What do you think?
Rate this book
Our Exceptional Friend
In Our Exceptional Friend , Emma Shortis draws on history, current affairs and questions of morality to mount a compelling and unique case as to why Australia's relationship with the United States needs a serious overhaul.
Australians are told that we have two choices in this the United States, or China. Faced with that choice, Australian governments of all persuasions have always sided with America – even if that means siding with a President like Donald J. Trump. While the election of Joe Biden has led many of us to hope that we might be heading for a calmer, more compassionate world, and a reset of Australia and America’s ‘special relationship,’ going back to ‘normal’ is not only a bad idea – it's a dangerous and immoral one.
Our Exceptional Friend challenges the old assumption that we have no option other than to submit to one global power at the expense of another, and asks Australians to really examine why it is that we welcome American dominance. In this, our 70th year of the Australia–US alliance, historian Emma Shortis argues it's time to take a fresh and unflinching look at our special relationship, and examine whose interests it really serves. We don’t have to make a binary choice between subservience to an increasingly broken democracy and abandoning the alliance. There are other options. How can we make it better for us, and make the world a better place for it?
Australians are told that we have two choices in this the United States, or China. Faced with that choice, Australian governments of all persuasions have always sided with America – even if that means siding with a President like Donald J. Trump. While the election of Joe Biden has led many of us to hope that we might be heading for a calmer, more compassionate world, and a reset of Australia and America’s ‘special relationship,’ going back to ‘normal’ is not only a bad idea – it's a dangerous and immoral one.
Our Exceptional Friend challenges the old assumption that we have no option other than to submit to one global power at the expense of another, and asks Australians to really examine why it is that we welcome American dominance. In this, our 70th year of the Australia–US alliance, historian Emma Shortis argues it's time to take a fresh and unflinching look at our special relationship, and examine whose interests it really serves. We don’t have to make a binary choice between subservience to an increasingly broken democracy and abandoning the alliance. There are other options. How can we make it better for us, and make the world a better place for it?
288 pages, Paperback
Published August 18, 2021
10 people are currently reading
120 people want to read
About the author
Emma Shortis
3 books2 followersDr Emma Shortis is Director of the International & Security Affairs Program at The Australia Institute. Emma is a historian and writer, focused on the history and politics of the United States and its role in the world. Emma’s first book, Our Exceptional Friend: Australia’s Fatal Alliance with the United States, was published by Hardie Grant in 2021. Before joining The Australia Institute, Emma was a Lecturer at RMIT University, where her academic work focused on international relations and climate transition. Before that, she spent a year in the United States as Fox-Zucker International Fellow at Yale University, where she finished her PhD in History.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
December 27, 2022
Great read, exploring how ANZUS is a treaty that really guarantees Australia nothing but an illusion. Interesting they haven’t changed the name when NZ left the treaty decades ago. Australia is going backwards by following America I.e climate change
December 18, 2021
Fresh, well-written, and accessible. An eye-opening critique of Australia’s place in the world beside the US, with historical insight woven throughout. Would recommend to anyone with an interest in IR
November 7, 2021
I really enjoyed this and recommend to those wanting to think more critically about Aus alliance with the US.
December 14, 2024
Is the American Century Coming to an End?
In these volatile geopolitical times I thought it may be instructive to read more about Australia's alliance with the U.S.. Australia is a small (population-wise), but resource rich country that punches above its weight, and as we move into the second quarter of the 21st century, it will likely have to continue to balance its security ties with the U.S. with its growing trade reliance on China as those two countries are becoming more adversarial.
Do we need a "big brother"? We have been "all the way with LBJ" ... and every other president since ANZUS has been around in the early 50's, but the author argues that it is a one-way treaty -- we have helped the U.S. out in every skirmish since that time, but it is unclear if the U.S, would reciprocate - unless it is in their interest to do so. New Zealand exited the treaty in 2012 due to its stance on nuclear weapons, but without any real impact to its relationship with America. But does that mean we should go it alone? Every playground has a bully and it can pay to have a big brother (and we have more resources than the Kiwis).
The author is clearly no fan of the U.S. From nuclear armament to climate change to rampant capitalism to race relations the U.S. has taken the wrong path and dragged Australia along with it. The arguments she makes in support of these positions tend to be a bit holier than thou (IMO) and ignore the reality of an electorate that has a short term memory and demands lots of stuff and doesn't want to pay much for it. This results in the author misstating a range of issues.
For example, referring to the success of the deterrence approach adopted by nuclear powers, Shortis notes that 70 years without nuclear armageddon is hardly a solid dataset on which to base the safety of the entire world. In fact, I would argue that the world has been safe from armageddon for the entire history of nuclear armament (with a slight blip in Japan at the outset). Sure - Reagan and Trump have done some chest-thumping in support of using nukes, but we are all still here. I do not walk the corridors of power, but (particularly with Trump - I hope!) there is likely a difference between the rhetoric and the reality.
In another chapter, she asks .."in what universe is it possible to think that environmental activism and a career on Wall Street are compatible?" In fact, capitalism and a social conscience are not mutually exclusive - many good companies (and jobs) have been created to address climate change and there are more to come. I do believe that climate change has the potential to be an existential threat to the world, but ideological purity is not the most practical response to this threat. Unfortunately Donald Trump is about to take control again and we are in for another four years of "drill, baby, drill". She also references the pettiness of large US tech companies revolting when the Australian federal government required them to pay for the use of Australian media content. Facebook definitely overreacted, but, to be clear, Facebook is a public company (albeit not state owned), not a private company (a small quibble but you may as well get your facts right). She also notes that law enforcement agencies in the US and Australia....treat violent white supremacy as a problem of individuals, of misunderstood but sympathetic figures.... I don't think anyone sees the Charlottesville mob or Timothy McVeigh as sympathetic or misunderstood!
I think the author's issues are really more related to the short-termism of political leaders (in both countries) and a U.S electoral system that is becoming less reflective of the will of the majority of its citizens because they live in populous states. Of course, you can't write a book like this today without honing in on Trump. The book was written before Trump won the November 2024 election - so we are in for another four years of mayhem. The pessimist in me argues that if Trump does what he says he will, then life as we know it will be irrevocably altered. In fact, he could be setting the stage for the end of the American century.
What does all this mean for the actions that should be taken. The U.S. (and more broadly the Western hemisphere) presumes a sense of moral authority that provides it with the cover to take unilateral action (our approach is better, therefore we can impose our will on you). Unfortunately, the author only looks at one side of this equation and does not examine the shortcomings of the other side (human rights anyone?) It would be interesting to better understand China's motives for the rest of this century (to the extent that is possible). The author deliberately shies away from offering solutions arguing that she is just focusing on summarizing the history. This strikes me as a cop-out as she offers up her opinions and critiques all the way through the book. Hiding behind an academic gown does not absolve you of the importance of offering possible solutions.
At the end of the day, the issue is one for Australia to resolve. Should it abandon ANZUS and tie its fortunes more closely to China? Should it stick with the status quo and try to muddle through? At what point could the country get caught in a U.S. initiated conflict that is a step too far? Bottom line - I have no idea, I am just a lousy book reviewer. But ... I do think the next four years will help crystalize an answer to these questions.
In these volatile geopolitical times I thought it may be instructive to read more about Australia's alliance with the U.S.. Australia is a small (population-wise), but resource rich country that punches above its weight, and as we move into the second quarter of the 21st century, it will likely have to continue to balance its security ties with the U.S. with its growing trade reliance on China as those two countries are becoming more adversarial.
Do we need a "big brother"? We have been "all the way with LBJ" ... and every other president since ANZUS has been around in the early 50's, but the author argues that it is a one-way treaty -- we have helped the U.S. out in every skirmish since that time, but it is unclear if the U.S, would reciprocate - unless it is in their interest to do so. New Zealand exited the treaty in 2012 due to its stance on nuclear weapons, but without any real impact to its relationship with America. But does that mean we should go it alone? Every playground has a bully and it can pay to have a big brother (and we have more resources than the Kiwis).
The author is clearly no fan of the U.S. From nuclear armament to climate change to rampant capitalism to race relations the U.S. has taken the wrong path and dragged Australia along with it. The arguments she makes in support of these positions tend to be a bit holier than thou (IMO) and ignore the reality of an electorate that has a short term memory and demands lots of stuff and doesn't want to pay much for it. This results in the author misstating a range of issues.
For example, referring to the success of the deterrence approach adopted by nuclear powers, Shortis notes that 70 years without nuclear armageddon is hardly a solid dataset on which to base the safety of the entire world. In fact, I would argue that the world has been safe from armageddon for the entire history of nuclear armament (with a slight blip in Japan at the outset). Sure - Reagan and Trump have done some chest-thumping in support of using nukes, but we are all still here. I do not walk the corridors of power, but (particularly with Trump - I hope!) there is likely a difference between the rhetoric and the reality.
