From the left, Gillard marches to Uncle Sam’s beat

POLITICS ... with Mungo MacCallum

The political transformation, or at least tergiversation, of Julia Gillard in now complete. From being an avowed lefty, the chair of the Socialist Forum at Melbourne University, she has morphed into the most pro-American Australian Prime Minister since .... well, since the last one.

And he, of course, was the most pro-American Australian Prime Minister since ... well, since the one before. In fact it is hard to think of any Australian Prime Minister who has had serious doubts about the relationship with out great and powerful friend. A couple, notably Gough Whitlam and Paul Keating, have made tentative noises about taking a more independent line, but in general our national leaders have approached their counterparts in Washington on their knees, dutifully accepting whatever role POTUS (the President of the United States) sees fit to assign them.
Harold Holt boasted that he was “All the way with LBJ”, while John Gorton assured his host that “We’ll go a-waltzing Matilda with you”. And of course John Howard embraced his appointment as deputy sheriff. Even opposition leaders succumb; Mark Latham, having derided his Liberal opponents as “a conga line of suckholes” while on the back bench, recanted by holding a press conference in front of an American flag when he thought he had a chance at election.
Most of the time such sycophancy is embarrassing but relatively harmless; since World War II Australia has received few if any tangible benefits from the arrangement (precisely what value our “information sharing” with Washington has been remains undefined) but has suffered little actual damage. We have been willing, even enthusiastic participants in America's military adventures, most notably in Vietnam and Iraq, but have escaped the obloquy and censure directed at America itself; basically we have been forgiven on the grounds of that even if were wrong (and we were), we erred through a misguided sense of loyalty rather than evil intent.
Gillard has not questioned that loyalty; indeed, she is signing up to an increased American military presence in Australia. Given that we already host what are euphemistically called “joint facilities” run by the Americans and for the Americans as key elements in their intelligence gathering and communication networks, this may appear no more than a natural extension of policies which have been in place for many years. But there is a qualitative difference.
The purpose of the earlier installations was a general one: the enhancement of American military power, certainly, but with no specific target in mind. The new build up of forces in the Pacific has a single and clearly defined purpose: to counter and contain what is seen as the threat of Chinese dominance in the area. John Howard used to say that we did not have to choose between our history and our geography, by which he meant that we could maintain our European identity while developing as a middle-sized Asian economic power.
This was pretty naïve even in the last century; there were times when our ability to straddle the barbed wire fence was severely tested. We have been, and still are, shut out of some of the innermost councils of our neighbours simply because we are not seen as a fully committed partner in the region. And now, as the rivalry between the United States and China is set to become the determining geo-political influence of out time, the necessity for choice is becoming more urgent.
Gillard, in what sounds depressingly like a reprise of the Howard position, says that there is nothing to stop us being both an ally of America and a friend of China. Well, actually there are two things that may stop us: America and China.
Fortunately both countries are currently controlled by relatively benign administrations, but this need not always be the case. A seriously belligerent regime in either Beijing or Washington could raise the temperature considerably. The prospect of any direct military conflict between the two is, of course, remote; but this does not mean that there will not be misunderstandings, tensions and even the occasional skirmish.
Taiwan remains a potential flashpoint; North Korea is a serious worry; India and China have never really settled their border differences. Any of them, or something completely unexpected, could trigger a stand off between the two great powers.
In any circumstances it would be hard for Australia to stay neutral. But as an ally – Gillard’s word – with the ability to deploy American troops from Australian bases, neutrality would not be an available option. Like it or not, we would be part of the action. And one of the first things we would be required to do is to stop trading with China, at least in strategic materials such as iron ore, coal and gas.
So phut goes the trade balance and probably the entire economy with it. This is the downside of Gillard’s position. The upside? Well, perhaps more security for Australia, but security from whom? From China, presumably. So we are not really treating China as a friend after all, but as a potential enemy. This is the only sensible interpretation of allowing Australia to be used as a forward base for a contingency operation aimed at China.
And it is one that Beijing is unlikely to miss. Thus Australia, however keen it portrays itself to continue the trading relationship, will be seen as potentially unreliable, subject always to the larger context in which it has involved itself. There is a Kikuyu proverb: when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.
True enough, and if the grass just happens to be in the way. there’s not a lot the grass can do to help itself. But it at least has the sense not to ask one of the elephants to make it part of the battleground.
Perhaps the time will come when we really do have to make the big choice, and when we do both history and self-interest suggest that, for the next decade at least, it will probably be for America. But to pre-empt it as Gillard has done looks less like statesmanship than subservience.