Why it matters that DoD quit on a defense forum in Australia

SYDNEY − The decision by the Pentagon to bar US officials from attending a long-planned meeting in Canberra, as Australian officials are already concerned about the future military relationship between the two countries, has set off alarm bells in the defense community here.

The Indo-Pacific Deterrrence Dialogue was to be held Monday and Tuesday at the Australian National University and was to be hosted jointly by three organizations: The ANU National Security College, the ANU’s Strategic and Defense Studies Centre, and the Sydney-based United States Studies Centre. The American side comprised the Honolulu-based Pacific Forum, which traditionally hosts these events with ANU, and the DC-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA).

Topics of the meeting were likely to include both countries’ force posture, conventional capabilities, Taiwan, nuclear war scenarios and other pressing strategic issues, according to a source familiar with the event, and experts spent months planning for the event. However, the Sydney Morning Herald broke the news on Saturday that US officials would not be coming.

The cancellation comes following reported guidance from the Office of the Secretary of Defense that Pentagon officials are not to talk or appear at think tank events without an in-depth review. Defense officials have seemingly reacted by cancelling planned speaking engagements.

The head of one of the groups organizing the dialogue, Mike Green of the US Studies Center, noted the event is funded by the Australians. He said they planned to go ahead with some sort of discussion, whether with members of the American military and the Trump administration, or only with nongovernmental representatives.

A US official said the event has not been cancelled, but “postponed,” though no details of when it might be resumed were provided. A spokesperson for the US Embassy in Canberra declined to comment about the canceled travel plans. Asked whether DoD ordered the Pentagon officials not to attend, a department spokesperson pointed to a July 24 statement from Press Secretary Sean Parnell, stating, “In order to ensure the Department of Defense is not lending its name and credibility to organizations, forums, and events that run counter to the values of this administration, the Department’s Office of Public Affairs will be conducting a thorough vetting of every event where Defense officials are invited to participate.”

Rory Medcalf, head of the Australian National University’s National Security College, told Breaking Defense the “cancellation of this dialogue is disappointing and counterproductive for alliance interests.”

“This would have been a valuable opportunity for the US administration to help Australians understand its strategy, and for us to help explain Australia’s security priorities,” he said. “It is in the interests of both countries that such dialogues resume as soon as possible.”

Australia, one of America’s closest allies, is a member of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing group, has hundreds of US Marines based here on a rotational basis near Darwin, and is one of three members of AUKUS, the unique program to sell Australia at least three Virginia-class nuclear powered attacks submarines and then help it build a small fleet of its own boats.

“This is an important dialogue in the US-Australia alliance about fundamental security questions relating to extended deterrence. And the Australian side is still keen to do it, either without US participation, or, if possible, with some formula for US participation,” Green said. “The Trump administration, just as the Biden administration did, needs Australia, needs Japan for its forward basing initiatives for contingencies such as Taiwan and Japan’s islands and the South China Sea.”

He noted that America’s allies have come to understand “that sometimes these eruptions happen from the Pentagon and then get put into the proper context and framework,” indicating that, like the ban on arms exports to Ukraine and the initial outlines of the AUKUS review, the administration does not always stick to its guns once it aims and fires.