Australia in the shadow of the giant

Australia in the shadow of the giant
By Purnendra Jain and John Bruni

ADELAIDE - During his visit next week to Washington, Prime Minister John Howard will celebrate with his American counterpart President George W Bush the 15th anniversary of the ANZUS treaty under which the United States has underwritten Australia's security.

The US has secured a most trustworthy ally in the South Pacific, whose loyalty was clearly demonstrated recently when Australia unequivocally supported Bush's National Missile Defense (NMD) program. Canberra now commands a better standing in Washington's policy-making circles than before because both Japan and South Korea, the two other Pacific allies of the US, have been ambivalent with regard to NMD.

Howard's visit may well signal another turning point in Australian-American relations, as Australia aims to secure a trade agreement between the two countries. While talks in Washington are expected to primarily revolve around the prospects of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the proposal will, if successful, send messages to the Asia-Pacific region that Australia has tied itself irrevocably to the fortunes of the United States in terms of trade, diplomacy and strategy. Australia will have effectively renounced its ability to manage its own affairs.

A recent report, "An Australian-USA Free Trade Agreement", written by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) study center at Australia's Monash University, has argued strongly in favor of such an agreement, outlining the benefits for both countries.

These include improved access for Australian businesses to the American economy and for the possibility of large-scale American investment in Australia. To be sure, these developments would very much benefit significant segments of Australia's primary industries. The lifting of US quotas on Australian and New Zealand lamb exports early this week was welcomed by the Howard and Clarke governments respectively and was particularly well-timed given Howard's visit to Washington.

But after the obligatory photo-opportunities with Bush and some diplomatic banter over issues of mutual concern, what should be remembered is that the real decision on whether or not there will be an FTA will rest with the US Congress.

Bush does not have a commanding majority in the House of Representatives; neither does his party have a majority in the Senate. No matter what he may personally think of the idea of an Australian-US FTA, Bush's ability to push it through Congress as a matter of priority will be severely handicapped.

It is well known that elements of the US Congress are captives of powerful domestic interest groups, and Congressional decisions are made normally with US, not international interests in mind. With a slowing US economy and the likelihood of global economic troubles looming by year's end, it would seem that Congress might prefer to opt for a more cautious approach to expanding the number of American FTAs. But supposing for the moment that all hurdles are overcome and passage of an Australian-US FTA is assured, would this truly be in Australia's interest?

Free trade is a concept that is paid a lot of lip-service in the media and in political circles around the world, but countries (perhaps with the sole exception of Australia), each in their own way determine the boundaries between national interest and the ultimate desire for a freer trading environment.

Free trade is good so long as the path toward it does not critically jeopardize national infrastructure, industries or development. In this globalized world of ours, lots of sophisticated diplomatic double-speak is employed to mask national agendas and America is no better than the rest of the international community in this regard. An FTA between Australia and the US will be a negotiated settlement between two very unequal partners. Its success will largely depend on the continued goodwill of the incumbent US administration. A change in American government, or in American trade policy, could have a devastating impact on Australia's trading position, as over time, US economic and trading priorities will change.

A trade agreement will also surely undermine multilateral regional institutions such as the APEC forum, which was mainly initiated and strongly nurtured by Australia. Such an agreement will also send a strong signal to Australia's Asian trading partners that Canberra is turning its back on Asia even on economic and trade matters. So far, bilateral free trade agreements have not received the enthusiastic support of APEC member nations in Asia, with Singapore being the exception as it is pressing hard for a free trade agreement with Australia and a range of other countries.

If one couples an FTA to Australia's already strong security ties to the United States, it would seem obvious that Canberra has given up on the idea of determining its own destiny. With both its economy and security tightly tied to the United States, it would come as no surprise even to the casual observer that other countries, less enamored by US international policy, would find this situation disturbing.

How is it that in its Centenary year, Australia's government makes a case for diminishing rather than enhancing its national identity and sovereignty? There is something "Pythonesque" (absurdly humorous) in the way Australian foreign and trade policy is conducted.

Purnendra Jain is a professor in Asian Studies at Australia's Adelaide University
John Bruni is an Adelaide-based independent defense and political policy analyst

Absolutely... I favor free trade with free men who are free to form unions and strike... Anything else, however, is merely the subsidization of wage-slavery. Theodore Roosevelt would roll over in his grave if he knew where Americans get their goods from these days. I'd even support a union of English-speaking nations as a reply to the E.U., so long as nobody got any stupid ideas like a unified civil code, etc.

"Absolutely... I favor free trade with free men who are free to form unions and strike... Anything else, however, is merely the subsidization of wage-slavery. Theodore Roosevelt would roll over in his grave if he knew where Americans get their goods from these days. I'd even support a union of English-speaking nations as a reply to the E.U., so long as nobody got any stupid ideas like a unified civil code, etc."

It would make me happy to know that Roosevelt was turning in his grave. He single handedly did just about more than any other president in history to ruin this country with his socialist policies. Where do I start?..lets see, there was the religuiushment of our monetary system over to the FED which was unconstitutional, the removal of Gold from our currency, all of his dirty little secrets to get us into world war II and the list goes on and on and on. Oh yes, and his legalization of UNIONS! If you support unions you are no friend to the people of this country my friend. Unions may have had their place in this country at one point in time but not now. They are the biggest supporter of socialism that exists. Every dollar they take in for their "dues" goes to the errosion of our soveriengnty and to the contruction of a soclialist government.

"Theres two Rosevelts, Teddy and franklin."

haha..yes, I didnt even realise that he said Theodoore..that was my goof up but still, anyone who is a supporter of Unions either has no Idea of what they are truly about these days or they are just part of the problem

My appology to you sir, I was completely oblivious to the fact you were referring to Theodore Roosevelt. However I still dont understand why anyone would support the Unions that are in place today. They are not the Unions of the past and now they are the problem in most cases and not part of the solution.

I belonged to three different unions in my life. My dealings with them were almost all negative. I now have other reasons for disliking them then my personal experiances. I have friends that are gun lovers and love America and most all other things that us freepers believe in.Nonetheless they support dems and hate reps. No amount of logic will covince them of the error of their ways. So I lost respect for them a long time ago. Another thing I notice is vehicles in the church parking lot with bumper stickers that support baby butchering dems that actually voted to support (the name escapes me at the moment but I am refering to the hird term abortions where the baby' head is punctured with forceps).I want to stand up in church and tell them they are despicable for supporting elected leaders who do not believe in the sancity of life. And they do it all for their real God, money.

I respectfully dissent. I agree that there are big scumbags in the leadership circles of many unions, but I still believe they serve a useful purpose. Free men ought to be able to form associations to achieve legitimate objectives such as getting higher wages, better conditions and benefits, etc. I think Bush will fail absolutely in his attempt to outflank the Democrats by taking advantage of the imagined social conservatism of hispanic voters, but I believe we actually could outflank the Dems by reexamining attitudes towards unions -- many of which do have socially conservative members.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.