GLOBAL SECURITY & THE GREAT U.S.-AUSTRALIAN ALLIANCE: ARE THINGS CHANGING?
November 12, 2007
With Australian federal elections quickly approaching on Saturday, 24 November, 2007, what will a change in Australia's leadership mean to the great U.S.-Australia Alliance? More importantly, if a shift in leadership occurs, what will that mean for the direction of Australian foreign policy?
To offer a necessary political perspective on the pending election, a basic examination of Australia's legislature portion of government-where the election will be occurring-is warranted. The bicameral legislature is best described as a Commonwealth Parliament, comprised of the Queen, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. The election of Representatives often gathers most of the attention on the international level, as it is here that the ruling majority will be established and the control of government will be taken. The party with majority support in the House of Representatives forms the government, and its leader becomes Prime Minister.
The Liberal Party, run by its leader and current Prime Minister John Howard, has maintained control of government since 1996. This year, however, opposition poses a serious challenge to what many are calling an old government inept to the needs of a new political era. Labour Party, led by Kevin Rudd, leading the opposition, is mounting strength and support not only in the polls but also, and most relevantly, in the policy arena. While most Americans care little about the internal, domestic politics of its alley in the South Pacific, they will care if the nature of that alliance begins to change-unfortunately most do not recognize the intimate connection between the two.
Following 9/11 and the United States' ideological declaration of war on any threat to democracy worldwide, most notably terrorism, there have been few times in the last century when the U.S. has needed the support its allies more than it does now. While many nations and allies tipped their hats and said, "No thank you; not today," to the mission the U.S. wanted to embark on, the United States has shown that it is not afraid to go it alone if necessary. Thankfully, it did not need to do so. With a coalition of 40 other nations, the U.S. has continued to combat terrorism not only at its current stronghold-the Middle East-but worldwide as well. Of these 40 devoted and supporting nations, no other country has proven to be a closer and stronger alley than Australia. This author would submit that Australia has proven itself as Washington's most reliable ally, as it is the only country to fight beside the U.S. in every major conflict of both the 20th and 21st centuries.
President Bush found a strong and confident alley in Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom. Blair was a great personal friend of President Bush and, as a result, was often criticized for being a "lap dog" to the President and a puppet of Washington. Any student of politics, however, will find that while the relationship between Prime Minister Howard and Bush may not have been as personally strong as Bush and Blair's, the political alignment of their foreign policy and global leadership direction is closer.
Such a relationship has made the U.S.-Australian Alliance over the last six years very strong and very crucial to the continued direction of the United States' current foreign policy direction. The ultimate question, then, is will Howard's relationship and alignment with Washington catalyze his political demise, as it proved to do for Mr. Blair?
After John Howard announced the election on Sunday, 14 October, at a press conference in Canberra-Australia's national capital-the campaign began. Howard declared that Australia "does not need new leadership, it does not need old leadership. It needs the right leadership." There is little doubt that both Howard and Bush believe "the right leadership" is already present in the currently-ruling Liberal Coalition.
On September 11th, Prime Minister Howard made an open-ended and vaguely enormous commitment to the United States, stating it would have Australia's unwaivering support in their global endeavour to end terrorism. It does not take much research to deduce that the Australian Government has honored that commitment to an exceptional degree, virtually mirroring U.S. foreign policy during the past six years. To Bush, and the Americans who support this endeavour, this is the right leadership for the times. But do Australians agree?
In a November 6th enquiry released by Newspoll and published by The Australian-the New York Times of Australia-the performance ratings of Howard and opposition leader Kevin Rudd would imply Rudd may carry an election. When asked, "Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way John Howard is doing his job as Prime Minister?", 49 percent of Australians polled responded they were satisfied while 45 percent responded to the contrary. When the same question was put to them about Kevin Rudd, 61 percent said they were satisfied while only 26 percent said they were dissatisfied. However, when asked who would make a better Prime Minister (a rhetorical twisting of "Who would you vote for?"), 43 percent responded Howard would and 47 percent responded Rudd would-nearly a dead heat.
While subsequent essays on this topic will delve into the policy positions of each candidate and evaluate what those impacts will be on the future of the global war on terror, it is worth noting Labour's position has vociferously been to "seek a more independent direction from the United States in the realm of foreign policy." This one sentence in and of itself could set Australia on a completely new track and derail a relationship that those who have been viciously oppressed by the tyrannical regimes of totalitarianism had long prayed for. Only time will tell, but, for the sake of those who go to bed not knowing the warmth of the blanket freedom, let's hope not.
Global Security and the Great U.S.- Australian Alliance: Are Things Changing? was written by PAI's Executive Director © PAI 2007.