Doesn\'t sound like criticising fellow signatories to the Treaty is all that verboten.
Yeh given that Suharto and Marcos signed it, the treaty was probably more a \"make us appear legitimate\" and \"don\'t do a Shah of Iran on us\".
I found it ironic that Howard would say \"Don\'t confuse treaty with FTAs\" after the sly suggestions that Labor\'s disagreements with US policy might threaten ANZUS, and thus the FTA.
I think it is hilarious that Brandis came out and said his nickname for Howard was \"lying rodent\". Truth to populist politicians appears relative to whatever gives them the most power at any one time. They will spin what they can to whatever short term political advantage they can get. Building an election campaign on interest rates is a good example of how truth comes second to using spin to increase/maintain political power.
If Australia gets into an FTA with the ASEAN nations, does that devalue the FTA with the US?
The Au-US FTA is going to get devalued anyway, it is mainly symbolic as it appears studies have shown there is nothing much in it for Australia. Howard traded away any advantage and gave in to American demands.
Many nations have bilateral FTAs with the US, we are not alone nor most favoured in that regard. Any nation who is willing to give in on IP and US Farming Subsidies can have one. Singapore, Costa Rica, Jordon and Chile all have one or have one in the process. That isn\'t including NAFTA either. It is nothing special, everyone wasn\'t bilateral trade agreements at the moment.
does it also devalue Howard\'s compromises taken in order to get an agreement?
This is one issue not focused on, Howard\'s ineptness in negotiating and speed of giving in to demands of others. Yet he holds out on the feel-good treaties like Kyoto and this Amity agreement. Sounds like he doesn\'t know how to bargain, the \"great and powerful friends\" doctrine is not an excuse either, as us being an uncritical ally is supposed to give us greater bargaining power in trade agreements, yet the trade department wiped the floor of our negotiators.
In my opinion the \"great and powerful friends\" doctrine has never worked and has a century of failure behind it - this is another nail in the coffin of how it earns no influence at all with a super/hyperpower.
My crazy conspiracy theory for the day was that Howard might be trying to sabotage Australia\'s chances of getting into an ASEAN-based FTA to keep the US treaty on its pedestal, alone. Howard\'s Free Trade Agreement.
I think he is not comfortable in Asia or dealing with Asia. I don\'t think he is racist, not openly anyway. I just think it is outside of his comfort zone and he acts all over the place. Like Menzies he prefers Australia to be anglophilic, and cant handle the changing world around him. This is true of many older Australians.
Howard is 65, and a product of the \"White Australia\" policies in the 50/60/70\'s that he spent half his life living under. IMO this ingrains a certain ambivalence to racism, which in my experience afflicts many older Australians. Many Australians are very quick to blame Wogs, Lebos, Abbos etc for the ills in white suburban society.
I find it amusing that the static world of the 1970\'s that only needed a touch of economic rationalism to get it going has become infinitely more complex for old folks like Howard. His \"Culture Wars\" can be seen as an attempt to retard progress.
We know have China and India emerging as new economic powers, Indonesia democratized, Thailand and Malaysia are negotiating bi-lateral trade agreements, ASEAN finally wants us, NE Asia is emerging as a power bloc, America has turned imperial and unilateral .... Keating would have revelled in this environment ... to Howard it is alot different to the known quantities of the cold war.
The success of East Timor and the Solomons were cold war style responses, which Howard excelled at. But his defence policy has been confusing and shown he does not understand power projection. Consequently Australia despite its beligerance is going trading away its ability to project martial power.
His negotiations of trade agreements have not been great and in the case of the US exceedingly poor. He led Australia into Iraq which was a massive misjudgement, if there was a time to be critical of support of the US, this was it, and he failed there.
The squashing of the Republic, the indulgence in the \"Culture Wars\" are all examples of retrograde social and cultural policy where the government decides it knows better than the people as to what they want. His authoritarian nature has damaged many institutions now as they have politicized in his quest for absolute control.
He has also been the lucky beneficiary of the banks lending to all and any, along with China\'s increased demand of our commodities. Those along with Americans spending on the credit card interminably has saved the globe and Australia from genuine recession.
The only thing I can think of to recommend his Prime Ministership is his control of the party discipline and his ability to manage the media/party during an election process. As to a statesman, he is really quite poor, even by Australian standards.
cam
Comments