The New York Times
Monday 26 November 2007
London - The defeat of John Howard, Australia's prime minister, in Saturday's election deprived President Bush of one of his most steadfast allies and will bring changes in Australia's foreign policy that will be felt in Washington.
During recent years, Mr. Howard was unabashedly in the American corner at times when other world leaders were keeping their studied distance, and his loss is likely to be particularly acute for Mr. Bush, who puts great stock in personal relations in the conduct of foreign relations.
Mr. Howard, leader of the center-right Liberal Party, was one of the most frequent foreign visitors to the Bush White House and Texas ranch (ranking behind Tony Blair of Britain and King Abdullah II of Jordan, and tied with Ariel Sharon of Israel), according to the State Department.
Australia's next prime minister, Kevin Rudd, said Sunday, in his first news conference since the election, that he had received a congratulatory call from President Bush, and that he would be visiting the United States early in the new year.
Under Mr. Rudd, the most notable foreign policy changes will be on the environment, nuclear issues and Iraq, said a veteran Australian diplomat, who requested anonymity because he feared that Mr. Rudd would not look kindly on a public servant speaking out on foreign policy.
Mr. Rudd stated unequivocally in his victory speech on Saturday evening that Australia would ratify the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. That will further isolate the United States, leaving it as the only industrialized country not to have done so.
Mr. Rudd has said that his Labor Party would withdraw Australia's 550 combat troops from Iraq. That would still leave more than 300 Australian support troops in Iraq, so the move may be seen as largely symbolic.
For the Bush administration, symbolism and gestures count in a war without much international support, and the biggest difference on Iraq may come over the new government's public posture.
In the face of the largest antiwar demonstrations since Vietnam, Mr. Howard sent Australian troops into Iraq. In fact, Australia's tough and highly trained special forces were secretly operating in western Iraq in advance of the American invasion. Mr. Howard could at times sound more hawkish than Mr. Bush on the need to stay the course when the war was going badly.
Mr. Rudd, by contrast, is unlikely to offer public support for the war effort, and if he does speak on the subject, he may well be critical, the veteran diplomat said.
Washington can still continue to count on Australian support in Afghanistan, Australian officials and political analysts said. Australia has about 1,000 troops there, including special forces.
Washington will undoubtedly be watching Australia's relations with China under Mr. Rudd, who was once a diplomat in Beijing and speaks fluent Mandarin. When President Hu Jintao of China was in Australia in September, Mr. Rudd spoke to him in Chinese.
But with China a huge buyer of Australian resources, Australia had already been moving closer to Beijing. Under Mr. Howard, President Hu was the first nondemocratic leader to address the Australian Parliament.
A looming source of friction between the United States and Australia is over Australia's uranium policy; Australia has some of the largest uranium deposits in the world. The Bush administration has been pushing Congress to allow the transfer of nuclear technology and fuel to India, which was halted during the Clinton administration. Mr. Howard's government said it would sell uranium to India.
But the Labor Party, which was a leader in the world antinuclear movement in the 1970s, opposed the sale, and has said it will not sell uranium to any country that has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which India has not.
Another potential fissure is over America's military presence in Australia. An expansion of America's forward basing abilities, which was part of the agenda of Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, has gone on almost unnoticed in Australia's vast Northern Territory. This is not likely to sit well with Labor's left-wing base.
Mr. Howard was often lampooned by his critics as being Bush's poodle, a word which some also used to describe Mr. Blair. But a look at the record suggests that Australia did well out of the relationship.
Tariffs were lifted on Australian steel, a free-trade agreement was signed, and Australia alone enjoys visa requirements for professionals that allow some 10,500 a year to enter the United States.
The Howard government also gained greater access to military technology and intelligence, said Michael Thawley, the Australian ambassador to Washington from 2001 to 2005. He declined to provide details.
When Mr. Howard began to face domestic political pressure at home over the detention of two Australian citizens, Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, he appealed directly to Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and the two were released.
Several recent polls have shown a growing antagonism in Australia toward America, with many Australians expressing a higher regard for China. But the two men whose names are being bandied about as the most likely ambassadors to Washington are Bob Carr, a long-time Labor politician who is a student of American presidents, and Kim Beazley, a former defense minister and a leader of the Labor Party who is a Civil War buff.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment