The Washington Post is currently experimenting with a new kind of online conversation called Post Global (discussed last week here.) It aims to bring various writers and thinkers from around the world to discuss the most discussed and ignored issues of the day. I will be an irregular contributor and my first, major piece is now published:
Debunking the US/Australia alliance
Sydney, Australia - Australia has traditionally been an English outpost, a nation with strong cultural and political similarities to the Mother Country. Although these ties remain deep - as evidenced during British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s visit to Australia - every Australian government since World War II has positioned the country closer to the world’s sole superpower, the United States. But Australian citizens are now resisting.
President George W. Bush invited Australian Prime Minister John Howard to the White House in May. The affair was infused with hyperbole. Howard praised Bush’s optimism about the future. “It is a friendship rooted not only in history”, he said, “but it’s a friendship and partnership rooted very firmly in common values.” Iraq’s civil war was conveniently ignored as was the Coalition’s role in motivating the insurgency.
He went on: “I value very much the personal friendship I have with you, Mr. President. You’re a staunch friend, you’re a faithful ally, you’re a strong leader, you have articulated the interests of your country and of the free world at a time of unique and different challenge.”
At a time when the Bush administration desperately seeks more allies in its “war on terror”, Australia has remained steadfast in its support. This week, Australia announced it would send more troops to Iraq. After visiting Iraq and meeting Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson stated, “He said to me, ‘You were there with us from the beginning’; I said, ‘We’ll be there with you til the end’.” No journalist asked Nelson what that end will be.
This position is not one supported by the majority of Australians. According to a poll published in March, 55% of Australians were opposed to Australia’s involvement in Iraq and many remained sceptical about the deployment in Afghanistan.
These results display the growing divide between the Australian political and media elite and the general public. The Bush administration is treated with contempt by large portions of the population.
A study released last year by a Sydney-based think-tank confirmed this view. More than two-thirds polled believed that Australia paid too attention to Washington’s foreign policy and should develop a more independent outlook. Furthermore, more than two-thirds held positive feelings towards China - ahead of the United Nations, France and the U.S.
The mainstream media rarely reflect this schism between perception and reality over the U.S./Australia alliance. Soon after the 2004 Federal Election, former Opposition Leader Mark Latham announced that he believed Australia should follow New Zealand’s lead and distance itself from Washington’s military path. Australia was becoming a U.S. colony, Latham said, and a greater terrorist target. The establishment roundly condemned his position.
The Rupert Murdoch-owned Australian newspaper’s foreign editor, Greg Sheridan, says that, “the military alliance between Australia and the U.S. is a force for good in the world. The history of the 20th century showed that allies of the U.S. did best”. Many citizens around the world, including in Australia, would strongly disagree.
Consequences? Questions? Discuss below.
Antony Loewenstein is an Australian-based journalist, author and blogger who writes on international relations and the Middle East and publishes in numerous media outlets in Australia and overseas. His website can be found here.
As much of a suck up and a US psycophant as Howard is, it’s hard to imagine that Australia has much say in the matter. Austreali is indeed vulnerable, but then again, New Zealand has shown how a safe disatance from the US can be maintained withouth harming national security.
Umm, how much uranium does New Zealand have? The fact that we have 26% of the world’s reserve makes us much more important to the US than NZ could ever be, even as a staging post for the conquest of Antarctica.
Of course we haven’t had a say in it. Our country is way too strategically important to be left untended, and everything in the world, especially to this regime, is evaluated and acted upon according to its signifigance to the US national interest.
Anthony, congratulations on the Washington Post berth. I’m glad there are more alternative viewpoints being presented to the US than that of Alexander Downer
Congrats on being published Antony.
Not sure I agree that Australia’s perceived regional vulnerability is the same as it’s actual vulnerability. The only feasible (and often touted) threat Australia faces is from Indonesia to the North. The rest of Australia isn’t at any potential risk unless NZ or Vanuatu launch an attack…
I wonder if Mark Latham will have any insider revelations on the US-Australian alliance in his forthcoming book, entitled A Conga Line of Suckholes? (Nicely put!). I saw him at a bbq a while back and had a few questions that I would’ve liked to ask him, but he did have a very strong Don’t approach me vibe. Probably not surprising, given the shit he was copping at the time. Anyway, this book will probably be ignored and only serve to make Latham more unpopular, if that is possible. Which will be a pity if he has some worthwhile stuff to say. I hope he is now in a suitably isolated position to say something interesting about his experience of the alliance. Alliance is probably too nice a word, who was it that said that “An empire does not have allies—it has only vassals”? Or was that suckholes?
Gerard Henderson and Co are probably busy preparing their predictable responses already, no need to really see the book first, Latham’s embittered former Labor party colleagues working on their one liners denouncing Latham for the 6pm news.
Ironic, n’est-ce pas?
The same commentors who complain that Antony blocks their comments here seem to have complained about my comments at the Washington Post, and I now appear to have been blocked from further comments. These are the same people who suggested I “came from the same kennel” as Loewenstein’s dog and called me an “it”.
For what it’s worth, the comment I was going to post is this:
There seems to be a bit of a civil war raging within the corridors of the WaPo. All their efforts at getting to the truth seem to end up half-baked.
Further to my apparent (I have received no message informing me why my comments no longer appear) banning above, if you think this is not fair, please contact the WaPo ombudsman, Deborah Howell at ombudsman@washpost.com
OK scrap those complaints for now - my comments have appeared (after a 2 hour delay and after I had posted complaints here and on my blog).
Still getting delay problems at WaPo, so I will post this here and see if it shows up there…
The lady leading the attacks on Antony at WaPo’s site is “Dr Sue Williams”, who says of herself:
I read My Israel Question before it was publically released (all publishing houses release media copies prior to the oficial publishing date)… I have been extensively involved in our institutes of higher learning, for better or worse, for over 20 years,…
Based on that, I did a little Googling. Is this the Sue Williams who gets her articles published in RUPERT MURDOCH’s FLAGSHIP PAPER? Is this the Sue Williams whose own journalism has been subject to criticism (on political issues, no less)? Is this the UK-born Sue Williams who writes fantasy crime books and lectures on the subject at Flinders University?
Or is this the Sue Williams (from murdoch.edu.au) who is an expert on Sacoglossan Sea Slugs?
Hey, you would be a little paranoid too if your government was being overtaken by secretive Fascists who tell lies as excuses to invade other countries, right?
Indonesia has the potential to annoy, but ATM it doesn’t have the capacity to do more than send small raiding parties and even these would need an element of surprise.
The TNI lack both the planes to protect any force they did land from the air, and their navy doesn’t have the vessels needed to either move large troop concentrations to our mainland or to sustain them.
Our aerial superiority may diminish once the F-111s are taken out of service - the likely replacement is inferior in both effective range and load capacity - but the odds will still be very much in our favour.
While the Chinese and Russians could nuke us into oblivion, realistically, the only country that can successfully invading us is the U.S.
“….successfully invading us is the U.S.:” And why would they? We’re already everything they ever dreamed of-except that pesky Bob Brown.
No, I say the real danger to us is those frequently pregnant muslim women. Not enough blue eyed blonde sheilas giving birth. Just wait - in 5 years we’ll have Shariah Law on the Gold Coast. No pubs or gambling, babes on the beach wearing burqas…..
Well, I’m getting a bit long in the tooth, but I’m prepared to do my bit!
For anyone concerned about the influence of the pro-Israel lobby in Australian government, I recommend you ask Flinders University whether Dr Sue Collin’s rubbishing of Antony Lowenstein at WaPo is part of her paid work.