Hugh White's “Hard New World, Our Post-American Future” published in the second quarter of 2025 Quarterly Essay from Schwartz Media, a publication that rarely graces the coffee tables of ordinary Australians, even those with a keen interest in international relations and politics. It's primarily consumed by the established media types, writers, academics, NGO operators, and the Canberra policy crowd.

This is precisely why Professor White's essay deserves attention from those who often find themselves diverging from the narratives of these aforementioned groups. It stands as one of the few pieces of media exposing concepts of international multipolarity to Australia's intellectual establishment.

Context and Timing

Professor White's essay emerges from particular contexts that shaped both its content and perspective. His applied political context is liberal democracy, a concept he views favourably and applies throughout the entire essay. The temporal context includes Donald Trump's election, the immediate period after his inauguration featuring discussions of multipolarity by Secretary Marco Rubio, and the beginning of tariff implementation against numerous countries worldwide, including traditional allies.

The general media commentary, particularly after aluminium tariffs were levied upon Australian aluminium exports to the United States, sparked significant discussion about diversifying Australian political and economic partnerships globally. This level of discussion about Australian economic and political independence from the United States was once relatively unheard of in the Australian mainstream press, given their relative favourability toward US unipolarity. These conversations occurred within a pro-liberal framework.

The early discussions of multipolarity relating to the second Trump administration affected me, as evident in my article “Age of Spheres” on the Great Southern Discussion Club website. Even then, I hinted at scepticism regarding the age of spheres concept being communicated by the Trump administration at that time. Professor White appears influenced by this sphere's talk in writing his essay, which he calls “AMERICAN REVOLUTION.” I raise this because the sphere discussions were clearly premature, given the Trump administration's behaviour in the weeks since Professor White's essay release, acting harshly against that concept.

This is particularly evident in their behaviour regarding the 2025 two-week war between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran, where the Trump administration facilitated and supported a new hot war. This was seen as a broken promise by the administration's supporter base, the MAGA movement, for the US to avoid starting and becoming entangled in new overseas wars. Something Trump famously criticised the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations for doing.

The Rules-Based Order: A Question of Interpretation

The essay's introduction discusses the short history of United States-Australia relations and the concept of the “rules-based order,” outlined in Professor White's particular wording. As far as I'm concerned, the “rules-based order” should not be confused with international law. If it's meant to reference international law, then the many contradictions the collective west have created throughout many decades must be addressed. The “rules-based order”, as I see it, is where the United States makes the rules and then orders everyone else around. Such harsh criticisms don't exist in Professor White's essay, though you can certainly add sarcasm whilst reading it.

Professor White observes: “The foundation of our security is undermined by the eclipse of the US-led rules-based order. And the power of our values is undermined by the persistence of strong authoritarian governments in many powerful states, and the rise of populism and the erosion of democratic norms in places where these once seemed strongest, especially the United States.” He notes this dynamic ending whilst observing, “our leaders are still in denial about all this.”

It's positive that Professor White makes this observation, though he does so within a theme of complaining about liberal democracy's fall, which carries throughout much of the essay.

Historical Perspectives: The Heartland Theory

One of the more significant parts of the essay, in my view, was Professor White's examination of an important 20th-century historical dynamic. Halford Mackinder's concept of the Heartland Theory and the competing United States version of it, though Professor White doesn't name Mackinder.

The original, Mackinder's version of the Heartland Theory. Could be regarded as the British version, summarised as: whoever controls the Heartland controls the world, or whoever controls Eurasia controls the world.

The American version, conversely, was largely communicated by Zbigniew Brzezinski and can be summarised as working “to stop any single power or coalition growing strong enough to threaten America itself by dominating Eurasia.” - Professor White

These two forms of the same idea show the differences in characteristics between the British Empire and the United States Empire. The British Empire appears more open to directly owning, ruling, controlling, or colonising areas such as Eurasia. Whereas the United States sees fit to destabilise Eurasia, not directly govern, ensuring no regional Eurasian government or bloc could be genuinely strong enough to control much of Eurasia and compete with the US economically. Which allows them to remain at the top.

This strikes me as an interesting historical and psychological observation.

The Chess Logic Problem

One of the critiques by myself and others at the Great Southern Discussion Club regarding this particular essay includes the dynamic where Professor White seems to compare international relations to a situation comparable to a chessboard. It's all about countries moving their various pieces into particular places to somehow dominate and win. Much of the essay could be characterised and compared to this form of chess logic.

Professor White doesn't take much time to listen to and quote extensively from the various international players, particularly Russia and China, who are mentioned frequently in the essay. Regarding why, they behave as they do, from their own words, based on their own history and culture. Much of their behaviour, as well as that of the United States, is attributed to chess logic.

I believe this is incorrect because in most cases, Eurasian states are often acting in their own sovereign regard. Countries like China and Russia and other Eurasian nations want to be peaceful and secure in their own lands so they can develop their people and economies without being dictated to by a unipolar world power.

The Economics Oversight

Another oversight by Professor White concerns economics. Whilst he critiques both recent United States presidents for what he calls a confusion they make between “strategic aim” and economics, a layman such as myself finds it difficult to separate economics from broader strategic aims.

If a country intends to be prosperous and develop its people's capabilities to the highest level possible, this is economics. Militaries serve a purpose to ensure sufficient stability to make this possible. Additionally, the capability of politicians and diplomacy to facilitate mutual outcomes for all countries is a significant and fundamental dynamic.

Many countries worldwide, particularly Eurasian countries, have demonstrated capability in recent decades of the 21st century to facilitate mutual respect and mutual outcomes for all involved. Even when minor military skirmishes occur between major Eurasian countries, they choose diplomacy to settle immediate issues whilst taking time to resolve major issues between them. A classic example is the relationship between India (Bharat) and China.

This strikes me as quite a significant oversight by Professor White. He hasn't mentioned many of the forums that make mutual outcomes and mutual respect possible in the new age of multipolarity, which separates itself from multipolarity of earlier centuries.

The BRICS Omission

How can an article about modern 21st-century multipolarity and Australia's role in it not mention the importance and practical outcomes seen through forums such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the Eurasian Economic Union, and most importantly, BRICS? The essay doesn't even mention these names, which seems to follow the established practice of mainstream Australian media to never mention those names.

A Question of Qualifications

But you may ask, who am I to judge any of this? Who am I as a layman qualified to talk about strategy? Professor White has been senior adviser to former Defence Minister Kim Beazley, Prime Minister Bob Hawke, a senior official in the Department of Defence and was the first director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. But here I am, just a random guy from South Australia, and I clearly don't have all the qualifications that Professor White does. But for the sake of providing you, the reader, with a holistic understanding of a concept, or at least attempting to bring you one as a layman, here is an extensive quote from former Soviet Naval Officer, Andrei Martyanov:

“Strategy is a buzz word among politicos and journos because it is 'loaded' and it gives an impression of something really mysterious and cool.”

One thinks of Defence Minister Marles here, but I will let the expert continue.

“Strategy as a 'plan' of achieving political aims in anything, however, in the field of practical geopolitics of the second half of the 20th and the 21st centuries is a bit more than a 'plan'. As in military campaigns, one cannot become a 'strategist' without having tactical and operational background and that is why all advanced military education in the world is structured around taking an officer from the tactical, to operational to strategic level of thinking, thus providing a pivot around which all strategic decisions, with inputs from tactical and operational levels, will revolve. This is not how modern political 'science' and what passes for 'strategic decision making' in the West works.”

Should I Read The Essay?

With that, I suggest you read the Quarterly Essay, “Hard New World, Our Post-American Future” by Hugh White, if you have the time. While it offers valuable insights into the changing global order and Australia's potential place within it, it's crucial to approach it with an understanding of its limitations. Particularly, its chess-like view of international relations, its liberal democratic lens, and its notable omissions regarding the practical mechanisms of modern multipolarity like BRICS.

The essay serves as a useful starting point for discussions about Australia's future in a multipolar world, but it shouldn't be the final word. A truly comprehensive understanding requires looking beyond the established narratives and considering the perspectives and initiatives of the very countries that are shaping this new international order.

---

Short Bio of Professor White

Professor Hugh White AO FASSA is one of Australia's most prominent strategic studies scholars and defence analysts. Born in 1953, he is Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University in Canberra and his work focuses primarily on Australian strategic and defence policy, Asia-Pacific security issues, and global strategic affairs especially as they influence Australia and the Asia-Pacific.

White has enjoyed a distinguished career spanning government, academia, and journalism. He has served as an intelligence analyst with the Office of National Assessments, as journalist with the Sydney Morning Herald and as senior adviser to Defence Minister Kim Beazley and Prime Minister Bob Hawke. White served as a senior official in the Department of Defence, where from 1995 to 2000 White was Deputy Secretary for Strategy and Intelligence and was the first director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

A key highlight of his government service was being the principal author of Australia's 2000 Defence White Paper. From 2004 to 2011 he was Head of the ANU Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, cementing his academic credentials in strategic studies.

White is perhaps best known for his public commentary and analysis of Australia's strategic challenges, particularly regarding China's rise. He has been a prolific commentator on Australian strategic and defence policy for over a decade and is credited with pushing the debate about the implications for Australia of the rise of China into the mainstream media and political consciousness. He is a regular columnist for The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald.

His academic achievements have been recognised with the appointment as an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) and Fellowship of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia (FASSA). Through his combination of government experience, academic rigour, and public engagement, White has become a leading voice in Australian strategic thinking and defence policy debates.

---

We hope that this article has been helpful in providing references that will encourage you to begin your own journey of understanding. The discussion contained in our articles often reflects our own author conclusions, based on the many years of observation and research. However, we understand that many of you have your own piece of the puzzle to add to our collective understanding. So, we encourage you to participate in this discussion. Are our conclusions correct or incorrect? Should we provide more writing on some simplified references in this article? Please add your respectful and constructive comments below. Also, if you have any articles of your own to submit to The Great Southern Club, we welcome your perspective on issues facing Australia, Pacific Island nations, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia.