I’ve been sitting with a nagging question for a while now: why is Australia still so tightly bound to the United States, and what would it actually look like if we started to unravel that?  Not in a dramatic, flag-burning way, but in a clear-eyed, strategic, “we’re a grown country now” kind of way. The more I pull at the threads, the more obvious it feels that our current settings are less about deliberate choice & more about inherited momentum.

So, this is me thinking out loud ... why we are so entangled, why we should be more autonomous, what’s realistically in the way, what it would take to change & where we’d land if we actually took the jump.

How we ended up this entangled

Australia has a long habit of anchoring itself to a bigger power. First Britain, then the US. Over time, that pattern stopped being a conscious decision and turned into background architecture: defence treaties, intelligence sharing, joint facilities, shared tech & a political culture that treats the alliance as sacred rather than negotiable.

Our defence systems are deeply wired into US technology. Our intelligence networks are fused through arrangements like Five Eyes. Facilities like Pine Gap aren’t just symbolic, they’re part of how we see the world, literally. That level of integration doesn’t just shape policy, it shapes imagination. It narrows what feels possible.

Why we don’t just “threaten to walk”

On paper, it sounds simple.  If we don’t like the direction the US is heading, why don’t we use leverage like Pine Gap, and push back? In practice, it’s more like threatening to pull out your own nervous system to prove a point. Pine Gap and similar facilities don’t just serve US interests, they feed into our own early warning, surveillance & situational awareness in a pretty volatile region.

Closing or even seriously threatening to close something like that would be read as a fundamental break in trust. It wouldn’t just be a policy disagreement. It would be a declaration that Australia is changing its strategic identity. That’s why governments of both major parties tiptoe around it. They prefer quiet disagreement, private diplomacy, and incremental adjustments over anything that looks like a public rupture.

Why I still think we should be more autonomous

For me, this isn’t about being anti-US. It’s about being pro-Australia. I don’t want us permanently welded to the choices of any great power, especially when those choices can swing wildly from one election cycle to the next. If we’re going to carry the risks of alignment, I want that to be a conscious, revisited decision - not a default setting from the 20th century.

Greater autonomy would mean:

• Clearer agency: We choose when and how we engage, instead of being dragged along by alliance inertia.
• Better regional fit: We live in the Indo-Pacific, not the North Atlantic. Our posture should reflect that.
• Resilience: The more sovereign capability we build (defence, tech, manufacturing, diplomacy) the less vulnerable we are to shocks.
• Credibility: It’s easier to act as an honest broker or regional stabiliser if we’re not seen as someone else’s automatic plus-one.

In short, I don’t want us to be defined by who we stand behind. I want us to be defined by what we stand for.

What’s actually in the way

The barriers aren’t just political; they’re structural.

• Defence dependence: Our kit, our systems, our doctrine - so much of it is US-linked. Unpicking that isn’t a policy tweak; it’s a rebuild.
• Intelligence integration: We’ve plugged ourselves into shared systems for decades. Walking away means losing access we’ve come to rely on.
• Strategic anxiety: The Indo-Pacific isn’t calm. When things feel risky, governments cling harder to familiar anchors.
• Economic entanglement: Investment, trade, and markets all factor into how bold any government is willing to be.
• Political comfort: Saying 'the alliance is non-negotiable' is easier than explaining a long, messy transition to something more independent.

None of this makes autonomy impossible. It just means it’s not a switch you flip, it’s a system you redesign.

What it would actually take to change course

If we were serious about becoming more strategically autonomous, it would look less like a dramatic break and more like a decade-plus of deliberate, boring, disciplined work.

• Building sovereign capability: Investing in our own surveillance, satellites, cyber, and defence manufacturing so we’re not permanently renting our backbone from someone else.
• Diversifying partnerships: Deepening ties with Japan, India, ASEAN, the Pacific - so we’re part of a web, not a single chain.
• Rewriting doctrine: Updating how we think about defence and foreign policy so 'alliance first' isn’t the only lens.
• Economic resilience: Strengthening local industry and broadening trade so we’re less exposed to any one partner’s mood swings.
• Public honesty: Having grown-up conversations about risk, cost, and identity instead of treating the alliance as a sacred relic.

It’s not glamorous. It’s spreadsheets, infrastructure, diplomacy, and a lot of political spine.

Where we’d be positioned if we took the jump

If we did the work and actually shifted, I don’t see Australia ending up isolated. I see us landing as a more confident, regionally grounded middle power that isn’t automatically defined by Washington or Beijing.

We’d be:

• More independent: Able to say yes or no to big-power agendas without it feeling like treason to our own story.
• Regionally central: A stabiliser in the Indo-Pacific, not just a southern outpost of someone else’s strategy.
• Economically integrated with Asia: Still trading with everyone, but less emotionally tethered to one 'protector'.
• A credible bridge: Trusted enough to host conversations, mediate tensions & act as a connector rather than a proxy.

Not anti-US. Not pro-China. Not non-aligned in a performative way. Just Australia, on our own terms, with our eyes open.

Why I keep coming back to this

I don’t expect overnight transformation, and I’m not naïve about the risks. But I also don’t buy the idea that our only choices are 'cling to the US no matter what' or 'drift into chaos'. There’s a middle path where we grow up strategically, invest in ourselves, and still cooperate with whoever it makes sense to cooperate with.

For me, the real question isn’t “Can we afford to be more autonomous?” It’s “How long can we afford not to be?” Because the world is shifting whether we move or not, and I’d rather we were steering than just hanging on to someone else’s wheel.