defence by mid-next decade to 3.5 per cent. This is in line with the United States’ expectations of its NATO allies, and one that they have agreed.

Mr Marles told the media he was “totally up for a conversation about it” but wouldn’t reveal the figure Mr Hegseth requested.

From MAGA’s point of view, why bother trying to play nice?

Mr Hegseth released the figure himself in a statement three days later. But still, Mr Marles and the Prime Minister dug in.

When asked this week at the National Press Club by Sky News, “If we don’t spend more on defence, couldn’t the Americans threaten to not build or give us the AUKUS submarines?” Mr Albanese retreated to his campaign rhetoric.

“Well, I think that Australia should decide what we spend on Australia’s defence. Simple as that,” he said.

“That’s my view. Now, if others think that that’s not the case, then it’s up to them to make that case.”

Sadly, the Prime Minister has not recalibrated from his fighting-dog campaign mode. It won’t work in government. He was given a massive majority to act and to insulate against the instability and threats, not contribute to them.

And if the hint still wasn’t clear enough, Mr Colby has spent the past week praising European leaders for listening to US President Donald Trump and raising their defence budgets while noting this was the same request being made of the Indo-Pacific.

Still, Australia refused to listen.

Now it has an AUKUS grenade in its lap. But the denialism continues.

In responding, Mr Marles falsely conflated it with the UK’s review into AUKUS commissioned by then-new Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

“It is natural that the Administration would want to examine this major undertaking, including progress and delivery, just as the UK Government recently concluded an AUKUS review and reaffirmed its support, including through the appointment of Sir Stephen Lovegrove as its AUKUS Adviser,” he said.

As the terms of reference of that study show, the inquiry was to look at how to progress and remove blocks to AUKUS, not consider whether to scrap it from the outset.

Comparing the motive of the UK’s review, which went to create a special envoy for AUKUS, to Mr Colby’s reeks of denialism.

It is worth noting that Donald Trump has still never said himself that he supports AUKUS, even though Mr Hegseth and others have vouched for his support.

When it comes to Mr Colby, his opposition is two-fold. The first is the obvious strain Australia’s purchase of up to three submarines will place on the already-sluggish US industrial base.

The second, as he flagged with The Nightly as far back as this time last year before Mr Trump was even re-elected, is an aversion to the very idea of sharing the “crown jewels” of nuclear technology with anyone else beyond Britain.

There’s every reason to fear he’s not just playing scare tactics.

That’s why Australia has no choice but to wake up and listen now. But even if Labor begrudgingly complies and raises defence funds, the damage will still be enormous and may still yet prove fatal for Australia’s long-term security.

Australia needs AUKUS submarines. Nuclear-propelled boats go faster for longer and don’t need to surface as often, making them less detectable. The US and British submarines remain superior to China’s and Russia’s. China wants to dominate shipping lanes, which Australia’s export economy relies upon being free and open.

What Elbridge Colby has done with his review is validate AUKUS’ many critics. If you are Paul Keating or Bob Carr, today is vindication day. The United States has turned out to be the capricious, unreliable ally they said it would be under Donald Trump, all along.

It is better to back the stabilisation of the relationship and adopt a keep-your-mouth-shut approach about the CCP’s human rights abuses, economic coercion and military aggression.

That’s why Mr Colby’s move is an act of vandalism to the Alliance.

Public support for AUKUS could easily collapse in this environment. Australians might not so much as choose a side, but assess that for as long as China doesn’t physically intrude on our borders, it is safer to stay out of its way and continue getting rich by increasing the trade balance.

Australia becoming a vassal state is exactly what Beijing wants.

Which is why Mr Colby’s AUKUS threat is ultimately an own goal for the United States. MAGA’s threats and extractive foreign policy are fundamentally incompatible with its needs for regional allies willing to help counter China.

Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen said it most right when she observed that news of the Trump Administration considering backing away from AUKUS will be “met with cheers in Beijing.”

Dividing and conquering the West is an objective that MAGA appears intent on helping the CCP achieve.