7 November 2024
Published in The Australian.
——
Rightly or wrongly, for better or for worse, the president of the US is the leader of the free world and therefore our president too. That’s why it’s the job of the Australian prime minister to work as closely as possible with the president of the day regardless of political affiliation or personal preference, including rowing back the anti-Trump rhetoric that Anthony Albanese has sometimes indulged now that the win is clear.
When I was PM, I wanted to do whatever I reasonably could to be helpful to Barack Obama, even though he wasn’t exactly a political soulmate. I figured that just about every visitor to Washington comes with a request: more aid, more trade, more military support, more action on climate, more work to overcome injustice etc.
So on my first trip as PM in June 2014, rather than come with a wish list, I simply told Obama that Australia wanted to be helpful, as far as we could, wherever we could. In this case by participating in US-led efforts to defeat the ISIS eruption from western Syria into Iran and to the gates of Baghdad. Hence, we air-dropped supplies to the Yazidis besieged on Mt Sinja, ran guns into Erbil for the Kurds, sent Special Forces to advise and assist their Iraqi counterparts, and dispatched a large force of military trainers to the Iraqi base at Taji.
A few weeks earlier, the president had declared America could no longer be the world’s policeman on its own. Thinking a dangerous world absolutely needed a policeman, and that America was the only country with the strength and benevolence for the job, I said that America never should be alone; because, while Australia might not be its strongest or most important ally, it would strive to be its most dependable one.
On a couple of occasions, such as when it was revealed the US had spied on some European leaders, I was invited to be critical of US policy but declined. As it happened, Obama didn’t always return the favour, especially with his speech at the University of Queensland in 2014, claiming the Great Barrier Reef was under threat because of climate inaction. Still, like “friendly fire” from ¬Coalition premiers, I felt this was something that just had to be endured for the good of alliance solidarity.
In today’s even more fraught and perilous world, with aggressive dictatorships united in their hatred of the West and determined to overthrow the Pax Americana, which until recently had made the world more free, more fair, more safe, and more rich for more people than at any time before in human history, it’s more important than ever that Australia stand with America and do whatever we reasonably can to help like-minded countries under deadly threat. America remains the indispensable nation and her allies’ role is to steel her, as far as they can, to the essential task of advancing freedom and peace through strength.
This would be true regardless of who is president. But with a Trump presidency, it now changes the sort of help they will seek; namely, help in containing an increasingly assertive Beijing. In the case of a Harris presidency, it would’ve been help to deal with what she thinks are the more fundamental problems of climate change and identity politics.
In the real world, it might be necessary for an Australian PM to make some concessions in the overall national interest. Signing up to net zero, for instance, may have been necessary for Scott Morrison to have secured the AUKUS agreement from President Joe Biden.
Given that net zero should be achievable, via emissions-free nuclear power, this was not too high a price to pay for securing our long-term national security. The price of sustaining the AUKUS agreement into the future, I suspect, will be substantially higher defence spending, with larger Australian armed forces, regardless of who is president.
It’s not surprising that every American president has subscribed to some form of the exceptionalism best evoked by Ronald Reagan’s frequent reference to America as a “shining city on a hill”. All patriots believe that their country is especially blessed in some way. The difference is what each sees as the main task.
In his second term, it could be expected that Trump will refocus on revitalising the US economy, getting energy prices down, closing porous borders, and ending foreign wars on terms favourable to American interests and values. That, after all, is what he previously has striven for, with much success. In the case of Harris, we could’ve expected her to continue Biden’s stress on minority rights at home and abroad and stronger action on climate, with the defence of military allies often a regrettable distraction.
While Biden has given strong rhetorical support to Taiwan, stood by Israel, and not abandoned Ukraine, his preference seems to be for America’s friends to survive rather than to win. By contrast, Trump’s very unpredictability plus clarity on the big issues kept America’s opponents guessing during his first term and is more likely to keep them risk-averse as he embarks on his second.
Trump’s mindset: that contests have to be won; contrasts with Harris’s: they have to be managed. When the contest is between democracy and dictatorship, victory is the only choice and America’s is the only side Australia should be on.
Cold War Two will only be brought to a successful conclusion by people who understand that’s what we’re in. An America that’s energy secure, culturally self-confident, and has firm borders will be well placed to project strength to those keen to up-end the global order.
That’s why the Trump win is best for Australia.