That morning, Australians understood that geographic isolation no longer guaranteed security. The threat was no longer distant or abstract, it had arrived, violently, at our doorstep. For the first time, Australia felt truly vulnerable, not as part of an empire, but as a nation responsible for its own survival. 

History has a way of repeating itself in unfamiliar forms. Today, the Indo-Pacific is once again marked by rising uncertainty, regional tensions and a global security architecture in flux. And once again, the strategic question returns: whom do we trust when the threat gets close? 

In the wake of Darwin’s bombing and Japan’s sweeping advance across Southeast Asia, Australia faced a moment of reckoning. Prime Minister Winston Churchill insisted that Australian troops remain under British command and be redeployed to distant imperial theaters, including North Africa and India. 

But this time, Australia refused. Prime Minister John Curtin understood that national defense could no longer be subordinated to imperial loyalty. In a groundbreaking statement that defined a new era of international alignment, Curtin declared: “Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.” 

It was a seismic shift. Australian troops were recalled from foreign fronts. For the first time, Canberra placed national interest above imperial alignment. It was the beginning of a more independent foreign policy, forged in the crucible of existential threat. 

Curtin’s decision found a receptive partner. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States urgently needed a stable base of operations in the Pacific. Australia, geographically strategic, politically aligned and logistically viable, became the obvious choice. 

Thus began a relationship that, though born of wartime necessity, would solidify into a long-term alliance. Thousands of American troops landed on Australian soil, airfields and naval bases were built, and key decisions about regional security began to shift from London to Washington and to Canberra. 

For many, this marked the start of Australia’s “American era.” A shift in dependence, but also a strategic leap towards a more modern and relevant alliance. 

In 2021, the announcement of the AUKUS pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States was presented as a bold leap forward. At its core was the promise of nuclear-powered submarines, heralded as a game changer for Australian maritime power and regional deterrence. But nearly four years on, the results remain frustratingly elusive. 

The submarines are still on the distant horizon. Delivery timelines stretch into the 2040s, while costs balloon and Australia’s existing naval capabilities continue to age. The United States, preoccupied with its own strategic demands and fiscal constraints, has offered rhetorical support but little concrete reinforcement. The United Kingdom, facing its own defense limitations and global obligations, has likewise fallen short of leadership. 

AUKUS, rather than a dynamic defense framework, has become a projected architecture, more symbolic than material. A promise of power that has yet to manifest. In an increasingly contested region, Australia cannot afford to wait a generation for capability. 

Beyond the military delay, there are growing signs that Australia’s place in the hierarchy of US allies is slipping. Official discourse maintains that Australia is a “primus inter pares,” but recent political and economic signals suggest otherwise. 

Both under Donald Trump and Joe Biden, US trade policy has tilted sharply toward protectionism. Tariffs on strategic exports, “Buy American” mandates, and vast domestic subsidies have impacted Australian industries without substantial diplomatic or economic compensation. 

Paradoxically, while Australia commits billions to deepen its alliance, it receives a treatment closer to that of a secondary partner. Nations like Japan and South Korea, with larger industrial bases and greater geopolitical weight, command more attention and resources from Washington. 

The cost of this asymmetric relationship is not measured only in dollars or delayed submarines. It is also paid in diminished influence, constrained autonomy and a reduced ability to shape the very security order Australia seeks to uphold. 

In 1942, when the threat became real, Australia realized that the British Empire could no longer guarantee its defense. Churchill’s refusal to prioritize Australia forced Curtin to break with tradition and turn decisively to the United States. 

Today, echoes of that moment resound. 

A distant superpower, preoccupied and selective in its commitments, once again defines the limits of Australia’s strategic reach. AUKUS was meant to reinvigorate our deterrent posture. So far, it has delivered more headlines than hardware, more symbolic alignment than operational leverage. 

History offers valuable lessons, but only if we are willing to learn from them. Perhaps, as in 1942, Australia must again assert its strategic autonomy, this time by diversifying rather than deepening its reliance on a single partner. 

---

The writer is an Argentine historian and a postgraduate student. This article is republished under a Creative Commons License.