The year 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, the Soviet Union's Great Patriotic War, and the World Anti-Fascist War, as well as the 80th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations (UN). On this important historical juncture, to commemorate the great victory of the World Anti-Fascist War, prevent the resurgence of new fascism, and address the interwoven issues and challenges facing the Global South, such as multipolarity, deglobalization, and the rise of neo-fascism, and to earnestly strengthen the solidarity, exchange, and cooperation among Global South countries in collectively pursuing and defending the post-war world order of fairness and justice with the UN at its core, the “Global South Academic Forum (2025)” will be held in Shanghai from November 13–14, 2025. The theme of this forum is “The Victory of the World Anti-Fascist War and the Postwar International Order: Past and Future.”
On September 6, the Canadian frigate HMCS Québec and the Australian destroyer HMAS Brisbane sailed through the Taiwan Strait, engaging in harassment and provocation. Senior Colonel Shi Yi, spokesperson for the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Eastern Theater Command, made a strong statement, emphasizing that the actions of the Canadian and Australian sides sent the wrong signal and increased security risks. The forces of the Eastern Theater Command maintained a state of high alert at all times, resolutely defending national sovereignty and security, as well as regional peace and stability.
This provocation, coming shortly after China's grand military parade celebrating the 80th anniversary of the victory in the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, naturally attracted significant attention.
Guancha (Observer) took this opportunity to invite Barry Healy, an Australian geopolitical analyst, to interpret the current situation in Australia. Healy is proud of his identity as a lifelong Marxist activist. Not only is he an active participant in the Australian movement against the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal, but he has also been severely criticizing the Australian government for "joining the United States' military preparations against China without any legitimate reason." Healy believes that the best course of action for the Australian people is to formulate an independent foreign policy, expel all US military bases from Australian territory, and extend a helping hand to developing countries to undo the damage caused by the US's "rules-based order."
The Global South Academic Forum and Guancha are collaborating on a series of articles for "Voice of the Global South," with authors who are all guests associated with the Global South Academic Forum.
[Interview/Gao Yanping from Guancha]
Image Captions: HMAS Brisbane of Australia
Hope the Australian and US Military Understand: Do Not Provoke China
Guancha: Did you watch the military parade in Tiananmen Square? What was your impression? How did the Australian public and media discuss it?
Barry Healy: Yes, as an Australian, the parade was very interesting to watch, and Australian television covered some of it. Just this morning, I listened to a related interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) breakfast show. Of course, to find "expert" commentators, they once again went to the US to find an expert from a right-wing think tank. While listening to the program, I thought to myself, I could already guess what that guy was going to say: “This parade is a display of muscle and a great threat to the world,” and so on.
They also claimed that "these weapons look impressive, but China lacks the software and command systems to effectively use them." I thought to myself: In your dreams! In contrast, the parade organized by Donald Trump for the 250th anniversary of the US Army was simply perfunctory and unwatchable.
Image Captions: The military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the victory in the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression
The discipline and spirit displayed by the Chinese parade formations were stunning; one could feel the high morale of this military. More importantly, this parade signals the rise of China as a great power and its clear recognition of this fact—which does not necessarily constitute a threat to the world.
Hopefully, the Australian and US military will understand after watching it: simply do not provoke China. However, most Australians probably will not think so much. Ordinary citizens currently are not paying much attention to the government’s anti-China rhetoric. Australians have always been suspicious of politicians, so this is probably the general public reaction.
Australian media deliberately framed it as a display of force, saying things like "these Chinese weapons will eventually be used against Australia." Seriously, perhaps I should discuss the overall intellectual and moral level of the Australian bourgeois ruling class, its media, and its politicians in the latter half of the interview—it is truly embarrassing. I even feel like I should apologize to the Chinese people for the poor performance of the Australian bourgeoisie; they really are not up to scratch.
It Is Tragic That Australia Still Clings to the US’s Coattails
Guancha: Recently, I saw news on the ABC about Daniel Andrews, a former Australian politician, and Bob Carr, who were invited to attend the Beijing military parade. Australian media, however, focused on Daniel Andrews’ group photo with several important leaders in Beijing, asking why he appeared in a collective photo with people like Putin and Kim Jong Un. Did this reaction surprise you? What do you think of the attendance of these two politicians at the Beijing military parade and the controversy it sparked in the Australian media?
Barry Healy: I think this kind of defamation against Daniel Andrews did not gain much traction in Australia. The right-wing forces are making noise—you are up against the entire right-wing camp. The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) is busy cooperating with the government's anti-China tone, which is the official policy of hostility towards China.
However, the recent reaction to Daniel's visit to China has started to diversify. More liberal media outlets, like "Pearls and Irritations"—Australia has several such online media—are voicing different opinions. But the overall hostility remains.
I thank God that Daniel Andrews went to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meeting. Think about it: the SCO represents nearly half of the world's population, yet the Australian government did not send any official representative, not even an ambassador! This means that the Australian bourgeois ruling class—our capitalist ruling class—is indifferent to half of the world's population. Crazy, I cannot think of any other word to describe it.
Now even some retired politicians—Daniel Andrews, Bob Carr, Paul Keating, and Malcolm Turnbull from the right-wing Liberal Party—are pointing out this madness. But the Australian ruling class clings to the US’s coattails, acting as if they are watching Trump’s expressions. It is tragic that we have fallen to this.
Earlier this year, probably in April or May, I heard that the Commander of the Australian Defence Force gave a speech at a right-wing think tank (I remember it was the Australian Strategic Policy Institute). ABC News reported that he demanded that the nation must be prepared to fight on home soil, and all infrastructure should be adjusted for this, especially preparing hospitals to treat mass casualties. This news simply passed lightly—the highest commander of the Australian military openly declared that they were preparing for potential mass casualties on home soil. How can our media be so silent? It is unbelievable.
Australia: Duplicitous Opportunism?
Guancha: But Sino-Australian relations, at least in the trade sector, have improved.
Barry Healy: That is true. This is one of the tactics they are adopting. We must recognize all the contradictions contained within—these contradictions are extremely profound. Rooted in Australia's national character are huge contradictions inherited from history, and these contradictions continue to affect the current situation. I have long seen through the weakness of the Australian bourgeoisie. What are their characteristics? Opportunism. They can sell iron ore and agricultural products to China—the two pillars of Western Australia are iron ore mining (all these ores are shipped to China) and agriculture (wheat, barley, wine, apples, and all agricultural products, including lobsters, can be sold to China)—while simultaneously cooperating with the US's strategy to contain China.
The Western Australian government recently announced new policies. They are developing a new industry in Western Australia, which is claimed to become the state’s second-largest source of employment, and are mobilizing all educational institutions to serve it. This industry, euphemistically called the "defense industry," will engage in the design, manufacturing, and sales of weapons and equipment, and will be export-oriented.
There are several key issues here: when a society becomes militarized, it inevitably affects its internal democratic rights. A society that desires peace must be oriented toward human development and peace. But we are increasingly shifting toward a war orientation—this is bound to erode the foundations of Australian democratic rights.
It should also be pointed out that our various alliances with the US date back to the 1950s after the end of World War II. In addition to the well-known ANZUS Treaty, there is now the AUKUS agreement, particularly the Force Posture Agreement, which 99% of Australians have never heard of.
Today, the entire north of Australia is dotted with US military bases, communication stations, spy facilities, and combat command centers—a nuclear submarine base is being built just south of where I live, for which the Australian government is investing A$8 billion. US and UK nuclear submarines will rotate there the year after next, essentially being permanently stationed. Our entire continent is being transformed into... well, do I need to say more?
What Does Socialism with Chinese Characteristics Look Like? I Want to Go to China and See for Myself
Guancha: We will delve deeper into this topic later. It is not surprising that the Australian right wing exaggerates the "China threat theory." In your recent articles, you mentioned that China does not pose a threat to Australia, nor does it seek conflict. What factors shaped your view of China? Is it personal family background, academic influence, or your stance as a Marxist?
Barry Healy: I do not have any personal connection with China—no relatives, no friends there. It is precisely for this reason that I want to go to China and see for myself.
As a lifelong Marxist, China's rise poses many challenges to Marxist theory. China indeed has many "capitalists" operating, and many people are very wealthy. So, is China a capitalist country? Australia's two largest socialist groups both categorize China as a "capitalist country" and an "imperialist country." But in fact, I do not agree with these views, and I feel that the background knowledge and information I possess are insufficient to accurately describe the true situation.
Image Captions: China's practice of green development has achieved remarkable results
My friend Vijay Prashad is a Marxist scholar and the leader of the International Peoples' Assembly (IPA) organization. His view is very interesting: China has capitalists, but it does not have a bourgeoisie; China does not have political organizations that represent the interests of the bourgeoisie. This statement is very compelling, and I am inclined to accept it. I particularly want to know if the achievements of the Communist Party of China (CPC) are similar to the New Economic Policy (NEP) implemented by the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union in the 1920s. If so, it will have a profound impact on Marxist theory.
