"We are not just playing on an uneven field, we are at times not even in the park." — Justin Bassi
Justin Bassi: the Thucydides Trap inside Western tech
Speaking at the Australian Defence Science, Technology and Research Summit in Adelaide, ASPI executive director Justin Bassi argued that the familiar Thucydides Trap debate has misdirected Western strategy. Bassi said the theory—popularised by Graham Allison but, in Bassi’s view, without a modern example—has encouraged the West to treat China primarily as an economic partner and hampered efforts to compete technologically. He warned the "trap" now exists within Western tech companies themselves, where incumbents and new entrants fight for survival in ways that can disadvantage broader national security interests.
A security environment Bassi calls "insecure" — regional incidents and persistent cyber risk
Bassi described a regional landscape he called insecure: rising tensions over Taiwan, Beijing’s stated objective to take the island by force if necessary, and continued pressure on the Philippines including “dangerously ramming fishing vessels and striking personnel.” He noted the 10th anniversary of the Hague ruling that the nine‑dash line is a fiction, and cited recent Australian experiences: the PLA Navy circumnavigated Australia during an election campaign; Chinese aircraft have released flares in front of RAAF P‑8s over the South China Sea; and, a few weeks before his speech, a submarine‑launched ballistic missile test landed in the Pacific. He also flagged daily cyberattacks and warned that China’s foothold on critical infrastructure gives it the ability to disrupt at any time, quoting former head of the Australian Signals Directorate Rachel Noble’s term "digital dynamite."
This site is the portfolio.
OSINTSights runs on Cloudflare Workers, D1, R2, and Vectorize, with an AI pipeline on Hetzner ARM. Nubivance designed, built, and operates it. We do the same for clients.
See what we buildChina’s technological position and ASPI’s critical tech tracker
Bassi argued that China now leads in manufacturing and research across many fields Australia considers critical, listing smart cars, drones, batteries, solar panels and social media. He cited ASPI’s critical tech tracker, a 20‑year look at global research, and said high‑end research into 69 of 74 critical technologies is dominated by Chinese companies and institutions. He portrayed Chinese state‑backed trade and industrial practice as a coordinated effort to push Western competitors out, induce dependency, and then leverage that dependency for coercive advantage—summarised in the speech as the message "Resistance is futile."
AI, regulation, and Bassi’s call to classify AI as digital critical infrastructure
Bassi urged governments to treat AI through a national‑security lens. He proposed classifying AI as digital critical infrastructure, assessing new models before release, and mandating safeguards that cannot be easily removed by users. He framed the debate between open‑source openness and proprietary, regulated models as one where firms press their financial interests—naming OpenAI, Anthropic, Nvidia and Meta—and governments must instead act in the national interest. He invoked past policy errors—Clinton’s 2000 goodwill toward Beijing in cyberspace, misjudgements after the Arab Spring, and earlier industry assurances about social media and 5G—to argue that unguarded faith in market forces and technology had proven costly.
AUKUS, alliances and a concrete policy proposal
Bassi stressed partnership solutions, calling for work across the Quad and G7+ and arguing that AUKUS is crucial. He put forward a specific incentive for the three AUKUS governments: stipulate that if a company does business in China, it cannot participate in AUKUS. Bassi framed that proposal not as an outright ban on companies operating in China but as an incentive toward what he termed "patriotic innovation and investment," intended to align private sector choices with alliance security.
What this means for technologists, policymakers, and procurement leaders
- Technologists and security teams: expect pressure to design models and systems with mandated safeguards; regulators will be urged to evaluate releases of frontier AI models before public availability.
- Policymakers and regulators: face a choice to prioritise national security first, potentially classifying AI as digital critical infrastructure and coordinating standards across AUKUS, the Quad and G7+.
- Procurement leaders and affected enterprises: will be asked to weigh whether contracts or platforms grant a foreign government a de facto "vote or veto" over national decisions, and to consider earlier exclusion of vendors from government and critical infrastructure rather than reactive bans after market dominance is established.
Bassi’s central warning is blunt: without decisive policy action to protect sovereignty in technology, Western nations risk ceding strategic leverage to a competitor that already leads much of global manufacturing and high‑end research. His recommendations are precise—classify AI as critical infrastructure, mandate pre‑release assessment and safeguards, and align alliance procurement incentives—and his closing admonition is clear: not acting now risks placing national destiny in the hands of a strategic adversary.
