iscover
It’s been called the collapse of the global rules-based order.
In practice, the international order is undergoing an age-old reset as leaders strive to be more assertive, less patient of coercion and more willing to leverage military capability as an instrument of state power.
Australia, like many nations, has now somewhat belatedly noticed the change and is acting to secure its own interests, according to a recent speech to the National Press Club by Australian Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles.
“Australia faces its most complex and threatening strategic circumstances since the end of World War II … More countries are engaged in conflict today than at any time since the end of World War II, and this is occurring across every region of the world,” Minister Marles said.
“All nuclear weapon states are growing their arsenals once more, with the biggest growth occurring in China … (There is) intensifying strategic competition among major powers, most notably between the United States and China. China continues to engage in the world’s largest conventional military build-up since World War II without the transparency and strategic reassurance other states expect.
“The global rules-based order is under extreme pressure. We have now entered a period that will be defined more by disorder and characterised by a sharper struggle among states as they vie to assert a new equilibrium that favours them.
“Both the cost and requirement of defence will grow, and as a nation, we will need to invest greater resources in our defence than we historically have. Middle powers that don’t take on more responsibility for their own security will be more exposed to coercion and face greater limits on their sovereignty.
“As the world enters this current period of disorder, some argue that the idea of the global rules-based order – an order where nations can pursue their security and economic interests, consistent with international law and free from coercion – is now extinct. I disagree.
“The global rules-based order provides a middle power like Australia with agency. A world defined purely by power and might does not.
“And it is most definitely against Australia’s national interest to rush, as some Australians have, to the conclusion that this order no longer has any role.
“For all the failings of the global rules-based order, and there have been many, we have been far better off with it than without it. Our challenge is not to discard the imperfect but rather to make the promise of an ideal better. Because if we let it go, the world will deeply regret its disintegration.
“The global rules-based order would not have existed without American leadership based on an enlightened conception of its own self-interest. Now I understand US frustrations that allies might seek to free ride on this US leadership or believe that the order acts as a substitute for hard power. It does not. Any rules-based order can only prevent conflict when it is underpinned by the hard power necessary for collective deterrence.
“Australia must contribute to this and we are. And we will work with all our like-minded partners to better shape our region’s strategic trajectory. We will double down on middle power cooperation.
“But let’s also be clear: there is no effective balance of power in the Indo-Pacific absent the continued presence of the United States.”
Who and why
From an Australian public perspective, the issue is not simply heading to the ballot box and choosing a political preference in leadership personalities. It’s crucial that Australia now correctly aligns a more self-interested and self-sufficient focused leadership style with the committed drive for multi-term national strategy and immediate development of industrial capability.
We can see this in the United States; strategic competition with China has hardened defence policy across party lines, driving major investments in advanced capabilities and industrial resilience. Case in point, US President Donald Trump is known for his self-interest in American defence capacity, sometimes to the detriment of allies.
In China, PRC President Xi Jinping has embarked on long term plans for the reunification of Taiwan, ownership of the South China Sea and a new golden age of the country to globally dominate industrial capability.
In Russia, where President Vladimir Putin prosecutes an invasion of Ukraine to secure his ideals and strategic objectives for a “restoration of the Soviet Union/Russian Empire”. He prioritises military force and industry capability over international reputation and associated sanctions.
Other players, such as India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has adopted a more assertive regional posture, while Türkiye, under President Recep Erdoğan, pursues an independent and often forceful strategic path of self-interest.
Closer to home, Indonesia, under former military general, now President Prabowo Subianto, strives to make the country a true island amid the coming foretold international storm.
“We will lead the government of the Republic of Indonesia, the leadership of the nation and the people of Indonesia with sincerity, put the interests of all people of Indonesia first,” President Subianto previously said.
“We will put the interests of the nation of Indonesia, the people of Indonesia, above all else – above all groups, and certainly above our own.
“I have declared that Indonesia must achieve food self-sufficiency immediately. We must not rely on other countries for our food supply … We must also be self-sufficient in energy. In the face of tensions, in times of possible war everywhere, we must be prepared for the worst possible outcome: other countries must put their own interests first.”
Common threads
The common denominator across the international landscape is clearly a renewed focus on rising defence expenditure, industrial mobilisation and self-sufficiency.
Against this backdrop, Anthony Albanese has always maintained a leadership style grounded in diplomacy, stability and multilateral engagement – reflecting Australia’s longstanding identity as a country seeking to manage risk through alliances, economic integration and regional cooperation rather than overt confrontation.
The fear is that this approach is rapidly becoming obsolete as Australia’s strategic environment evolves faster than traditional policy settings. While initiatives such as AUKUS and long-range strike acquisitions demonstrate an awareness of rising threats, the broader national posture can appear cautious in comparison to the more decisive approaches seen elsewhere.
“There is no security in maintaining a status quo that doesn’t work for people … We all know the mindset that left Australia exposed to this global shock,” Prime Minister Albanese said during a National Press Club address in April this year.
“That said, it was OK to cut TAFE and training. To dare manufacturing and industry to go offshore. To put multinational firms ahead of Australian gas users. To close our refineries, store our fuel reserves in Texas and run the national energy grid into the ground.
“And that Australia could get away with this because there would always be someone else, somewhere else, who would sell us what we needed cheaper than we could make it ourselves.
“This approach put our nation in this position of vulnerability, it will not take us out of it. That’s why our government is taking a different path.
“Investing in a Future Made in Australia. Creating the National Reconstruction Fund to back manufacturing. Strengthening our defence manufacturing and our security cooperation.
“Restoring Australian leadership in the Pacific and deepening our connections in ASEAN and APEC. Investing in the jobs and skills and infrastructure for AUKUS. A landmark security treaty with Indonesia. A new alliance with Papua New Guinea.
“And importantly, diversifying our trade links and economic partnerships too. Because making more things in Australia doesn’t mean doing less with the world.
“That’s why we’ve been engaging in our region. Stabilising our relationship with China. And finding new opportunities for cooperation with India and the United Arab Emirates.
“The Critical Minerals Agreement I signed at the White House, the defence technology partnership we are expanding with Canada, and, of course, our new defence and security partnership and our Free Trade Agreement signed just last week with the European Union.
“We will not generate the same prosperity or create the same opportunities if we continue to rely on an economic model designed in a different time and built for a more predictable world. Nor can we go back to those days.
“Australia will not find our future security in the past or by copying approaches from overseas. We have to invest in it, build it and create it ourselves. We can, we must and we will.”
Industry consequences
For the defence industry, this gap between recognition and execution is where the real anxiety lies.
Politicians can promise the world; however, industry operates on clear signals, such as long-term funding commitments, defined capability roadmaps and streamlined procurement processes.
In hardline-led countries, these signals are often direct and urgent, designed to enable rapid scaling of industrial capacity. By contrast, Australia’s system remains deliberate, slow to integrate and easy to reverse, with funding commitments set far ahead to dodge potential blame and voter backlash.
First, this uncertainty in demand signals can slow private sector investment. Defence companies, particularly small and medium enterprises, require confidence that programs will proceed at scale and over time. Without that certainty, growth is constrained.
Second, the speed of capability delivery becomes a strategic variable. As other nations accelerate acquisition and deployment, delays in Australia’s procurement system risk creating capability gaps that adversaries could exploit.
Third, Australia’s reputation suffers as a crucial part of allied supply chains. Australian industry must position itself as a reliable, high-value contributor with policy settings that allow rapid collaboration and export.
The all-important currency question
Is Australia’s non-confrontational leadership style still relevant?
The purpose of this leadership style is to preserve diplomatic flexibility, reduce the risk of escalation and economic stability in international trade.
It’s no secret that consecutive Australian governments have used the guise of non-escalation policy to cut back on defence and national security spending. The nation is now likely at a point where continued non-confrontation will be interpreted as strategic delay; not a good look for adversaries or allies.
As the world rapidly approaches a likely conflict, unfortunately, Australia has left it too late to deviate from its strategy and instead must find a way to sharpen it.
This can occur by accelerating defence industrial development, providing clearer signals to industry and ensuring that capability acquisition keeps pace with strategic intent.
The ability to domestically design, build, sustain and rapidly adapt defence systems in Australia is of crucial importance.
Final thoughts
The global shift towards harder power is unlikely to reverse in the near term. However, it’s not impossible for a government, such as Australia, to successfully maintain a measured, diplomatic tone while still driving an ambitious, committed and modern defence strategy.
The key measure will be between what is rhetoric in front of the cameras, what is funded as a priority without delay and what is delivered. Shifting the blame out to future governments in the 2030s, 2040s and 2050s is a trap that should be avoided at all costs.
It’s an anxious time for Australian defence industry with significant challenge and opportunity. Industry must be ready to adapt to a faster, more demanding environment but also prepare for the opportunity to play a central role in shaping the nation’s strategic future.
Only time will tell whether Australia can build the defence capability, resilience and industrial strength required to operate confidently in this increasingly contested world of self-interested and self-sufficient nations.
Robert Dougherty
Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make Defence Connect a preferred news source on Google.
Click here to add Defence Connect as a preferred news source.