If China is a "capitalist country," then how can it lift 800 million people out of poverty? Every time I open a newspaper or browse the internet, I see China's speeding high-speed rail, and I see practices called "ecological civilization construction"—this particularly interests me because I have worked in grassroots sustainable development education. If these achievements were brought about by capitalism, why would we still need communism?
If they are achieved under a socialist system, then I must delve into their ideology. For example, the concepts of "socialist market economy" and "socialism with Chinese characteristics"—although I do not yet fully understand the specific connotations of "Chinese characteristics," this has sparked my thinking: if China can build socialism with its own characteristics, then what should "socialism with Australian characteristics" look like? All these questions are worth exploring, and I am very eager to conduct in-depth research on China.
The US Will Sacrifice the Interests of Allies at Any Time, as Seen in Cases like Ukraine
Guancha: You advocate that Australia should pursue an independent foreign policy, expel all US military bases, and eliminate the damage caused by the US’s "rules-based international order" through cooperation with developing countries. My first question is: how feasible are these propositions in the current political environment? Secondly, how exactly do these US military bases undermine Australia's ability to pursue its own strategic interests?
Barry Healy: There are several key points here. The ANZUS Treaty, signed in the early 1950s, claimed to provide security guarantees for Australia, but the only substantive clause in the treaty stipulated that: when any party believes it is threatened, a foreign ministers' meeting can be convened—that is all. In 1963, when Indonesia took over West Papua, the Australian Menzies conservative government requested an allied meeting, and the US directly refused. Looking at cases like Ukraine, one can see that the US will sacrifice the interests of its allies at any time.
I believe the fundamental military doctrine of the US is that "the homeland must never be bombed." Other than that, they do not care where the bombs fall. The Australian Greens also share this view, and we should have long since shed these absurd military entanglements.
Do these US military bases really protect Australia? During the Yom Kippur War (Fourth Middle East War) in 1973, President Nixon ordered all US military bases globally to go on nuclear war alert, and Australia's Pine Gap base initiated the alert simultaneously without informing the Whitlam Labor government. The following year, when the government tried to regain control of the base, the Whitlam government was overthrown by a coup in 1975. Since then, the Labor Party has never dared to defy the US, and this fear continues to this day.
Now the entire north of Australia is covered with US military operational facilities. We have neither genuine security guarantees nor are we spared the risk of the US launching war at any time. These military bases have always been used to coordinate global drone strikes. During the Obama administration, Australian communications bases assisted in controlling drones, leading to the tragic massacre at a wedding in Afghanistan.
Yet, today, we spend tens of millions of Australian dollars annually to purchase nuclear submarines, instead of using this money to help surrounding developing countries build infrastructure. Australia could completely rebuild its manufacturing industry and engage in mutually beneficial cooperation with developing countries in areas such as mineral resources and agriculture.
China's Global Governance Initiative Is the Right Path
Guancha: I suddenly thought—this is like the continuation of the colonial system. US military bases remain not only in Australia but also in Japan and many European countries, thus preventing these countries from implementing independent foreign policies and forcing them to follow the US’s lead. You mentioned that Australia most needs to formulate an independent foreign policy in two aspects: first, to break away from the US military presence in Australia; second, to eliminate the damage caused by the US's so-called "rules-based international order" through engagement with developing countries. Why do you believe engaging with developing countries can become an alternative strategy?
Barry Healy: Ha! The US’s "rules-based international order" has truly been "effective"—look at the fate of Iraq, the outcome in Afghanistan, and the misery in Gaza! Good heavens! The US is unleashing these "mad dogs" to savage the Palestinian people, and this is exactly what they want to show China: the terror they intend to inflict on you. This "rules-based international order" has been implemented for decades, enough is enough, we should have gotten rid of it a long time ago. The global governance initiative proposed by the Chinese leader at the SCO summit is genuinely fascinating; that is the right path.
Image Captions: China first proposed the "Global Governance Initiative" at the SCO summit held in Tianjin on September 1.
Speaking of this so-called "order," Australia is also participating in it—our warships and aircraft are patrolling the South China Sea under the banner of "maintaining freedom of navigation," yet the US itself has not even signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)! Who exactly is Australia fighting for? What is even more ironic is that Article 30 of the Convention clearly stipulates that straits like the one between Tasmania and the Australian mainland are entirely part of the country's territorial sea. Without Australian permission, foreign vessels have no right to cross the Bass Strait at all.
Similarly, the issue of sovereignty over the Taiwan Strait is purely China's internal affair—both the mainland and the Taiwan authorities claim sovereignty over these waters, and this needs to be resolved by the Chinese people themselves. The Taiwan issue is fundamentally a historical legacy of the Chinese civil war. Imperialism always loves to cut up the territory of other countries: the Northern Ireland issue, the Partition of India and Pakistan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the division of the Korean Peninsula, the North-South Vietnam War... Are these bloody lessons not enough? Australia has absolutely no right to point fingers at how China handles the Taiwan issue!
Speaking of the Australia-US military alliance, the strategic vision of our bourgeois politicians is truly pathetic. Boycotting the SCO summit exposes their arrogance in ignoring half of the world's population—in their eyes, the island nations between China and Australia are merely stumbling blocks on the nuclear submarine route. It is a pity that Western Australia is blessed with abundant sunshine and all the minerals required to manufacture solar panels; it could have become the "Saudi Arabia" of the clean energy world. But what is the reality? Western Australia has the highest carbon emissions in the entire country, charging down an entirely wrong path. As I said at the beginning of the interview, the Australian bourgeoisie is both stupid and lazy, and now the entire nation is paying the price for it.
Guancha: The Chinese public has noticed that while Australia has recently been improving trade relations with China, it has also reached a A$10 billion military procurement agreement with Japan, to purchase 11 advanced Mogami-class frigates from Japan. Does this indicate that the Albanese government is pursuing a "dual-track strategy": economic engagement with China while militarily following the US? You have already touched upon this; would you like to discuss it further?
Barry Healy: The political representatives of the Australian bourgeois ruling class are completely schizophrenic! This approach of arming to the teeth against China is absurd—when has China ever threatened Australia? Admiral Zheng He’s fleet during the Ming Dynasty reportedly visited Australia, but did not even leave a footprint, let alone any killing or conquering.
When I was nine, I saw a horrifying poster in a church: the image style was distinct, like a black and white woodcut: a row of nuns and priests with their hands tied behind their backs kneeling in a trench, while "Chinese soldiers" behind them were executing them with guns pressed against the backs of their heads. Below the image was a prominent slogan: "This place will be like this too." The television also played Vietnam War propaganda films, emphasizing how the "communist army" was invading the South.
All these fears are artificially manufactured! 520 Australian soldiers lost their lives in Vietnam, but how many Vietnamese freedom fighters did we kill? My sister's first love died on that battlefield.
The same clumsy scare tactics are being played out again today. We should be getting rid of military burdens like AUKUS and instead engaging with Southeast Asia through the SCO and participating in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—Australia can fully align with China's projects in Africa.
Look at the railway China is building in Brazil, which crosses the Andes Mountains and will connect to a new port in Peru in the future, opening up a trade route between the whole of Latin America and China. These merchant ships can also dock in Australia, and we could achieve a win-win situation with Latin America. Australia clearly has so many options, so why must it follow the US?
Opposing AUKUS: The Road Ahead Is Tough, But We Are Still Working Hard
Guancha: AUKUS was established in 2021, but it is interesting that it seems to have faded from US priorities—when pressed by a British journalist about its progress in March 2025, Trump even retorted, "What does AUKUS mean?" Given China's rapid military modernization, does this alliance still hold strategic significance? As a staunch opponent of the AUKUS nuclear submarine project, what specific achievements has the anti-AUKUS movement made so far? What sustains your continuous struggle against such a daunting challenge, considering the government’s unwavering commitment to the project?
Barry Healy: Several points need clarification. The AUKUS agreement weighs much more heavily in Australian domestic politics than it does in the US or UK. When the UK Foreign Secretary visited Australia in July, a new agreement, the Nuclear Powered Submarine Partnership and Cooperation Treaty (also known as the Geelong Treaty), was signed—and it was even claimed to "strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)." Australia is not a NATO member at all; what does NATO have to do with Asia? What does it have to do with Australia?
Image Captions: US President Joe Biden and British and Australian officials signed the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal in 2023. Trump questioned a British reporter in February this year, asking what AUKUS meant.
Yet the reality is that through AUKUS and various other agreements, Australia is bound to the US no less than a NATO member state, perhaps even more so—after all, we do not even enjoy NATO's collective defense guarantee.
The Australian public's contempt for politicians is deeply rooted, but there is also a strange kind of acquiescence in the national character: like an hourglass society, politicians do as they please at the top, while ordinary citizens live their own lives at the bottom. This "Australian-style inaction" is actually an imperialist legacy—the working class is alienated by materialism, thinking that submission to bourgeois rule will allow them to partake in the crumbs. It is this "Great Australian Apathy" that has allowed the ruling class to succeed repeatedly, and AUKUS is the latest example.
When we expose the cost of AUKUS to the public—that the financial expenditure is enough to solve the national housing crisis—people do indeed become angry. However, the anti-AUKUS movement has not yet reached a truly large scale; currently, the largest mass movement in Australia is still the Palestine solidarity action. Although we have successfully sparked discussions at the local government level and even within the Labor Party grassroots, the road ahead remains long and arduous. It is still not easy to reverse high-level policies, and despite the difficulties, we will continue to strive.
The key is this: if the US ultimately refuses to deliver the agreed submarines to Australia, the stupidity of Australian politicians will be completely exposed, inevitably triggering a political earthquake. But I anticipate that the US will deliver the submarines while demanding that Australia relinquish command over its own submarines—this bitter pill will remind Australians of the humiliation of the early years of independence: at that time, the officers of the so-called "Royal Australian Navy" were all British, and in World War I and World War II, our military was branded as the "Australian Imperial Force"; my father fought under the British flag back then. How absurd is this historical cycle!
China Will Revert to Its Role as the World Center Before the Rise of Capitalism
Guancha: China's National Day military parade has concluded, but Chinese readers remain highly concerned about the dynamics of the US and its Asian allies—this alliance is often viewed by Chinese people as a source of instability, and it seems to be continuously strengthening recently. On the other hand, the recent meetings between the Chinese leader and Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Modi also demonstrate the positive development of forces for peace in Asia. In this complex situation, do you have any concerns about the security prospects in Asia? What do you believe is the key to maintaining peace in this region?
Barry Healy: I am extremely afraid of nuclear war. When I see the behavior of our government, I am deeply shocked. I recall Hegel once called Napoleon the embodiment of the "World Spirit"; using that rhetoric, Trump is a "world-historical buffoon"—perhaps the only thing preventing the outbreak of war is precisely his ridiculous megalomania.
The US once attempted to draw India into the anti-China camp through the "Quad" (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) with the US, Japan, and Australia, but Trump's tariff stick completely shattered this possibility—no Indian government will ever trust the US again. This contradiction can indeed weaken the US's impulse for war, but it is far from enough.
The Australian ruling class remains immersed in the obsession of looking up to the US—the Conservative Party follows the Republican line, and the Labor Party follows the Democratic agenda. This colonial mentality prevents us from ever truly regarding this continent beneath our feet as home: now the coral of the Great Barrier Reef is bleaching and dying; the 2019 bushfires extinguished billions of animals, and koalas are nearing extinction... The ruling class treats Australia like a disposable meal box, to be used up and discarded.
However, hope is also emerging from the contradictions: Australian mining giant Fortescue Metals Group (FMG) recently secured a RMB 14.2 billion term loan from a Chinese bank. The uses include collaboration with Chinese suppliers and assisting the Australian iron ore producer in advancing its decarbonization plan. When capitalists realize that "cooperating with China is truly appealing," this demonstration effect might awaken the Australian working class. We are fully capable of changing all of this.
Currently, the US-Australia military alliance appears rock-solid, but the deep sociopolitical crisis engulfing the US is making these agreements extremely vulnerable. Once the US internally disintegrates, Australian policy might undergo a major turning point—although we cannot achieve independent and peaceful diplomacy at the moment.
This might be off-topic, but I want to say that every morning when my wife and I go swimming at the beach, we are often accompanied by dolphins and sea lions; at night, we gaze up at the brilliant Southern Hemisphere starry sky. I wish I could show you this beach and the stars, instead of discussing damned nuclear war! The human civilization alienated by the war machine is truly absurd.
The Communist Manifesto points out that capitalism rose through colonial expansion into places like the Americas and the Cape of Good Hope, and now China is leading us toward a new era. China is crucial to the continued existence of human civilization—I believe she will revert to the role of the world center that she held before the rise of capitalism. This implies both tremendous responsibility and infinite opportunities. China's future is truly the core proposition for the continued existence of human civilization. These profound reflections on the nature of the Chinese state and the experience of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context are the rich mines we need to continue exploring.
(All images were obtained from publicly available sources.)