In another chapter, she asks .."in what universe is it possible to think that environmental activism and a career on Wall Street are compatible?" In fact, capitalism and a social conscience are not mutually exclusive - many good companies (and jobs) have been created to address climate change and there are more to come. I do believe that climate change has the potential to be an existential threat to the world, but ideological purity is not the most practical response to this threat. Unfortunately Donald Trump is about to take control again and we are in for another four years of "drill, baby, drill". She also references the pettiness of large US tech companies revolting when the Australian federal government required them to pay for the use of Australian media content. Facebook definitely overreacted, but, to be clear, Facebook is a public company (albeit not state owned), not a private company (a small quibble but you may as well get your facts right). She also notes that law enforcement agencies in the US and Australia....treat violent white supremacy as a problem of individuals, of misunderstood but sympathetic figures.... I don't think anyone sees the Charlottesville mob or Timothy McVeigh as sympathetic or misunderstood!
I think the author's issues are really more related to the short-termism of political leaders (in both countries) and a U.S electoral system that is becoming less reflective of the will of the majority of its citizens because they live in populous states. Of course, you can't write a book like this today without honing in on Trump. The book was written before Trump won the November 2024 election - so we are in for another four years of mayhem. The pessimist in me argues that if Trump does what he says he will, then life as we know it will be irrevocably altered. In fact, he could be setting the stage for the end of the American century.
What does all this mean for the actions that should be taken. The U.S. (and more broadly the Western hemisphere) presumes a sense of moral authority that provides it with the cover to take unilateral action (our approach is better, therefore we can impose our will on you). Unfortunately, the author only looks at one side of this equation and does not examine the shortcomings of the other side (human rights anyone?) It would be interesting to better understand China's motives for the rest of this century (to the extent that is possible). The author deliberately shies away from offering solutions arguing that she is just focusing on summarizing the history. This strikes me as a cop-out as she offers up her opinions and critiques all the way through the book. Hiding behind an academic gown does not absolve you of the importance of offering possible solutions.
At the end of the day, the issue is one for Australia to resolve. Should it abandon ANZUS and tie its fortunes more closely to China? Should it stick with the status quo and try to muddle through? At what point could the country get caught in a U.S. initiated conflict that is a step too far? Bottom line - I have no idea, I am just a lousy book reviewer. But ... I do think the next four years will help crystalize an answer to these questions.
September 17, 2025
Dr Shortis is Director of the International & Security Affairs Program at The Australia Institute. Emma is a historian and writer, focused on the history and politics of the United States and its role in the world. Before joining The Australia Institute, Emma was a Lecturer at RMIT University, where her academic work focused on international relations and climate transition. Before that, she spent a year in the United States as Fox-Zucker International Fellow at Yale University, where she finished her PhD in History. This book focuses on the alliance Australia has with the United States, and why there is serious need to rethink this alliance. Right from the get-go to quote from the book "In mainstream public discussions of foreign policy and security...there is rarely a direct or honest conversation about who threatens us, how or why. Since the earliest days of colonisation, the threat has generally bee a 'yellow peril' in some form or another,based pm tje racist idea that large Asian populations woiuld naturally seek to steal the riches...that white Australians had already worked so hard to steal." The ANZUS treaty that Australia bases its security on is almost 75 years old, with the assumption that if Australia is attacked, that the US would come to our aid. But would they? Would the current US President do so? Nowhere in the document is there a guarantee of same. There is only one line, that in such a scenario the US would act. The 'act' is not defined. And yet that belief has dragged Australia into almost every war the US has fought, from Korea to Vietnam to Malaysia to Afghanistan to Iraq. Only in the case of Afghanistan is there any tenuous thread of the US being attacked. She then goes on to outline how the US military operates including under the early days of the Biden administration. The book came out in 2021. There is even discussion of NASA and what its underlying mission to the Moon and desire to return are really all about. While portrayed as a mission of discovery, it is ultimately about control - economically and militarily. And that the ASA, the Australian Space Agency was set up under the Turnball government to be of assistance to the US.
July 22, 2023
A polemical text written in overly moralising tones. Anyone picking up this book presumably already agrees that Trump is bad, we don't need to be treated to analysis as superficial as labelling him a fascist and a white supremacist. That is at both once obvious and completely obfuscatory of the reasons he came to power. For those who don't share Shortis' worldview, her language basically ensures they won't read on and learn to criticise the US alliance.
The real crime of this book though is the completely inaccurate description of the international relations theory known as "realism". First of all, there is no such thing as realism. There is classical realism, neo-classical realism, neo-realism (sometimes called structural realism) and two main sub-variants of neorealism: offensive and defensive realism. The broad sweeping claims that Shortis makes about realism (that states seek to accumulate as much power as possible and dominate others if they can) is only true of offensive realism. Shortis describes a sub-variant within a sub-variant as if it represents an entire tradition stretching back to Machiavelli. Shortis also makes the inaccurate claim that realism "justifies" power-seeking behaviour, particularly unilateral action. To describe realism as justifying anything in a moral sense is to literally demonstrate that you do not understand it at all. Shortis is hopelessly begging the question. Moreover, the United States and Australia don't follow realist foreign policies at all! They follow liberal foreign policies: they believe that democracy and capitalism are forces for global peace and try to spread them. This is the utter antithesis of realism.
If you have self-respect and a concern for intellectual integrity, don't read this.
The real crime of this book though is the completely inaccurate description of the international relations theory known as "realism". First of all, there is no such thing as realism. There is classical realism, neo-classical realism, neo-realism (sometimes called structural realism) and two main sub-variants of neorealism: offensive and defensive realism. The broad sweeping claims that Shortis makes about realism (that states seek to accumulate as much power as possible and dominate others if they can) is only true of offensive realism. Shortis describes a sub-variant within a sub-variant as if it represents an entire tradition stretching back to Machiavelli. Shortis also makes the inaccurate claim that realism "justifies" power-seeking behaviour, particularly unilateral action. To describe realism as justifying anything in a moral sense is to literally demonstrate that you do not understand it at all. Shortis is hopelessly begging the question. Moreover, the United States and Australia don't follow realist foreign policies at all! They follow liberal foreign policies: they believe that democracy and capitalism are forces for global peace and try to spread them. This is the utter antithesis of realism.
If you have self-respect and a concern for intellectual integrity, don't read this.
March 19, 2024
A no-holds barred dissection of the long-standing Australian US Alliance, as epitomised in ANZUS, or as Shortis defines it, our "fatal alliance". Well-researched and grounded in a strong understanding of our historical and political history, it makes a convincing case for the Australian government to take a fresh new look at alternatives to moving forward in lock-step with the US. Interestingly the book was written just after the first Trump presidency, when Biden had just come into power. The perspective now, with the prospect of a second Trump presidency, looks even more frightening.
August 2, 2023
Very easy to read analysis of Australia's alliance with the USA which goes back to 1951. Why do we bother? Our sycophantic attitude to USA is rarely rewarded and our ally is extremely unreliable. We rush to volunteer to join every war that the US gets involved in in the hope that the US will help us if we get into trouble. The US will only help us if it is in their national interest at the time. The ANZUS Treaty is just a scrap of paper.
September 13, 2022
I really liked this a lot. I don't agree with everything Emma Shortis writes, but I think that's the point. It's super refreshing to approach these issues as discussion questions rather than dogma and Shortis is a brilliant guide in doing so. Some lines in this must've made the eggheads boil lmao. A must if you're interested in other approaches and required if you're not.
November 1, 2021
I think it's important for us to be critical of our relationship with the US, and this book provides a pretty strong overview of the history of Australian-US relations (and why it's not as perfect as it may seem)
November 19, 2021
Really good introduction to Australia’s flawed foreign policy in relation to the United States. Easy to read, great use of sources and relevant material: a must for anyone interested in the ANZUS relationship
November 30, 2021
A very important work, encouraging us to reconsider our relationship with the US capitalist machine. From ANZUS to Pine Gap, climate policy and entrenched racism Emma Shortis writes clearly and convincingly. If only our politicians would read this and take notice. I won’t hold my breath.
December 21, 2021
Good intro to Aus/US relations if you weren’t familiar or for giving to your high school/first year uni aged family members to encourage them to think critically about what Aus is doing in the world.
December 16, 2025
Australia has closely aligned itself with the US since the second world war. The ANZUS defense treaty of 1951 has played a huge role in defining the relationship between both countries. Australia has sent troops to Vietnam, Afghanistan, Irak ; Canada which is also a close ally to the US refused to participate militarily to Vietnam and Irak which demonstrates that the choices made by Australia were avoidable. This close australian alignment with the US finds its sources in common historical factors, unrestrained capitalism, aboriginal genocide, economic development as an absolute priority and the presence of disinformation and propaganda pushing right wing politics by Rupert Murdoch's owned medias in both countries. The book describes the events and the decisions that shaped that US-Australia relationship over the last 70 years. As Chinese agression increases countries need to define how they will cope with that reality, Ms Shortis wishes for Australia to find its own path. The author wishes for the country to reconsider where it stands on current societal issues of white supremacy and climate change where the US certainly does not shine as a leader. Australian democracy does not seem to be in danger as political parties are not dedicated to undermining the electoral processes by gerrymandering and voter suppression laws like those passed by the republican party in the US. The latest AUKUS treaty being negotiated seems to be indicating that Australia has chosen to remain on its historical trajectory for the time being. In a world where think tanks and right wing organizations pay authors to justify their policy choices it is refreshing to read an university teacher and researcher with an independant streak asking the tough questions that concern us all.
October 7, 2021
Good overview of the US - Australian alliance. It does highlight how both America and Australia actively engage in climate change denial and promote “jobs” and future technology solutions instead of actual hard work and policial solutions.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews