Albanese’s China Tilt and the Threat to Australian Sovereignty, By Paul Walker and Peter West

David Llewellyn-Smith's blistering critique in Macrobusiness on July 18, 2025, accuses Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of "China grovelling," alleging that his diplomatic overtures to Beijing undermine Australia's sovereignty and security. Llewellyn-Smith argues that outlets like Crikey, through commentators like Bernard Keane and Wanning Sun, amplify anti-Americanism and weaken the AUKUS pact, risking Australia's alignment with the democratic West in favour of a dangerous tilt toward an authoritarian China. From anationalist perspective, this raises alarm bells: is Albanese's engagement with China a pragmatic necessity, given its economic dominance, or a betrayal of Australia's independence and values? If a new superpower, say, a fictional African civilisation like Wakanda in the Black Panther movies, emerged, would Australia's elites pivot to it just as readily? Here we explores these questions, addressing the charge of neo-colonialism and assessing the implications for Australia's national interest in a multipolar world.

The Charge of "China Grovelling"

Llewellyn-Smith's piece frames Albanese's China policy as a reckless shift away from the U.S.-led alliance, epitomised by AUKUS, toward a subservient relationship with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He cites Albanese's July 2025 Beijing visit, his third meeting with Xi Jinping since 2023, as evidence of prioritising trade over security, ignoring China's coercive tactics like the jailing of Australian novelist Yang Hengjun and military posturing in the South China Sea. X posts echo this sentiment, with @PaulineHansonOz slamming Albanese for failing to secure a meeting with Trump while cosying up to Xi, suggesting a "communist past" clouds his judgment. @SkyNewsAust reports warnings from former officials that Albanese underestimates Beijing's strategic threat.

The critique hinges on three points:

1.Economic Dependence: China is Australia's largest trading partner, with A$196 billion in exports in 2024, dwarfing other markets. Albanese's focus on trade, as noted in The New Daily, boosts household incomes by $2,600 annually, but critics argue it makes Australia vulnerable to CCP leverage.

2.AUKUS and Anti-Americanism: The AUKUS submarine deal, under review by the Pentagon in July 2025, is seen as a bulwark against Chinese aggression. Llewellyn-Smith accuses Albanese of undermining it through silence on Chinese coercion and appointing Trump critic Kevin Rudd as ambassador to Washington. Crikey's anti-AUKUS stance, via Keane's columns, is said to reflect a broader anti-Americanism that weakens Australia's democratic alignment.

3.Sovereignty Risk: By prioritising dialogue with Xi over confronting issues like Taiwan or the Port of Darwin lease, Albanese risks projecting weakness, as noted by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Justin Bassi. Llewellyn-Smith warns that under CCP influence, Australia could face a dystopian future of eroded freedoms, with minorities and dissenters, like the Aboriginal movement, crushed.

From a conservative nationalist perspective, this "grovelling" betrays Australia's sovereignty. The U.S. alliance has underpinned our security since World War II, with bases like Pine Gap vital for deterring threats. X users like @DrewPavlou argue that without U.S. support, Australia would need to spend 10% of GDP on defence or risk becoming a Chinese vassal. Albanese's reluctance to commit to U.S. demands in a potential Taiwan conflict, as reported by The Saturday Paper, is seen as hedging that emboldens Beijing.

Neo-Colonialism and the Cultural Cringe

There is a historical parallel to Australia's deference to Japan during its economic dominance in the 1980s, suggesting a pattern of elite "cultural cringe" toward powerful nations. The hypothetical of an African superpower, like Wakanda from Black Panther, emerging and prompting a similar pivot underscores this critique. Would Australia's chattering classes realign our foreign policy to curry favour with a new hegemon, regardless of its values? This smacks of neo-colonialism: a lack of national spine that sees Australia perpetually bowing to the strongest player, whether Britain in the past, the U.S. now, or China (or a fictional Africa) in the future.

This critique resonates with conservative nationalists who value Australian independence. The Spectator Australia argues that Albanese's "collaborate where we can, disagree where we must" mantra falsely equates economic and security imperatives. China's fusion of trade, military, and ideological goals, evident in its Belt and Road Initiative and "Made in China 2025" plan, means engagement is never neutral. Historically, Australia's deference to Japan led to investments like the Multifunction Polis, which fizzled out when Japan's bubble burst. A similar pivot to China risks tying our prosperity to an authoritarian regime that could turn coercive, as seen in its 2020 trade bans on Australian goods.

The Wakanda analogy highlights a deeper issue: Australia's elites often lack a clear vision of national identity. Macrobusiness laments the replacement of "national interest framework" with "culture war" distractions, accusing outlets like Crikey of opting for progressive ideals over realpolitik. If Wakanda rose, would academics and media figures push for alignment with its vibranium-driven economy, ignoring its governance model? This suggests a neo-colonial mindset where Australia's policy bends to power, not principles, undermining the sovereignty conservative nationalists champion.

Implications for Australia in a Multipolar World

Albanese's China tilt must be viewed in the context of a multipolar world. China International Strategy Review notes that Canberra shares Beijing's view that U.S. primacy is waning, favouring deeper economic integration for stability. This aligns with Albanese's diplomacy, which The Guardian describes as balancing trade with China against AUKUS commitments. However, conservative nationalists see this as a dangerous gamble, especially given Martin Armstrong's warnings of World War III sparked by Ukraine and U.S. collapse by 2032. A nuclear strike on U.S. bases like Pine Gap, as discussed at the blog today, could devastate Australia, with fallout threatening eastern cities.

If Albanese's engagement is "grovelling," it risks:

Strategic Vulnerability: Weakening AUKUS, as The Nightly suggests, could leave Australia exposed if Trump's review cancels submarine deliveries. Without U.S. deterrence, Australia faces pressure to align with China's regional ambitions, as feared by Chinese scholars who see us as a U.S. "pawn."

Economic Overreach: Over-reliance on China's market, as The New Daily quantifies, makes Australia vulnerable to coercion, as seen in past trade disputes. Diversifying exports, as Morrison attempted, is a nationalist priority to reduce this risk.

Cultural Erosion: Llewellyn-Smith's hyperbolic warning of "Pilbara labour camps" under CCP influence underscores fears that closer ties erode Australia's liberal values. Nationalists argue that multiculturalism, already strained in a crisis, could fracture further under external pressure.

Conservative Nationalist Response

From a conservative nationalist perspective, Albanese's China policy sacrifices sovereignty for short-term economic gains, echoing the cultural cringe of past eras. To counter this:

1.Strengthen AUKUS and ANZUS: Double down on U.S. and UK partnerships, ensuring submarine deals and base agreements like Pine Gap are secure. The Australian notes that these bases are critical for U.S. nuclear deterrence, tying Australia's fate to America's. As often stated at the blog, Australia needs nuclear weapons, or even advanced star wars laser tech beyond this, if it is possible.

2.Diversify Trade: Reduce China's economic leverage by expanding markets in India, Vietnam, Europe and Africa. The Nightly reports Vietnam's lower U.S. tariffs as a model for Australia to emulate.

3.Boost Defence: Increase defence spending far beyond 2% of GDP, as demanded by the U.S., to build independent capabilities. Slash the spending of billions on multiculturalism, mass Great Replacement immigration and woke, and funnel it into defence.

4.Assert National Identity: Reject the "wokey" cultural relativism Llewellyn-Smith critiques, prioritising Australian values over appeasing foreign powers. This means confronting China on human rights, as Kevin Rudd did in Mandarin, rather than Albanese's silence.

If a Wakanda-like African superpower emerged from the Black Panther movies, conservative nationalists would resist any elite pivot toward it, just as they oppose the China tilt. The issue isn't the specific power but the principle: Australia must not trade sovereignty for economic or strategic favour. A sudden African hegemon, even one as advanced as Wakanda, would demand the same scrutiny as China. Nationalists would argue for neutrality and self-reliance, ensuring Australia's policies reflect its democratic values, not the allure of vibranium or Chinese trade dollars. The cultural cringe, seen in the Japan era or Albanese's Beijing visits, is a symptom of weak national identity, which nationalists seek to cure through pride in Australia's heritage and independence.

In conclusion, Llewellyn-Smith's charge of "China grovelling" captures a conservative nationalist fear: Albanese's diplomacy risks trading Australia's sovereignty for economic scraps from an authoritarian regime. While his Beijing visit yielded trade talks, as ABC News notes, it sidesteps thorny issues like Taiwan and human rights, projecting weakness. The neo-colonial parallel to Japan's 1980s dominance and the Wakanda hypothetical highlight a recurring flaw: Australia's elites too readily bend to power. In a multipolar world, with U.S. decline and Chinese assertiveness, conservative nationalists demand a stronger, self-reliant Australia. AUKUS must be fortified, trade diversified, and national identity asserted to avoid becoming a pawn, whether to China, America, or a future power. Albanese's tilt may bring short-term gains, but it risks long-term subservience, a price too high for Australia's freedom.

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/07/albo-releases-tide-of-china-grovelling/

Albo releases tide of China grovelling

David Llewellyn-Smith

I have noted the pivot at Crikey to Wokey over the past few years. Gone are hard-hitting critiques based upon a push for political and national interest transparency.

In their place now is a conga line of whingers seeking to cancel anybody who upsets a snowflake.

This is its choice, and reducing its coverage to hurt feelings over the pitfalls of democracy is fair enough if that's your cup of tea.

But it is not fair enough when it comes to seeking to destroy the central pillar of Australian democracy and freedom.

Wokey regularly publishes card-carrying China groveller Wanning Sun and, increasingly, its stable of commentators has contracted a severe case of anti-Americanism to boot.

Wokey has done its level best to destroy AUKUS and is now competing with Nine to be the lowest snake in the room on behalf of China.

AUKUS is neither here nor there, to me. Anything that better integrates US forces with our own is a plus as CCP hegemonic ambitions surge out of China.

Even if it doesn't make much sense to build a fleet of nuclear submarines to blockade your own ports.

But that is an expression of strategic stupidity more than the subs themselves, going one way with your economy and the other way with your defence.

Anyway, the answer is not less AUKUS or less America; it is less China.

Which brings me to Wokey's Bernard Keane, who is welcoming his new Chinese overlords furiously.

…it is our pro-American defence establishment that dictates what constitutes bien pensant thinking around Australia's strategic policies in the media. Unfortunately for them, Trump is busy wrecking the entire image of the United States carefully crafted over generations by its advocates here: that of a benign force for democracy, stability, free markets and shared values.

Instead, Trump seems hell-bent on confirming every left-wing stereotype of the United States since the start of the Cold War — that America is a malignant, imperialistic power that happily tramples over the rights of other countries abroad and its own people at home and represents a force for instability, not security.

The deep fear the Mad King has thus engendered in our American apologists is that, in unmasking what America is really like, and how little it differs from a long-demonised country like China, Trump will push the Australian electorate to reject the relentless integration of Australia into the US military and intelligence machine that has been bipartisan policy since the Gillard years, in favour of a more independent foreign policy.

In that context, they're torn over China's rise to economic dominance: they understand how important the Chinese economy is to Australian prosperity, but ache for ways to constrain it and protect American economic and technological primacy.

From their perspective, and that of the editors and journalists they ceaselessly brief and for whom they contribute op-eds, China is a bigger threat than ever because the United States is now so unappealing, and a functional relationship with Beijing is all the greater a threat given Trump has made relationships with Washington contingent on bowing to his agenda in a way far less subtle than anything that has emanated from China.

It's muddled thinking from a section of the governing class that, for 80 years, hasn't had to do much thinking at all, because the answer to every problem was to defer to the United States. They have let the means — an alliance with the United States — replace the ends — Australia's security, prosperity and sovereignty.

That is the most naive claptrap I have read in the Aussie media in thirteen years of doing this job.

It is everything that is wrong with our country captured in one puke.

culture war over national interest framework

whataboutism over reasoning

thin-sliced economics over deep intellect

entitled bogan whinging over realpolitik

Why is paying a little more for our defense—which underpins our freedom and prosperity much more than China ever has or will—so unreasonable that we should pivot to an advancing autocratic hegemon run by the most evil organisation on earth?

Chinese sovereign gangsterism is so much worse than American that they don't occupy the same ballpark.

What is at stake in this fight is liberalism itself. It is broad enough to encompass a populist like Trump without collapsing.

Yet we have run from it, and the underpinnings of our own freedom, faster than a speeding bullet.

Do the Wokey dills really think that its cancellation rainbow will be strengthened under a CCP hegemon that crushes perceived threats in every twitch from an exceedingly narrow norm that starts and stops with membership of The Party?

Whether you are gay, trans, black, white, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, fat, female, disabled, or a furry, your life under the CCP will end as you know it.

You will identify with The Party, or you will be in a Pilbara labour camp, having your organs harvested.

It's almost what Wokey deserves."

He said it, not us!