US Alliance a distinct liability for Australia

The US FTA secrecy had come to light after the refusal by the Howard Government to make public David Trebeck’s Report, which was to have been released in September 2002. This Report about the cost and benefits of the proposed free trade deal, commissioned by the Government, was suppressed according to the ALP. Spokesperson Craig Emerson claimed, “the Government didn’t like the figures and ordered a further analysis”.

Subsequently a Report on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade estimated that the benefits to Australia from the US FTA would be $ 9.9 billion over 20 years. That would amount to a mere $26.05 per person per year. Common sense suggests that it would be ridiculous to bargain away Australia’s sovereignty for such a “benefit”.

Perhaps this desire on the part of Howard's constituency to please the US answers the question why it possible for an elected PM to send Australian troops into Iraq without an electoral Mandate, Parliamentary debate, Parliamentary vote, Plebiscite or Referendum, and in the face of overwhelming opposition by the Australian public. Amazingly, the Australian Constitution allows a virtually dictatorial decision like that to be made without any such approval.

Large numbers of critical economics and finance journalists argued against the US FTA, for example, Gittins, Colebatch and Toohey. The ACTU, the umbrella group AFTINET representing about 80 well known community groups, several academics and progressive political parties, fought a long campaign to stop the FTA but, in the end it passed with the support of both major parties after a couple of amendments insisted on by the ALP, just before the 2004 election.

The warnings on the negative effect on Australia's sovereignty and cultural identity were ignored by the major parties, presumably all to the greater glory of, or perceived need for, "the Alliance".

Several authors have published short critical accounts of the US FTA although the effects will take time to be noticed by the general public. Although both governments claim that spectacular benefits will flow to each country none of these academics accepts that. They do concede that Australia lacks the leverage in Washington to extract greater benefits for Australia from such deals. A. Capling in All the Way with the USA: Australia, the US and Free Trade, and L. Weiss, E. Thurbon, and J. Mathews in How to Kill a Country: Australia’s Devastating Trade Deal with the United States, convincingly confront the over optimistic assessments by the Howard Government and its lobbyists.

The obsolete and meaningless ANZUS Treaty

What about the continuation of the essentially obsolete ANZUS Treaty? How does it sit with Australia’s extensive overtures and trade negotiations with China, already a substantial trading partner? Even the Americans themselves are questioning the usefulness of the Treaty now.

A remarkable interview by the ABC’s Eleanor Hall with Doug Bandow, a Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute threw up some candid questions and answers (ABC The World Today, August 17, 2005).

On the eve of the annual Australian-American leadership dialogue (August, 2005) this Washington based analyst and former advisor to President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s called into question the relevance of the United States-Australian Alliance.

While the Australian Government has consistently talked up the importance of the Alliance to both the region and Australia's relationship with the US, he claimed “the Alliance is outdated and is no longer in the United States' strategic interests”. Bandow described an emerging China as “the most important issue confronting the region”, but said in this context there are dangers for Australia too in maintaining the formal alliance with the United States. He directly criticised Prime Minister John Howard's approach to dealing with security in the region. Hall asked:

One of the key strategic goals, if not the strategic goal from the Australian perspective is the alliance is there to keep the US involved in the Asia-Pacific region. How does that sit from a US strategic perspective?

Bandow’s reply: