Howard Government Joins U.S. Move To The Right
by Ian McPherson John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia, and George W. Bush have become pretty good mates. Like Bush, Howard is a right-wing conservative, and the men share similar political philosophies. The Australian newspapers, covering Howard's recent PR visit to Bush's Texas ranch, had a fun time with the press coverage, referring to the event as a "love-in" with lots of "mutual petting". With typically laconic Australian humour, they portrayed the meeting as a mutual backslapping exercise between two tall political poppies.
But the strong links between Australia and the U.S. did not originate between these two men. Australia still owes a huge debt to the U.S. for its military support during World War II, when the Japanese were, for a time, masters of the Pacific. In May 1942, the U.S. Navy fought the Battle of the Coral Sea, which initially appeared to be a victory for the Japanese. Yet it was actually a strategic victory for the allies, as it resulted in stopping the Japanese from taking Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea and eliminating the Australian Air Force in northern Australia. It became a turning point in the war, and led to the defeat of the Japanese Navy in the Pacific.
Since these days, Australia and the U.S. have shared many strategic defense chores, and continue to monitor, collect and organise data and collaborate on regional issues. The two countries also man and maintain a number of military and strategic facilities all over Australia, and have for some 50 years. Some of the installations include: Pine Gap in the Northern Territory, North West Cape in Western Australia, Seismic Stations in Mundaring, Hobart, Sydney, Charters Towers, Daly Waters, Tennant Creek, Mildura and Wagga Wagga, plus Echeleon system DSD bases in Watsonia, Geraldton, Shoal Bay and Canberra.
The Royal Australian Air Force also hosts facilities for the Military Airlift Command (MAC) of the U.S. Air Force in Richmond, Learmouth, Pearce and Salisbury, and under long-standing agreements make the Darwin, Williamtown, Townsville, Kimberley and Cape York air bases available to the U.S. when required. Maritime signals and electronic facilities include Cabarlah, Hariman, Wagga Wagga, Stirling, Sydney and Jervis Bay. Training facilities include Delamere bombing range and the Shoalwater Bay jungle training facility. Other facilities include the U.S. Space Command of the U.S. Air Force in Tidbinbulla and the GPS system Omega Station at Dariman.
Beyond the strong and extensive military ties between the two countries, the U.S. and Australia have long standing cultural, economic and trade relationships. The first U.S. ship to sail into Australia was in 1792. The first U.S Consul to Australia was James Hartwell Williams in 1839. The U.S. Embassy was built in 1940 and the residence of the Ambassador to Australia was built in 1943. Both the U.S. Commercial Service and the American Chamber of Commerce have had a presence in Australia since the 1960s, and the U.S. has been a major trading partner to Australia for many years. For more information on Australian Trade, download the "Fast Facts" PDF.
In simplistic terms, Australia is similar to the U.S. in having two main political parties The Liberal Party shares some philosophies with the Republicans in the U.S., while the Labor Party is more akin to the Democrats. There is the usual strife and catcalling between these two opponents, and whilst politics is rarely exciting, and even more rarely inspirational, both parties have shared governance in turn, and both have done good work in their time.
Just like in the rest of the world, however, the impacts of globalisation, privatisation and the world economic outlook are having serious effects on the Australian lifestyle and economy. Australia, which has strong trade ties with both the U.S. and the Asian region, has s strong dollar and reasonable economic growth, but tourism is suffering and a long term drought has had a negative impact on the agriculture sector.
The war on Terrorism and the war in Iraq
It was inevitable that Australia would become involved in the Iraq conflict. The Australian Navy has shared border monitoring and sanctions responsibilities in Iraq waters, along with the U.S. and the U.K., since the first Gulf War. Although the Australian commitment was not particularly large, it has been long term. Australia has never forgotten its debt to its WWII allies, and the military ties between all three countries is complex and spans generations of the military.
Most Australians have no problem supporting the war on Terror. We were as outraged by the attacks on September 11 as the rest of the world, and the threat truly came home when Australians were killed in the Bali bombings. The war in Iraq, however, caused a political bunfight in Australia, when Prime Minister John Howard refused to commit himself for or against. He had, in fact, committed Australia to the U.S. plans, but did not want to be seen by the Australian public as having done so.
Well, now the war is over. Unfortunately, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and there is a general feeling that this war was fought more for strategic reasons than for any real threat to the U.S., Australia or the U.K. The Iraqis are better off without Saddam, without a doubt, but this is the first war Australians have fought in where we (or our allies) were not attacked, and where the threat was relegated to what "the enemy may do in the future". Australians may be comfortable with the fact that Saddam is gone, but they are not necessarily comfortable with the breakdown in international law and the ethics of preemptive warfare.
Enter the Free Trade Agreement
Now Australia is immersed in Free Trade Agreement negotiations with the U.S., some say as a payoff for support in the Iraq war, and is facing a tough Howard government Budget for 2003, which includes reforms to health and education that usher in a new era of the "user-pays" philosophy. This has placed the focus of John Howard's unquestioning support for the Iraq war back into focus, and caused another serious rift in Australian politics.
Medicare, for instance, Australia's no-fee, taxpayer funded health care system has been suffering from a lack of financial and intellectual support under the Howard government, which wants to move to a U.S.-style, "user pays" private health insurance system. The Howard government is suspected to be planning to demolish Medicare, which was created by the Labor Party when it was in power, to "sweeten" the Free Trade negotiations with the U.S., which may seek an opportunity to invest in privatisation of the Australian health care system.
University education costs are also under attack. In the 1970s and 1980s it was possible to obtain a free, taxpayer funded Australia university education, and at least five of the Ministers in Australia's Federal Cabinet did so at the time. Howard's new 2003 budget forces an increasing amount of the debt burden directly onto the students, who will spend many years paying off their education. Howard is additionally proposing that 50% of the places in Australian Universities will now be available "for sale" for full upfront fee paying students. Overall fees are also slated to rise by up to 30%.
The Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, who had a very vocal dustup with the U.S. ambassador Tom Schieffer over the Iraq war (which the Labor Party opposed), responded to Howard's 2003 Budget by harking back to Labor's roots amongst the working class of Australia. I have included Crean's Budget Reply speech in a link below - it may be dry reading, and not very amusing, but it was very well received, both by the public and Labor supporters.
An Australian election in 2004?
There is talk of a Federal election in Australia if Howard can't pass his 2003 budget reforms through parliament. If this election occurs due to sufficient opposition, and the conservative Howard government maintains power, many fear that its policies will create a vast divide between the rich and the many working poor, which will only serve wealthy individuals and corporate interests. George W. Bush has taken this approach in the U.S., with raft of political initiatives that generally benefit business and the rich, while doing little for the poor and the middle classes.
Undoubtedly, John Howard's 2003 Budget plants the seeds that would assist Australia in its Free Trade negotiations with the U.S., which are expected to result in the elimination of limits on foreign ownership in Australian companies, the easing of our quarantine standards and the lowering of our packaging law requirements. But it is unlikely to help the middle class at all, who are struggling against poor employment prospects, rising prices and the losses from superannuation funds that were invested in the equity markets. Howard may be hoping that the agreement will benefit the Australian agriculture sector, but there will be stiff opposition in the U.S., which is fiercely protective of its own industry.
Recreating universal health care and education systems in Australia, after the adoption of a "user pays" system, will be nearly impossible. Yet these social marvels will probably disappear entirely in the next few years. Australians will become far more frantic, working to save for health and medical bills, their retirement, and to send their kids to university. And the TV, Radio and newspapers will drone on and on about terrorism, to distract us from the loss of our excellent health and education, our increasingly moribund economy and ballooning personal debt.
Personally, like Simon Crean, I don't believe that health and education should be privatised. It may be politically incorrect in this day and age, but I believe that health care should be available based purely on need, not on money. And I believe that education should be available to those who merit it and show the commitment, rather than those who can pay.
While George W. Bush was enjoying his education at Yale University, and John Howard was enjoying his law course at the University of Sydney, I was running messages in an advertising agency, because my parents did not have the money to put me through University. I guess I'll never really relate to these tall poppies, eh?
Take a moment out to read Simon Crean's 2003 Budget Reply by clicking here. It may remind you of the days when politicians addressed the middle class, not just their political contributors :)
If you would like more information about politics in Australia, visit some of these links: Liberal Party of Australia | Australian Labor Party | Australian Greens | Australian Democrats
Australian Political Parties - National Library of Australia By the way...
The People's Choice for the 2003 Archibald Prize for Portraiture (reported in the last issue of NetNacs!) was won by Dalu Zhao, with his portrait of Steven Fitzgerald. Check it out by clicking here. The People's Choice is decided by a vote by the visitors :)
See you all in the next issue! Ian McPherson
DownUnder Editor |
