Gillard's fawning over Obama a bad start on diplomatic front

Scott Burchill

June 30, 2010

Opinion

It is not a ''privilege'' to talk to the US President with our troops at war.

The primary goal of the US lobby in Australia is to insulate the alliance from changes of government after elections and leadership movements within the major political parties. Bipartisan support for the US alliance cannot always be assumed, however, so strategies are devised to raise the strategic aspects of the relationship above the fray of domestic politics in both countries.

During the Second Gulf War, Washington's boosters in the Australian media sought to quarantine the alliance from widespread public hostility to George Bush. So, Labor leader Mark Latham could get away with describing Bush as ''the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory''. But his questioning in his diaries of the value of the alliance confirmed for Australia's US lobby that he was unfit for high office.

The Australian American Leadership Dialogue meets annually (alternately in the US and Australia). It's an invitation-only bipartisan group of politicians, journalists, academics and businessmen who work to preserve and protect the bilateral relationship from criticism and challenges. Its deliberations are not made public.

One of the group's primary aims is to socialise contemporary and future leaders into accepting the incontrovertible importance of the alliance. In the past week, the group has had good reason to believe that its investment in Julia Gillard - who has been attending its meetings for several years - has paid off.

In one of her first policy statements as Prime Minister, a remarkably obsequious Gillard told US President Barack Obama it was a ''great honour and privilege'' just to talk to him. She then ''reassured'' the President of her fidelity to the alliance, and gave him Australia's continuing support for the military campaign in Afghanistan. Kevin Rudd may be gone, but his approach to the longest war in Australia's history would not be changed by his successor.

To say that the conversation Gillard had with Obama was a missed opportunity does not fully capture the folly of her first foreign policy utterance as Prime Minister.

Three points stand out.

First, popular support in Australia for the Afghan war has collapsed. Depending on which poll you read, either 54 per cent (Lowy) or 61 per cent (Essential Media) of the population oppose continuing military involvement in Afghanistan and want Australian troops withdrawn.

These views have no representation in the lower house of the Federal Parliament. They are not even considered by the new Prime Minister to be a factor that qualifies Australia's participation in the war. Gillard's reflexive support may reassure Washington that she is ''sound'' on national security - that the ''informal bar'' on someone from the Left becoming Prime Minister could be lifted, to quote one lobbyist. However, it fundamentally betrays the wishes of the people she now represents.

In response to findings that 55 per cent of Australians are not confident that Australia has clear aims in Afghanistan (Lowy poll), former Labor senator Stephen Loosley reportedly said that ''as long as [there is] bipartisan support for [Australia's] Afghanistan contribution in Canberra, declining popular support for Afghan conflict is not an issue''.

This is a perfect illustration of elite disdain for public opinion. No wonder the same poll found that 69 per cent believe the government pays too little attention to their views ''in comparison to the opinions of foreign policy experts''.

Second, the vigorous discussion of the war now taking place in the US media and inside Washington's is not mirrored here. This is largely the government's fault. For a war that seems unwinnable and futile to so many Australians, the absence of an equally vibrant debate in this country is an indictment of our democratic processes. What are our politicians so frightened of?

The forensic examination of tactics, personalities, operations and the Taliban - which can be found across the US press every day - is almost entirely missing from the Australian media. It is only when tragedy strikes and casualties increase that analysis rises briefly above the superficial. Comparisons with the Vietnam War could not be more striking. Third, the humiliating departure of General Stanley McChrystal provided the opportunity to ask Obama critical questions - and leverage Canberra's support against more definitive criteria.

We could be asking : What are your war aims? When will they be achieved? What are your criteria for ''success'' in Afghanistan? What is the exit strategy? Instead, Gillard rushed to ''reassure'' Obama (as if he needed it) that Australia would continue to be an uncritical ally in a war the public opposes. It's an inauspicious start in diplomacy for our new Prime Minister.

Dr Scott Burchill is senior lecturer in international relations in the school of international and political studies at Deakin University.

Comments

77 comments

Sigh,Afghanistan. A war with no end precisely because,as Latham opined,George Dubya Droolin Pervert Bush was ''the most incompetent and dangerous President in living memory.'' Perhaps if the PrimeMinister of the day was less the snivelling little weasel of a man he was and had the courage to suggest to his ''Good Friend'' that pulling resources out of Afghanistan at such an early juncture to inflict a lunacy upon Iraq is not in Australia's interest,then,maybe,just maybe we wouldn't be concerning ourselves with Julia's supposed ''fawning'' today.

Hugo Stieglitz | Mooroopna - June 30, 2010, 8:22AM

There are one or two salient points in your article Dr. that reduce it to nothing more than an opportunity to listen to your own voice. Your opening statement " It is not a privilege to talk to the President with our troops at war" is setting up a very specious argument indeed.. You say the PM said it was a great honor and privilege "just" to talk to him. Not correct. You might not think it a privilege and an honor to talk to the most powerful man in the world, especially as the Prime Minister of Australia- she clearly does, I would too, as would Abbott. Given the polls you talk about are, like all polls, driven by the way that questions are asked, the figures are hardly convince that Australia wants out. The same poll found Australians ( a little over half those surveyed- echoing the support for our two major parties) thought our aims unclear, and the government does not pay enough attention to their views. Both sides of the house support our troops.Yes, ordinary Australians are unclear-The Afghan Government is unclear!! President Karzai is the nominal head of a divided, tribal based, religious and clan riven group that is assailed on all sides, trying to oust an evil, murderous tribe of psychcopathic thugs. We are trying to help him. We elect Governments to act and speak (to the US President!!) on our behalf, otherwise Sam Newman could canvass opinion during Streetalk;
Radio National this morning carried a lengthy anyalsis of the Afghan Army which evidenced that the ranks are full of drugged illiterates, who need training. There is plenty of "forensic" examination" if you look for it. Afghanistan, and its Army needs our troops, and they need our support. They have mine wholeheartedly.

Michael | Sunbury - June 30, 2010, 8:13AM

Australia has had two foreign policies since federation.

Policy 1 1901 to 1942 - Suck up to the British Empire.
Policy 2 1942 to present - Suck up to the USA. (Thank you John Curtin. Your Prime Ministership never delivered the social changes that you wanted but it did deliver us our country.)

Or maybe it was just one policy - suck up to the worlds biggest english speaking super power and hope like hell they look after us.

I always think of a Sylvester the Cat cartoon. Big Butch, a bulldog, is walking down a street with a little yappy dog bouncing around him until Butch gets annoyed and gives him a backhander. Little yappy dog goes flying into some trash cans (not rubbish bins, 'cos he's American!) and says "Butch is my hero 'cos he's so big and strong!" Butch is America. We are the yappy little dog.

One day, an Australian PM will say to the American press "No, it is not an honour and priveledge to meet with the American President, no more than it is an honour for him to meet me. We are allies and equals. We currently share an armed conflict that needs to be discussed. It is essential that we meet. America had better get used to that idea." Just don't hold your breath waiting.

Colin | Sydney - June 30, 2010, 8:13AM

Give her a break, Scott. I thought a little giggly hero worship was quite an authentic response and it WAS a privilege to speak to Obama who has a few other more pressing demands on his time than a courtesy chat with some Aussie newby PM. He took the time and she was delighted. Decent and understandable all round.

M T Pockets - June 30, 2010, 8:30AM

I couldn't agree more with Scott Burchill that the public's views on such issues are regarded as irrelevant to the political leadership of the country. That raises the question of precisely how the outcome (ie, troops continuing to be deployed in an invasion unsupported by the bulk of Australians) differs from what would be achieved in a dictatorship? In other words is democracy, the way it is practised in the West, a broken instrument that simply does not reflect the will of the people on this and on many other issues?

To suggest that the solution available in a democracy is to vote the government out ignores the capture of both sides of politics by ideology and by interests not consistent with those of the Australian electorate, as perceived by that electorate. The problem appears to be that neither side sees it as being important to sell to the electorate the need to act in a way that is inconsistent with the public mood. The decision is simply taken and the excuse given is that "tough" decisions need to be made.

Real democratic leadership would consist of an ability to convince the voting public prior to a decision being taken, that the decision proposed is really in Australia's national interest. Lazy politicians and faux leaders simply don't bother. That is a massive failure of democratic leadership and in the end it is down to us to change it, if we care! Support recall elections that will make the politicians accountable to either convince us that what they propose is right or to drop what the people have clearly indicated they do not want.

Lesm | Balmain - June 30, 2010, 8:24AM

With the long term focus of Afghanistan switched from military to civilian support, it is critical that any major political party consider revamping the way Australia plays its role in this region. Australians must do community work with Afghanies. They should be able to speak and read their language and appreciate their culture. Then they should be able to teach them how to farm, do business and generate income. There are systems available in the U.S. that can convert air to water which can sustain life in desert areas. These are examples of practical measures Australia must consider in order to help these people. If Australians think they can wear the traditional army uniform and carry a gun (although i'm not suggesting no form of self-defence) to try to intimidate these folks, then let us expect further unnecessary casulaties, thanks to dodgy policies from high ranking people.

Rebuilding War ton countries | Shire - June 30, 2010, 8:59AM

Australia's post-Coup PM Julia Gillard's Day 1 assurance to Obama of continued Australian support for the Afghanistan War was appalling. Some pertinent aspects of this craven "all the way with the USA" by pro-US, pro-war Gillard are listed below.

1. Just as a majority of Australians voted for Kevin Rudd as PM only to be countermanded by the Gillard Coup, so a majority of Australians before and after the 2007 election opposed Australia's participation in the Afghan War only to be countermanded by the pro-war Rudd-Gillard Government and by pro-war Gillard's first pro-war action on Day 1.

2. Similarly, a majority of Australians before and after the 2007 election wanted a Government that would "tackle climate change" but this was countermanded by the pro-coal, pro-gas Rudd-Gillard Government and by the post-Coup Gillard Labor Government's Day 1 signing of a $400 million brown coal export deal with Vietnam by the then Trade Minister Simon "Crean Coal" Crean.

3. UN Population Division, UNICEF and WHO data reveal the following appalling consequences of the illegal Afghan War: post-invasion non-violent deaths from war criminal Occupier-imposed deprivation total 3.5 million; post-invasion violent deaths total about 1 million (as estimated from Iraq War comparisons); post-invasion under-5 infant deaths total 2.4 million; refugees total 3-4 million plus a further 2.5 million NW Pakistan Pashtun refugees - according to scholars an Afghan Genocide as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention (for documentation and details Google "Afghan Holocaust, Afghan Genocide").

Pro-child, pro-woman, pro-mother, pro-peace Australians will surely reject pro-war Gillard, vote 1 Green and put Labor last.

Dr Gideon Polya | Macleod - June 30, 2010, 9:20AM

Yep, Julia's fawning over speaking to Obama, plus the comment about her infatuation with US history, shows that the ALP are the masters at sucking up to America.
Have some self respect, for goodness sake.

JohnB | Melbourne - June 30, 2010, 9:30AM

Personally, I grimaced when I heard Gillard refer to her conversation with Obama.

The first thought that entered my head was whether she would still have been as obsequiesce if George Bush had still beeen in office. I doubt she would have been foolish enough to let any hint of disrespect creep into her voice, but equally, I doubt she would have come across like some star-struck school-girl.

As our PM she should be addressing the President or Leader of any other country as an EQUAL. There is no room for ideological worship or for showing personal preference for another leaders political leanings.

I think she sounded like an amateur. Let's hope it was just an innocent mistake from an over-excited beginner.

Our foreign policy should be based on the best interests of Australia.... not on political leanings or idol worship from our 'elected' leaders.

Oz | Melbourne - June 30, 2010, 9:39AM

Decent article, but I wish that one Australian commentator would dare approach the moral aspect of what we're doing in these countries, rather than discussing strategic blunders or something cold like that.

Our wars have meant an utter calamity for generations of Iraqis and and Afghanis. A million civilian deaths are not irrelevant to the debate.

boots | melbourne - June 30, 2010, 10:10AM

Show more comments

Comments are now closed

Join the conversation

You're the only person reading this now. Tell your friends

77 comments.

The vigorous discussion of the war now taking place in the US media and inside Washington's is not mirrored here. This is largely the government's fault.