As the US–Israeli war on Iran unfolds, Australia faces the danger of being drawn into American power politics while sacrificing its independence and credibility in the region.

The suggestion that Australia, or the Australian Labor government nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, though a good one coming from a senior and influential minister, has some drawbacks that suggest it should not be proceeded with during this Budget cycle.

It is quite likely that such a nomination would secure the everlasting gratitude of the American Commander in Chief, probably resulting in effusive welcomes and perhaps some favours or introductions when senior Australian ministers, or the prime minister, visits Washington.

It would be a standing reminder to the current Administration that the United States had no greater, or more obliging and servile friend, than Australia. On the other hand, it is almost certain that Trump will not get the Prize, no matter how permanent and enduring a general world peace he brings. In such a case, Trump’s rage and anger might settle on Australia, particularly if he comes to believe either that Australia did not push the case hard enough, or that it had nominated him as a joke. It may, moreover, occur to some other nations that they could curry favour with Washington by supporting our nomination, in ways that could embarrass the nomination. For example, if the motion were seconded by Taiwan, Sierra Leone and Hungary.

The problems could be evident even before that. Our nomination would, for example, remind Trump that Australia (like most of Europe) has failed to take up his invitation to join his Board of Peace, either with a delegate, or with the $A1.43 billion contribution into Trump’s personal accounts. (This on top of the biennial renewal of Australia’s membership, due in the coming budget.) Trump’s pleasure at the nomination would be likely to have him putting more, not less, pressure on Australia about such contributions, if only because he has repeatedly demonstrated that when it comes to money coming in his own direction, he is entirely without shame.

The link with peace, and Australia’s role in arguing his case might embolden him to demand that Australia take an active role in his “peace initiatives.” But he might also want Australia to be a co-promoter of those of his schemes which seem to double either as business opportunities for various of his friends and relations, or New York businessmen said to be adept at driving bargains. He often boasts of their bargaining styles and deals, including side deals for their own purposes along the way.

This does not suggest that he would be asking Australians, let alone senior Australian ministers or diplomats to be involved in grubby bargains able to be described as corrupt or to represent an obvious conflict of interest. Ministers and diplomats are sensitive to the requirements of openness, transparency and being guided only by the public interest. But there is a risk that he could be seen to be using credible outsider partners to whitewash deals, to deny impropriety or inside knowledge and........

© Pearls and Irritations