Australia and the United States are often described as close allies, bound by shared values and a strong military alliance. However, when one examines the trade agreements, military arrangements, and strategic commitments between the two nations, it becomes clear that Australia is treated less like a partner and more like a subordinate vassal state. From lopsided trade deals to military occupations and questionable defence expenditures, it is time to ask: Is this truly a healthy relationship? And if not, what must Australia do to regain its sovereignty?

A Trade Partnership That Only Benefits One Side

The Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), which came into force in 2005, was supposed to provide greater access for Australian exports to the lucrative U.S. market. However, time has proven that the agreement heavily favours American interests. Australian agricultural producers were promised access to U.S. markets, yet barriers and quotas remained in place for critical exports such as sugar, dairy, and beef. The U.S. Congress ensured that the domestic market was protected, while American corporations were given greater access to Australian consumers.

Meanwhile, Australian industries have been opened up to American multinational corporations, leading to a situation where local businesses struggle to compete. Despite being a resource-rich country, Australia finds itself exporting raw materials while importing value-added goods from the U.S., perpetuating a dependency that keeps Australian industries at a disadvantage. Moreover, the United States has imposed tariffs on Australian steel and aluminium, further hampering the competitiveness of Australian manufacturers.

Additionally, while U.S. companies have benefited from deregulated banking and investment policies in Australia, Australian firms have not been granted equivalent opportunities in the U.S. This persistent imbalance raises concerns about the so-called “fair trade” principles that the U.S. champions while systematically disadvantaging its allies.

The Submarine Debacle: A Masterclass in Exploitation

Perhaps the most glaring example of Australia’s subservience is the so-called AUKUS agreement, under which Australia will pay hundreds of billions of dollars for nuclear-powered submarines that will not be delivered for at least a decade. The deal, which forced Australia to abandon a pre-existing contract with France, has been widely criticized as an expensive commitment that primarily benefits American and British defence industries. While the U.S. and the UK retain full control over their own submarine fleets, Australia is expected to foot the bill for vessels it won’t see for years, if at all.

The arrangement raises serious questions about Australia’s sovereignty in defence policy. Not only is the nation committing vast sums of taxpayer money to a project that primarily strengthens American strategic interests in the Pacific, but it also lacks full autonomy over the technology. This dependence effectively places Australia in a position where it cannot act independently on defence matters without U.S. approval.

Additionally, the submarine deal comes at the expense of Australia’s existing shipbuilding industry. Instead of investing in local production and technology, Australia is sending money abroad, further entrenching economic dependence on foreign powers. This decision weakens Australia’s ability to develop self-sufficient defence capabilities, leaving it reliant on American goodwill for critical military assets.

The Military Presence: U.S. Troops, U.S. Bases, No Reciprocity

While American forces enjoy unrestricted access to Australian soil, the same privilege is not extended to Australia. The U.S. maintains a significant military presence in the Northern Territory, including thousands of troops and various strategic installations. Pine Gap, a critical U.S. intelligence facility in central Australia, is operated under American oversight, with limited Australian control over its operations. This base plays a key role in U.S. global surveillance and drone warfare, yet Australia has little say in how it is used.

Despite hosting U.S. military assets and personnel, Australia has no bases on U.S. soil and does not enjoy reciprocal rights. Australian military personnel do not have unrestricted access to U.S. intelligence or training facilities. Moreover, Australia is expected to host U.S. forces indefinitely, further cementing its role as a strategic outpost for American military interests rather than an equal partner.

The presence of U.S. forces also raises concerns about Australia’s ability to act independently in regional conflicts. If tensions escalate in the Asia-Pacific, particularly with China, Australia may find itself drawn into conflicts based on American strategic calculations rather than its own national interests. This subjugation of Australian foreign policy to U.S. objectives poses significant risks to national security and diplomatic relations in the region.

Is This a Healthy Relationship?

Given these realities, one must question whether Australia truly benefits from its relationship with the United States. While American officials frequently speak of the importance of the alliance, actions speak louder than words. Trade deals that primarily benefit the U.S., military arrangements that diminish Australian sovereignty, and defence agreements that funnel Australian taxpayer money into foreign coffers all point to an imbalanced partnership.

The fundamental question is whether Australia should continue down this path or start charting a course toward greater independence.

Achieving True Sovereignty

If Australia is to assert itself as a sovereign nation rather than a vassal state, it must take concrete steps to reduce its dependency on the United States. Some key measures could include:

  1. Diversifying Trade Partnerships – Expanding economic ties with emerging markets such as BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) could reduce reliance on the U.S. and provide more balanced trade opportunities. Australia should also negotiate fairer trade agreements with its regional neighbours to create a more independent economic framework.
  2. Strengthening Domestic Industry – Investing in Australian manufacturing and innovation would ensure that the nation is not merely an exporter of raw materials but a producer of finished goods. Government incentives for local businesses and stricter regulations on foreign takeovers would help bolster national industries.
  3. Developing an Independent Defence Policy – Rather than committing to costly and uncertain defence agreements with the U.S., Australia should focus on self-reliant military capabilities and regional partnerships that prioritize Australian interests. This could include investing in local defence technology and reducing reliance on foreign military hardware.
  4. Reevaluating Military Presence Agreements – A reassessment of U.S. military installations in Australia, along with negotiations for equal access to U.S. bases, would create a more balanced security partnership. Australia should also have greater oversight over Pine Gap and other U.S.-operated facilities to ensure they serve Australian national interests.
  5. Asserting Diplomatic Autonomy – An independent foreign policy that prioritizes Australian interests over American geopolitical strategies would help ensure that Australia is not drawn into conflicts that do not serve its national security. This could involve pursuing a more neutral stance in global conflicts and engaging with a wider range of international partners.

Conclusion

Australia’s current relationship with the United States bears striking similarities to a vassal state rather than a true partnership. From unfair trade arrangements to an imbalanced military presence and costly defence expenditures, Australia’s sovereignty is continually undermined. If the nation is to secure its future as an independent power, it must take deliberate steps to assert its autonomy in economic, military, and diplomatic affairs.

The time has come for Australia to ask itself: Is it content to remain under American dominance, or will it forge a path toward true sovereignty?