Illustration: Liu Rui/Global Times

In recent days, certain anti?China forces within Australia have aggressively criticized the Anthony Albanese government for "weakening ties with the US and Western allies," while simultaneously condemning its engagement with China. Last week, former Australian prime minister Scott Morrison testified before a US congressional committee, warning of China's "economic coercion" against "democratic nations," playing straight into the hands of Washington's anti-China hardliners. Back in Australia, right-wing voices, echoing Morrison's stance, have seized on Albanese's recent visit to China, accusing him of reducing Australia to a "vassal state" and mocking him as a "cheerleader" rather than a national leader.

These attacks are not only misleading; they are dangerous. They reflect a striking failure to grasp global realities and reveal a willingness to sacrifice Australia's long-term interests for short-term political gains and strategic delusions.

Let's be clear: Albanese's diplomatic breakthroughs with China signal a pragmatic and measured recalibration of Australia's foreign policy. It aligns with Australia's national security interests, economic priorities and international standing as a sovereign middle power. Since the Australian Labor Party took office, high-level meetings with China have resumed, ministerial dialogues have normalized, trade ties strengthened and a once-fraught relationship stabilized and is now on the right track of improvement. These are not signs of surrender, they are hallmarks of responsible statecraft.

In contrast, Morrison and his ideological allies appear determined to re-enact a Cold War scenario that no longer fits the world we live in. Their anti-China narrative, laced with irrational hostility, substitutes slogans for strategy. Morrison's Washington testimony was less about defending Australian interests and more about entrenching a worldview that ties Australia's future to an increasingly confrontational US agenda.

Morrison's reappearance in Washington was more a warning than symbolism. Just as Australia begins to reclaim its diplomatic agency in the Asia-Pacific region, voices like Morrison's seek to drag the nation backward into a posture of automatic alignment and strategic dependency. They view global affairs through a binary lens, imagining a clash of civilizations where Australia must always serve as Washington's deputy sheriff.

But the world has changed. The rise of China is a structural transformation in the global order. Australia, situated in the Asia-Pacific and economically intertwined with China, cannot afford to ignore this reality. Nor can it afford to reduce its strategic options to a false choice between a blind allegiance to the US or a constructive partnership with China. Responsible leadership requires navigating complexities, not retreating into ideological dogma.

The vitriolic attacks on Albanese reflect a deeper malaise within segments of Australia's political class - an instinctive deference to Washington and an ingrained suspicion of any attempt to engage Beijing with constructive pragmatism. This is the same mindset that led to years of unwarranted provocation under Morrison, which left Australia's regional relationships strained and its diplomatic standing diminished.

This mentality is most visibly embodied in the AUKUS pact, a trilateral security agreement between Australia, the UK and the US. Heralded by Morrison as a grand strategic achievement, AUKUS commits Australia to acquiring nuclear-powered submarines and deeper military integration with Anglo-American forces. But far from enhancing Australia's security, AUKUS risks entrenching its dependence on Washington, further militarizing the region, and alienating its Asia-Pacific neighbors who fear a return to great-power rivalry in their backyard.

Critics rightly question the long-term costs - economic, strategic and diplomatic - of tying Australia's defense capabilities so tightly to the US industrial and strategic complex. The nuclear submarine project alone may cost hundreds of billions and take decades to complete, all while draining resources from other vital areas such as economic growth, infrastructure development and climate resilience. More worryingly, AUKUS reinforces the image of Australia as a subordinate actor in an Anglo-centric bloc, undermining the country's credibility as an independent voice in the international community.

In contrast, the Albanese government has taken a balanced approach: Stabilizing relations with China while maintaining its traditional alliance with the US. This is the policy of a country that realistically recognizes its geography, its economic interests and its responsibility to the region it inhabits.

To label this approach as appeasement, as Morrison and the China hawks have done, is not just disingenuous - it is reckless. It threatens to undo the progress that has been made and suggests a preference for endless confrontation over sovereign decision-making in a multipolar world.

The Albanese government's China policy has not been without challenges. But it has succeeded where Morrison's belligerence had pathetically failed. In the eyes of its neighbors, Australia is once again seen not as a pawn, but as a partner.

Morrison's worldview belongs to the past. If Australia is to build a future defined by stability, prosperity and regional leadership, it must resist the pull of partisan nostalgia and embrace the difficult but essential work of constructive engagement. That requires courage. That requires clarity. And most of all, it requires leadership - not cheerleading for someone else's agenda, but standing firm in defense of Australia's national interests.

The author is a professor and director of the Australian Studies Centre at East China Normal University. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn