With respect, I think this is back to front. Partisan politics have absolutely entered the fray in recent weeks, with an election in the offing and various figures agitating to define or refine both the positions of their parties and their own personal brands. But I do not believe or accept that AUKUS itself is the product of purely partisan domestic political calculation. In my previous posts in this thread I have outlined some of the basic ideological differences underlying recent developments, such as the conception of Australia as a European outpost "in" Asia, or alternatively an integral part "of" Asia. Or differences in how we evaluate America and its hegemony, and how we evaluate China, the CCP, and the prospect of Chinese hegemony.
While it may be uncomfortable to hear folks like Dutton making ignorant and altogether ridiculous statements about e.g. China and Taiwan, it is assuredly a good thing that this debate has entered the political arena. Because the alternative is to have no debate and no possibility of substantive evolution in Australia's foreign affairs. Dutton has accused Penny Wong and the Labor party of "crab-walking" away from AUKUS. Whatever one may think of this charge, it undoubtedly suggests that Dutton sees real differences between his dreams, and what a hypothetical Labor government might deliver.
P.S. Penny Wong is the current Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. If Labor were to win the next election, she is most likely to become Minister for Foreign Affairs. As one of the few senior figures in Australian politics with Asian ancestry, folks here may be interested to
. Her recent speech which occasioned so much vitriol from Peter Dutton for criticising his comments re: Taiwan can be found