Pearls and Irritations

As the Trump presidency looms across America and the world, Australia faces major foreign and security policy challenges on three fronts: (i) How would a Dutton government respond? (ii) How would a renewed Albanese government respond? (iii) How would a minority Labor government respond?

As blusterer-in-chief, Donald Trump is notorious for setting off policy hares in all directions. The most recent are his ambiguous warnings about the United States possibly annexing the Panama Canal and Greenland, by military force if necessary. This kite flying, albeit vague, is consistent with his “America First” foreign policy sloganising. His slogans (they are little more than that) include contempt for NATO, his disregard for a rules based international order (a disregard he shares with Putin, Xi, Kim Jong Il, and Netanyahu), and a lack of enthusiasm for maintaining America’s alliance networks.

Policy analysts in Australia would be (and probably are) negligent if they’re not preparing policies that are strategically vital for the government, whatever its stripes after the forthcoming federal election, on how to respond to Trump’s truculent foreign policy initiatives. Keeping in mind that he easily takes offence at any real or imagined slight, they will need to tread carefully.

Australia must be prepared to respond strategically and intelligently to Trump to protect its national security interests. Policy analysts need to keep in mind that Australia is hosting some US military bases that are strategically vital for US military preparedness in the Asia-Pacific. They are  bases that could become hostage targets by states at war with America. Moreover, senior MPs on both sides of the political divide are in furious agreement about what is arguably the worst alliance mistake in the country’s history: AUKUS.

How would a Dutton government, a renewed Albanese government, or a minority Labour government fare in responding to Trump’s provocations?

(i) A Dutton government

Dutton and his potential foreign and defence ministers will undoubtedly maintain the traditional approach to the alliance with the United States which the Coalition parties have always followed. (Remember, for example, the Vietnam War, or John Howard’s championing of George Bush’s disastrous war in Iraq.) Dutton was  a leading minister in the Morrison government when AUKUS was being planned. He remains a fervid supporter of that ongoing national embarrassment. He has aligned himself with Trump’s egregious support of the Netanyahu government in Israel and its appalling war against the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank. Like many in the Coalition ranks, he is a dangerous China hawk.

A Dutton government would want to replace Kevin Rudd as Australia’s ambassador in Washington, perhaps even with Scott Morrison. (Meanwhile, Tony Abbott would be jockeying for the High Commissioner’s job in London.)  Cosying up to Trump would mark the Coalition’s approach to Washington. Instead of deploying highly professional and sophisticated diplomatic strategists, it would turn to the likes of Trump’s golf partner Greg Norman and the recently decamped businessman Anthony Pratt to try to engage with Trump’s inner circle.

While it is yet unclear whether Trump would send the American military to defend Taiwan against China, it is unthinkable that a Dutton government would not join the US if a war broke out. However, being the arch-transactionalist that he is, and if his trade war against China backfires (as it will), it is possible that Trump would negotiate a deal with China’s Xi, handing over Taiwan to end the negative consequences for America of the trade war which he so foolishly instigated. That would leave a Dutton government with a lot of egg on its face. (Recall Billy McMahon’s embarrassment when the Nixon administration announced its plans for a détente with Deng Xiaoping’s China.)

(ii) A renewed Albanese government

Given the baleful influence of Richard Marles over Albanese and his cabinet colleagues, a renewed Albanese government – that is, one that would have a workable majority in the House of Representatives and adequate support in the Senate – would not be terribly different from a Dutton government in its dealings with the Trump administration. It would maintain agreements to host American military bases on Australian soil, even though these are potentially nuclear targets for a hostile enemy. Both ANZUS and AUKUS would remain the centrepieces of Labor defence policy, despite their war-mongering consequences sapping this country’s blood and treasure over many decades.

What happens if the Trump administration refuses to deal with Kevin Rudd? Given their talent for timidity, it’s likely that Albanese and Marles would kowtow accordingly and bring Rudd home. If Tanya Plibersek loses her seat of Sydney to the Greens (a possibility), they could send her as his replacement.  However, it is not entirely implausible that in a bizarre attempt at bipartisanship, they would be tempted to send a Liberal party figure (Simon Birmingham?) as Rudd’s replacement.

In short, a renewed Albanese-Marles government would have much in common with the Coalition on the alliance with Trump’s United States. The fact is that the mainstream political parties — Labor, Liberal and the Nationals — remain locked in their commitment to America, come hell or high water. For decades past, their single defence policy has demonstrated one thing only: their singular inability to think outside the box on this major issue.

However, there is light at the end of that dark tunnel. A majority Albanese government seems highly unlikely. And it is doubtful (though not impossible) that Dutton will claw back a sufficient number of seats at the election to become the government. What Albanese and Dutton seem blind to is that the times are irrevocably shifting away from the mainstream political parties.

(iii) A minority Labor government

Dutton’s half-baked nuclear energy policy and failure to respond to climate change, his obduracy in regard to Indigenous recognition and rights, his hodgepodge of ideas about immigration, and his promises to reduce taxes without explaining how he will fund essential services, all mean that he has accepted that formerly blue ribbon Liberal seats will remain occupied by independent (teal) candidates. His plan to capture outer suburban and regional seats via a monochrome populist approach ignores the pluralism within those seats which demands a more nuanced politics. Dutton is incapable of nuance.

Albanese’s failure to inspire voters with a vision for the country has led to widespread disenchantment with his government. This is a time when radical measures are needed to address voters’ real concerns, not mealy-mouthed announcements of policy promises that are too little too late.

The time is ripe for independents to become major voices in future governments. David Pocock continues to be the outstanding voice in the present parliament. He is a model for the kinds of politicians the country needs, wants, and is beginning to vote for. Like his teal colleagues and some in the Greens, he is leading the charge for more progressive and visionary public policies that Australia so badly needs.

The most likely scenario at this stage is that there will be a minority Labor government after the next election. Independents will have to be given a real say in how that government governs. Moreover, as Niki Savva recently pointed, it will have to be a government with a new leader. Albanese has become obsolete. But Dutton is also making himself irrelevant. If he stays on as leader, the Liberal party will completely disintegrate, shedding all of its moderate members as it becomes an even more right wing rump party.

The Trumpian era is already shifting the tectonic plates of global, regional and Australian politics. We can expect more foreign policy upheavals as the era unfolds. It’s time for Australia to prepare itself for the disruptions that are coming. Neither Albanese or Dutton have the faintest idea about what is needed.

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT