By peddling AUKUS and the China ‘threat’, Kevin 07 shows his very different vision of Australia

This article appeared in Crikey on September 14 2026.

Now living in New York, Kevin Rudd felt compelled to come back and deliver a renewed “Red Alert” to Australia, so that the country may, with his help, be saved.

Rudd said Australia had become “the complacent country”, and that it was his “duty” to inject a “deeper sense of national urgency” within Australia’s body politic. 

He warned that Australia was now in a world that is “increasingly difficult, dangerous and volatile” due, among many other things, to national security challenges as a result of China’s rise and the challenges posed by AI.

Rudd had confidently predicted the night before this National Press Club address that in 2028 we would see an elevated possibility of a military action by the PRC against Taiwan, putting the chance at one in three. Not surprisingly, this timeline became the stuff of most headlines, and was raised again by a journalist during the NPC question and answer session.

Australia, according to Rudd, is vulnerable due to its geography: “The immutable facts are that we are an island nation, 100% dependent on freedom of navigation for our trade sector, which accounts for nearly one-third of our national income.”

Which is why, Rudd argued, “AUKUS is essential”, as it is an effective deterrent to China. But to make AUKUS work, Australia needs to “double down” on its alliance with the United States, because this alliance “remains a force multiplier for Australian defence needs”.

Also, in response to a question from the floor, Rudd said he’s not concerned about US facilities and bases in Australia, because enmeshing with US military capabilities would not lead to Australia losing its sovereignty. To Rudd, AUKUS is about developing “sovereign capabilities … to protect our sovereign interests”, and that the US and Australia are “equal partners”.

One wonders how much such reassuring words are actually worth — whether they come from Rudd or from Defence Minister Richard Marles — when it comes to Australia’s capacity to retain its sovereignty if a military conflict were ever to eventuate between the US and China. As defence and strategic policy analyst Marcus Hellyer observes:

“If a US Air Force B52 is launching from a facility in Australia and is dropping bombs or launching missiles against Chinese targets … it is a legitimate target” for the Chinese.

Yet when asked a question along these lines by a journalist, Rudd, having confidently predicted the elevated possibility of a war over Taiwan in 2028, became suddenly shy about answering “hypothetical questions”:

“It would be foolish to try and predict what circumstances pertained in the future in relation to the operation of any of these facilities. So, I just won’t go there.”

Also, when asked what would happen if the deterrence strategy failed, again, Rudd said:

“It’s not responsible … to engage in hypotheticals.”

No journalist in the room thought to ask Rudd how the submarines — the first three of which are due to be delivered between 2032 and 2038 — would help with a possible war in 2028, as he has predicted.

Nor did Rudd say himself why he changed his mind about AUKUS. When AUKUS was announced in 2021, Rudd criticised the Morrison government’s handling of the deal, warning that its overtly China-focused rhetoric risked exacerbating tensions with Beijing. He also argued that abandoning the French submarine program in favour of AUKUS had damaged Australia’s relations with France and aggravated strategic tensions in South-East Asia.

As a former prime minister of Australia and former Australian ambassador, and now the head of a US-based think-tank, Rudd half-joked about tracking his “permanent career trajectory towards infinitesimal demotion”, having recently made a similar lament in a lengthy interview with Ezra Klein. But his NPC address suggests Rudd by no means wants to fade into irrelevance. 

Whenever possible, Rudd is fond of demonstrating his Mandarin-speaking skills. He is well-known in diplomatic and foreign policy circles in the US for his China knowledge, although his work has also attracted substantial criticism from China scholars for conceptual overreach and sweeping interpretations. One review in the China Quarterly directly challenges one of the central propositions of Rudd’s book On Xi Jinping, and another scholar described the book as “empirically dubious”. 

Rudd’s message about AUKUS would have resonated strongly with Washington. After all, Washington, perennially concerned about Canberra’s possible divided loyalties between China and the US, always wants to see more commitment from Canberra. In the reported words of former deputy secretary of state Kurt Campbell,AUKUS was about “getting Australia off the fence” and having Australia “locked in … for the next 40 years”. Furthermore, for Washington, an important strategic dividend of AUKUS is the establishment of a sustained US submarine presence at HMAS Stirling on Australia’s Indian Ocean coast.

And now, with AUKUS, Australia seems indeed “off the fence”. Kevin from Queensland could be here to help again — this time, to ensure that Australia continues to stay off the fence.

In contrast to Rudd on a mission, Paul Keating, who was in conversation with historian James Curran in Sydney two weeks ago, spoke like someone who has proven his political statesmanship and, having conquered the highest mountain, could share a sweeping, aerial view of both his place in Australia and of Australia’s place in the world.

But the contrast between the two former Labor prime ministers is not just in demeanour. It is also in the substance of their addresses. All in all, it is clear that while Rudd told Australia to be very afraid, Keating’s main point was that his country has become “too afraid”.

Unlike Rudd, Keating sees Australia’s geography as a strategic advantage. And, scathing about the China threat peddlers in the Australian media, he unequivocally declared that “there’s no threat”.

Keating’s view on AUKUS as a form of deterrence couldn’t be further from that of Rudd: trying to deter China from invading Australia with AUKUS would be as effective as “throwing toothpicks at the mountain”.

Nor is Keating convinced that the US and Australia are equal partners. To illustrate this, he invoked general Douglas MacArthur’s meeting with prime minister John Curtin. Keating said of MacArthur:

“He met John Curtin at the Lodge in Canberra. And he said to Curtin … that the US viewed Australia solely as a military base to strike Japan rather than, get this, rather than having any protective affection for Australians. In other words, you’re a base. We’re not here to defend you or save you. We’re here to use you as a base to fight back.”

Keating also said he agreed with Malcolm Turnbull — who was in the audience — about the danger of Australia losing its sovereignty to the US.

Of course, Australians are free to decide where to stand between the opposing visions of reality represented by these two men. But be aware that if you don’t accept Rudd’s version of the “cold, hard realities” that demand support for AUKUS, he may dismiss you — along with Keating, Turnbull, and numerous other seasoned politicians, international relations experts and defence specialists — as part of a “well-meaning, pearl-clutching seminar … from the far left”.