Slogans masquerading as policies - is that the Trump or Dutton playbook?
I don't expect that Donald Trump, presidential candidate, or Trump, elected president, gives a toss whether Anthony Albanese or Peter Dutton is prime minister of Australia after the next Australian election.
Login or signup to continue reading
That's assuming that he even knows the names of the major candidates or the parties they represent. Even the name of Scott Morrison has probably dropped off his radar, and, as for Malcolm Trumbull, if he even brings that name to mind again, it will be only with a curse.
For Australians, even Australian prime ministers, the outcome of the American election is vitally important, though this fact does not mean that the relationship will change much whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump is elected. Or, for that matter, whether Albanese or Dutton is in the Lodge. It would affect Australian-American policy or practice, regardless of what the future brings in terms of US relationships with the world, including China, Russia, or Israel.
Most of the US side of the relationship will be in the hands of officials with whom Australians have been dealing for decades.
This is not a mere matter of Australia, under whatever prime minister, going subserviently along with our great and powerful friend. This may be deplorable enough, but it masks the absence of any alternative Australia plan. And - a consequence of this - Australia's incapacity to make any difference to defence or foreign affairs outcomes outside our own immediate vicinity. It is possible that Albanese, Penny Wong and Richard Marles will be even more slavish than Dutton in their devotion to Trump and his aims, such as they are, if only because of pre-emptive "management" of the certainty that they will be described to Trump as "socialists," albeit our (tame) socialists.
Albanese also probably understands that any significant movement in Australian defence or foreign affairs policy, other than in our immediate vicinity, would be greeted by effective mutiny by the national security establishment, a good many of whom place loyalty to the western alliance well ahead of their duty to their own country, particularly when it is being led (as they see it) by dolts who do not understand where the "fundamental" national interest lies.
As it happens, the national security establishment is not expecting that things will change much, regardless of who wins the presidency. They certainly do not expect surprises affecting our interests on day one in January, whether or not Trump decides to become a dictator for a day.
Abrupt moves, if any, will be focused on domestic policy and ideological flourishes about the shape of government, and probably some eccentric and erratic executive actions. These may disturb those inclined to measure every Trump action as a step on the path to fascism. Or as further demolition of the institutions. But they will not export, or add to existing distrust of Trump's intentions, foreign or domestic, or of his character and fitness for office.
I doubt there will be any immediate American action on China, and, if anything, some dialling down of the talk of naval confrontation, whether in the Pacific or across the Taiwan Strait. Where there will be change will be a shift of emphasis on to trade disputes, and on transactional arrangements designed to allow both sides to claim victories - perhaps as Australia and China resolved some of their trade conflicts over the past two years. Some of his advisers (and some of Biden's advisers) have preached the inevitability of military conflict with China, given its growth, and alleged increasing aggression. Some, including their Australian megaphones, effectively argue for American aggression, and the drawing of lines in the sand.
Trump does not believe in any international policeman role, or special duty of intervention in crises far from home. He is scornful of the contribution made by many countries, including the NATO countries, Japan and........
© The Examiner
visit website