Which sane country would wager its national security on the sanity of the mad king? Credit:The New York Times It was a British general, Woodburn Kirby, who later remarked that the commanding officers had "committed every conceivable blunder" so that the supposedly invincible fortress lasted just a week. Shorten did note that the shock jolted the then prime minister, Labor's John Curtin, into standing up to Churchill and ending Australian subservience to London. But that was about it from the two leaders. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Dan Tehan, ventured a larger lesson. He said that Singapore's fall was the event that forced Australia to "stand on its own two feet". This is precisely wrong. Betrayed by one great and powerful friend, Australia threw itself into the arms of another. Curtin's expression of independence was to take Australia from one dependency to another. Of course, it was the right thing to do in the face of imminent invasion.

Illustration: John Shakespeare But the lesson of the fall of Singapore must surely be that Australia can not trust its survival wholly to a foreign power. Even a close ally. Yesterday Britain, today America. The world has changed dramatically since the US enjoyed overwhelming strategic preponderance. It's a strategic non sequitur to note the profound development of our time, the return of China, yet blithely assume it has no consequences for US power or US willpower. Fall of Singapore: Staff Officer Sugita conducts Lt. General Arthur Percival (right) and other British officers to the Ford factory at Bukit Timah where the surrender took place. Yet, as historically tectonic as China's return may be, it is not the biggest source of uncertainty for regional security. Nor is it Russia's aggression. As a Russia expert from America's Georgetown University, Angela Stent, remarked at the Munich Security Conference on the weekend: "You come here and you realise that the biggest source of instability in the world right now is not Russia. It's the US."

There is no prize for guessing what, or whom, she could possibly be talking about. Some American patriots are trying hard to reassure US allies that the America remains reliable despite its President. The Republican Senator John McCain told the Munich conference: "I know there is profound concern across Europe and the world that America is laying down the mantle of global leadership. I can only speak for myself, but I do not believe that that is the message you will hear from all of the American leaders who cared enough to travel here to Munich this weekend." They included the Vice-President, Mike Pence, who told the crowd to "be confident that the US is now and will always be your greatest ally", yet received only a spatter of polite applause from a doubting audience. And they included the man who reassured Australia's Defence Minister, Marise Payne. She met Trump's Defence Secretary, Jim Mattis, in Brussels on Friday. It was her first meeting with her new counterpart. Payne reports her meeting was "very good," that Mattis "knows Australia and he knows Australians" and that he "acknowledges the value of the alliance". Asked what she learnt about critical issues such as US strategy in the South China Sea, Payne replied that Mattis "is taking a very methodical approach to the issues on his desk ... to review the way he wants to go." Importantly, she said, Mattis invited Australia's input on these big issues. She plans to take him up on the invitation, she said. Did Payne or her US counterpart mention the biggest source of instability in the world, the man who overshadows every conversation, Donald Trump, I asked?

"Given the strength of the defence relationship," Payne told me, "there was no need to venture further afield in that regard." In other words, the Australian and American defence ministers and their governments are trying to conduct relations pretending Donald Trump doesn't exist. "Oh, who is the mad king shouting from the top of the castle?" we ask. "What mad king?" the officials reply, straight-faced, trying to be heard over the ruckus. This approach might work. Bureaucracies and militaries are big machines that tick over day-to-day without the need for top-level oversight. But, in the event of a crisis where Australia actually needed real US help, ministers and secretaries would need to climb the stairs to the top of the castle to consult the mad king. Which sane country would wager its national security on the sanity of the mad king? Would you catch him in a moment of lucidity, or would he be preoccupied with a non-existent terrorist attack on Sweden, perhaps? When the commander of the British fortress on Singapore, General Arthur Percival, was asked why he refused to erect essential defences against the Japanese, he told his subordinates that it would be "bad for the morale of troops and civilians".

Allan Gyngell, former head of the top intelligence body, the Office of National Assessments, writes in the Financial Review: "The natural tendency of Australian foreign policy advisers faced with change is to suggest going along for the ride [with America] and seeing where things end up ... It is sometimes excellent advice. But not this time." Loading We have no excuse for overlooking the meaning of the fall of Singapore. If the dead could shout, they would be shouting at us now. Peter Hartcher is international editor.