Australia news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      We shouldn’t forget which Australian commentators carried water for Trump | Jason Wilson

      by

      Now that Donald Trump has gone, what will his ride-or-die supporters in Australian media do? How will they “own the libs” when the libs have their hand at the tiller? Whose ideas will they crib as US conservatism falls deeper into a post-Trump fugue?
      The recent output of high-profile Australian Trumpists suggests that the solution will be to gradually back away from Trump himself, even as they double down on aspects of the Trumpist movement.
      That’s necessary because, even for the diehards and the know-nothings, since the 6th of January, Trump the man has revealed himself to be a spectacularly toxic liability.
      He departed, according to Gallup’s numbers, as the least popular US president in the history of opinion polling: he had the lowest average approval rating over the life of his presidency and, unlike every other president since Roosevelt, he never enjoyed majority approval.
      Most of his lame duck period was spent trying to overturn the election he lost, culminating in his incitement of a mob that stormed the Capitol building in DC. More than 100 people are facing federal charges, with prosecutors alleging some intended “to capture and assassinate elected officials”.
      Canny as ever, GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell conceded, a day before Trump left the White House, that that crowd was “fed lies” and “provoked” by Trump.
      Trump spent the balance of his time since the election indulging in, on the one hand, an execution spree in federal prisons and, on the other, handing out pardons to cronies or mercenaries who wantonly murdered Iraqi citizens.
      It seems likely that state attorneys general and federal prosecutors alike will be jostling each other to serve him subpoenas and summonses.
      And a defanged, de-platformed Trump can’t even prosecute his case in the court of public opinion.
      So what’s a branch office culture warrior to do? Defending Trump directly would not only telegraph their moral bankruptcy but demand the kind of ingenuity that subsidised rightwing media neither demands nor rewards. If defending Trump is beyond the powers of a McConnell, it’s surely beyond the likes of a Sky News host?
      Some Australian conservatives simply sprinted from the blast area following the Capitol assault. Former US ambassador and treasurer Joe Hockey, who golfed with Trump through the Muslim ban, Charlottesville, the separation of children from parents, and the Covid-19 disaster, did well enough in his appointed role to earn a reputation as a “Trump whisperer”. But the riot, apparently, was too much to stomach. Hockey was, now, “appalled at the behaviour and incitement” of Trump, his family and his camp followers.
      Hockey followed up with an op-ed in the Nine newspapers which opined that “Biden’s calm but firm response to the attack on the Capitol is the leadership that most Americans want.”
      Perhaps the Capitol violence brought about an authentic change of heart for Hockey. Or perhaps he’s concerned about who will now be buttering his bread. His DC lobbying firm, Bondi Partners – staffed with cherry-picked Australian diplomatic talent – can no longer pitch the possibility of Hockey buttonholing Trump on the links.
      In the less rarefied air of Holt Street, Greg Sheridan also rapidly turned on Trump. Throughout last year’s election campaign, Sheridan held out the prospect of a Trump victory, claiming on 1 November that the “genuine authoritarian threat” came from Biden supporters, since his campaign was backed with the threat of “a plague of violent riots all through the big cities from people who won’t accept democracy if it yields Trump.”
      As late as 14 November, Sheridan was arguing that Trump offered a series of important lessons to conservatives around the world, including that “nationalism and patriotism are powerful forces that galvanise voters in a positive direction”.
      When nationalism and patriotism galvanised voters in the direction of sacking a federal building in order to overturn the election result, Sheridan dropped them like so many hot yams. Suddenly, the deplorables he had previously celebrated as “Trump’s liberty-loving base” were depicted as “clowns, thugs and street-fighting fascists”.
      For those who over-indexed on the president and his movement, and who cannot cut him loose quite so cleanly, it makes some sense to imagine the possibility of Trumpism without Trump. Enter James Morrow, whose work is difficult to talk about without courting paradox: its signature tone can only be described as low-energy histrionics.
      Morrow has shamelessly barracked for Trump both on Sky News and in the Daily Telegraph, and like all such rightwing Trumpists in Australia, he has done so safe in the knowledge that Trump’s failures, such as his catastrophic mismanagement of the pandemic, will never have any effect on him.
      As the quick spread of coronavirus among White House staff and cronies in October amply showed, those who spruiked for Trump in the United States at least had skin in the game.
      A week ago, in a column addressing the fallout from the Capitol riots, Morrow wrote that “while it is a long bow to say Trump incited the incident (he in fact tried to calm protesters down), it is also true that his conduct since the election will forever mar his achievements from Middle East peace to wage growth.”
      This dead-ender nonsense might be worth a chuckle if it didn’t erase the suffering and death of hundreds of thousands, and the way that Trump and his enablers bequeathed so many domestic and foreign policy nightmares to Biden.
      In the Middle East, Trump simply gave carte blanche to longstanding US clients like Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He approved – and even boasted of – a series of massive arms deal with the kingdom, raking in another half a billion dollars’ worth of blood money in the dying days of his administration.
      Saudi Arabia will use some of these weapons in their ongoing war on their neighbours in Yemen, where 13 million people are at imminent risk of starvation.
      In another parting blow on 10 January, Mike Pompeo declared the kingdom’s enemies, the Houthis, a terrorist group, which will make it even harder to provide them with aid. The Financial Times editorial board – hardly a den of communists – described this as “a cynical effort to scupper Mr Biden’s ability to ease Middle East crises and reset US policy”.
      And whatever wage growth there may have been has been wiped out by the cratering of employment, in an economy whose destruction was hastened by Trump’s fecklessness and lies (remember when he told people to inject bleach?)
      On Thursday Morrow offered a piece of whataboutism that laid much responsibility for what Biden calls America’s “uncivil war” not on conservative media outlets and United States senators who encourage the baseless belief that the November election was stolen, but on “radical campus politics … violent demonstrations in American cities that were often dismissed as ‘mostly peaceful protests’ [and] social media platforms doing everything they can to silence conservative voices”.
      Having read that, it was diverting to see Morrow in the same article criticising the prose style of Biden’s inauguration speech.
      It’s embarrassing, of course, that this kind of commentary occupies such a prominent place in Australia’s national political discussion. But it’s just one example of the kind of thing that would have no home, and no constituency, without the active subsidy of News Corporation. That company’s role, over decades, in bringing us the disaster of Trumpism cannot be overstated.
      From my place in the US, which I have not been able to safely leave for a year due to an unchecked pandemic, I can say unambiguously that the Trump administration was incompetent, racist and corrupt from the moment it was sworn in, as many predicted it would be. We shouldn’t forget which Australian commentators carried water for a disastrous presidency until the second that it became inconvenient to be seen to do so.
      We shouldn’t let them forget, either. More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Renewing the alliance: the Biden administration and what it means for Australia

      by

      Donald Trump’s final day in office has sparked fresh political debate in Australia about whether Scott Morrison allowed himself to get too close to the outgoing US president. But the focus will soon shift to building bridges with the incoming Joe Biden administration.What will the new administration mean for Australia when it comes to renewing the alliance, navigating tensions with a rising China, dealing with a newly ambitious US approach to climate policy, working together on global trade rules and reforming global bodies?Renewing the allianceBiden and his top advisers have made clear he will restore a more conventional relationship with allies such as Australia – turning the page on Trump’s “America First” approach that was often seen as prioritising the outgoing president’s own instincts and preferences over coordination with partners.Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, has made positive noises about working with the Australian government. He has said Biden would be “eager to develop a really strong relationship” with Morrison. Regardless of any political or policy differences, Sullivan predicts Biden and Morrison will “get off to a strong start” because the former vice-president sees Australia as the kind of partner central to finding successful strategies on a wide range of global issues.That coordination will be helped by the fact that a number of Biden’s senior cabinet appointees and other nominees to key positions are well known to the Australian government. For example, Australia’s foreign minister, Marise Payne, has met and worked with Biden’s secretary of state nominee, Antony Blinken, in the past.But the opposition Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, has chided Morrison for not meeting any senior Democrats when he visited the US in 2019 and has argued the incoming administration will have noticed the prime minister’s failure to forcefully condemn Trump for his role in inciting the deadly riots at the US Capitol.Morrison hit back on Wednesday, telling 2GB radio: “If people want to have a crack at me because I worked with the president of the United States, well I think that reflects more on them than me.” He said the alliance was bigger than personalities and would endure: “Whoever the prime minister is and whoever the president is, it’s important that … both of us steward that relationship for the benefit of both of our countries.”Navigating tensions with a more powerful ChinaMorrison has predicted the arrival of the Biden administration could change some of the “atmospherics” in the tense relationship between the US and China. The US-China relationship is seen in Canberra as one of the biggest drivers of the dynamics in our region, so the government will be watching closely. That comes as the Australian government seeks to navigate its own rocky ties with China.Australian officials are pleased with the incoming Biden administration’s signals about greater coordination with allies on issues such as China. While Australian government insiders cite elements of coordination during the Trump administration – and the revitalisation of the Quad that also includes Japan and India – Australia would welcome the prospect of constructive talks on strategy.Still, there is not likely to be any major change in America’s posture of competition with China, given the new bipartisan consensus in Washington for a hard line on Beijing. Blinken may seek to carve out areas of cooperation: he has foreshadowed trying to work with China on issues such as climate change, dealing with health emergencies and preventing the spread of dangerous weapons. But he has also said the US needs to take steps to “deter aggression if China pursues it” and that “we are in a competition with China”. In a Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Blinken backed outgoing secretary of state Mike Pompeo’s declaration that China has committed genocide against Uighurs in the Xinjiang region.The Australian government is pleased with some of the key picks who will be influential in shaping China policy, including Kurt Campbell, who served as Barack Obama’s assistant secretary of state for east Asian and Pacific affairs and was responsible for the US pivot to Asia. Campbell will serve on Biden’s national security council (NSC) as coordinator for the Indo-Pacific.In an article he co-wrote for Foreign Affairs earlier this month, Campbell called for an Indo-Pacific strategy that incorporated “the need for a balance of power; the need for an order that the region’s states recognise as legitimate; and the need for an allied and partner coalition to address China’s challenge to both”.Campbell criticised China over “South China Sea island building, East China Sea incursions, conflict with India, threats to invade Taiwan, and internal repression in Hong Kong and Xinjiang” and said: “This behaviour, combined with China’s preference for economic coercion, most recently directed against Australia, means that many of the order’s organising principles are at risk.”Jake Sullivan, the incoming national security adviser, has reached out to Australia by sending a signal of support in December amid the storm over a Chinese official’s tweet about Australia and a series of trade actions against Australian export sectors.The Australian people have made great sacrifices to protect freedom and democracy around the world. As we have for a century, America will stand shoulder to shoulder with our ally Australia and rally fellow democracies to advance our shared security, prosperity, and values.— Jake Sullivan (@jakejsullivan) December 2, 2020
      Dealing with US pivot on climate actionClimate will be an area that will be tricky for the Australian government to navigate, given it has so far resisted calls to formally commit to net zero emissions by 2050.Former US secretary of state John Kerry will be at the centre of efforts to push countries to lift their level of ambition, having been named as Biden’s special presidential envoy for climate. Biden will act quickly to reverse Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement and has vowed to put the US on an irreversible course to net zero emissions by 2050.Sullivan has foreshadowed some difficult conversations with allies regarding climate action – reflecting the importance Biden has placed on helping to spur more ambitious global action. Sullivan has said while Biden would hold heavy emitters such as China accountable for doing more “he’s also going to push our friends to do more as well” because everyone needs to “up their game”. Biden would be respectful with allies, Sullivan said, “but he’s not going to pull any punches on it”.To date, Morrison has played down the appearance of a split on climate policy. Speaking to reports about the initial post-election congratulatory call he had with Biden in November, Morrison said the “specific matter” of a target of net zero emissions by 2050 was not discussed, but he had raised the similarity of their policies on emissions reduction technology.But in remarks since the US election, and after a growing number of Australia’s trading partners committed to the 2050 goal, Morrison has sounded more positive about net zero, arguing Australia aspired to get there “as quickly as possible”. He has also pivoted on Kyoto carryover credits.Trade and economic issuesAustralia will be hoping for a return to predictability on trade and economic issues. Trump caused consternation with allies such as Australia by inking a “phase 1” trade deal with Xi Jinping in early 2020 that committed China to buy vast quantities of goods from the US. That has been likened to a purchasing agreement rather than something consistent with global trading rules. Trump also forced allies to negotiate exemptions on tariffs on steel and aluminium.The Biden team is likely to work with Australia and other countries on seeking reform of the World Trade Organization. Campbell’s Foreign Policy piece said the Biden administration “should pursue bespoke or ad hoc bodies focused on individual problems, such as the D-10 proposed by the United Kingdom (the G-7 democracies plus Australia, India, and South Korea).” Such coalitions, Campbell said, would be “most urgent for questions of trade, technology, supply chains, and standards”.But there is unlikely to be any swift return of the US to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Pacific rim trade pact that Australia and Japan helped rescue after Trump pulled out.MultilateralismAustralian officials are also looking forward to working with the US in multilateral forums. Trump’s instinct was to retreat from such bodies – and Morrison has previously given a nod to such views with his previous speech on “negative globalism”. But the government made clear, after an audit last year, that it would step up its level of engagement in global bodies while seeking reform to ensure they are as effective as possible. Australian officials welcome the understanding from the Biden team that multilateral and big organisations can bring frustrations and take time, but walking away from the space is not the answer. More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Scott Morrison suggests Donald Trump’s comments before US Capitol riot were ‘incredibly disappointing’

      by

      The Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, has suggested comments by Donald Trump that encouraged an insurrectionist mob to storm the US Capitol were “incredibly disappointing” and led to a “terrible” outcome.
      In his first media outing since returning from a week’s holiday, Morrison distanced himself from the outgoing US president, noting the two weren’t friends before he became prime minister.
      Morrison on Monday also downplayed suggestions that deaths among some “very aged” people who took the Pfizer vaccine in Norway could impact Australia’s rollout.
      Earlier in January, Morrison said he hoped for a peaceful transfer of power in the US as he condemned rioters for “terribly distressing” acts of violence in storming the Capitol building.
      But the Liberal leader stopped short of criticising Trump for encouraging the crowd to travel to Washington DC, and for later describing them as “very nice people”. His reluctance to admonish Trump earned Morrison a rebuke from his predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull, who said his response was “tepid”.

      Scott Morrison
      (@ScottMorrisonMP)
      Very distressing scenes at the US Congress. We condemn these acts of violence and look forward to a peaceful transfer of Government to the newly elected administration in the great American democratic tradition.

      January 6, 2021

      The acting prime minister, Michael McCormack, managed firmer criticism of Trump, last week describing the president’s refusal to concede defeat and his inflammatory tweets as “unfortunate”.
      On Monday, Morrison told 2GB he had spoken to president-elect Joe Biden “not long after” the election and Australia had done work “behind the scenes” to engage with like-minded countries about the transition in the US.
      “America is going through a very terrible time at the moment – but [we’re] looking forward to the country uniting and moving on from these terrible last few months and particularly these last few weeks,” Morrison said.
      He distanced himself from Trump, saying he had “worked closely” with him as prime minister but countered suggestions they were friends, observing he didn’t know Trump before he became prime minister.
      Morrison described events in the US as “deeply distressing” and recent “actions” as “very disappointing”.
      Pressed if he thought Trump’s actions were disappointing, he said: “I’ve echoed the comments of other leaders about those things. I think it was very disappointing that things were allowed to get to that stage.
      “The things that were said, that it encouraged others to come to the Capitol and engage in that way, were incredibly disappointing, very disappointing, and the outcomes were terrible.”
      Morrison said it was not for him to “provide lectures to anybody” but it was important for the American people to come together behind their “elected president” and continue as a close friend and strong ally of Australia. “We look forward to working with president Biden and his whole team.”
      During a trip to the US in 2019, Morrison attended a Trump rally in Wapakoneta, Ohio, and praised Trump’s political priorities, expressing a view that the pair “share a lot of the same views”.
      In December, Trump awarded Morrison, and the prime minister accepted, a legion of merit, America’s highest military honour.
      Morrison on Monday also addressed reports of potential adverse reactions to the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in Norway, where authorities said they could not rule out the vaccine had contributed to the deaths of patients with severe underlying disease.
      Morrison said the cases were “distressing” but downplayed the incidence of adverse reactions among “the total volume of vaccinations that have been provided”.
      He said the people “who have sadly passed away – they’re very aged people, they were in the last phases of life and very frail”.
      “This can happen with vaccinations. We know that,” Morrison said.
      “That’s why it’s important we’re very careful – people know my view on the vaccines has always been safety first, health first. Let’s make sure they’re right, all the i’s are dotted and the t’s crossed, then we can give the tick and then people can safely get the jab.”
      Morrison said Australia’s rollout would proceed “patiently but as expeditiously as we responsibly can”. More

    • 175 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump 'penned political suicide note' at every Covid press conference, former Australian PM says

      by

      The former Australian prime minister John Howard has said Donald Trump penned a lengthy “political suicide note” with his “terrible” handling of the coronavirus pandemic, without which the Republican would have prevailed against Joe Biden.Howard, who led a conservative Coalition government for nearly 12 years, made the remarks on Wednesday night during a question and answer session at the Menzies Research Centre at the conclusion of a lecture delivered by the former National party leader John Anderson.“If Donald Trump had handled the pandemic half-decently he would have won the election,” Howard said.“He was headed towards a victory until the pandemic hit. It was his mishandling of that because, in the end, the public, when threatened, want their leaders to defend them against the threat.”Howard said competent public health responses had increased the popularity of political leaders across Australia.“That’s why Scott Morrison has very high approvals, Gladys Berejiklian has, our friend [Mark McGowan] in Western Australia has, and even our friend in Victoria [Daniel Andrews] is surviving – he’s more than surviving, politically, he is quite perpendicular at the present time,” the former Liberal leader said. “Now part of that is a perception that difficult as it all was, and so forth, he got the show through.”Howard noted that Andrews, the Labor premier in Victoria, had been “open to a lot of political attack”.“I know this is not a political occasion so I shouldn’t join in that attack,” he said.“But I think there’s something to be said for the proposition – and this is an optimistic thing in a way – that the side of politics in America that embraced identity politics far more, namely the Democratic party side, sure Biden won, but given how appallingly Trump handled the pandemic how could he not win?“Every time [Trump] had a news conference he was penning a political suicide note.”Howard, Australia’s prime minister from 1996 to 2007, said Trump’s handling of the pandemic was “terrible” but still the Republicans did “far better than many people expected” in Congress.Anderson’s lecture to the Liberal-aligned thinktank on Wednesday night railed against “wokeness” and identity politics.Despite Biden’s resounding victory both in the electoral college and the popular vote, Howard said he detected a backlash in “middle America” which prevented the Democrats from gaining control of the legislature.“I draw a little bit of encouragement from that, not in a partisan sense – I am more sympathetic to the Republicans than I am to the Democrats – but I think probably there was a middle America rejection to be found in that election outcome, notwithstanding the fact that [Biden] won and I think you are starting to see it reflected in Biden’s choice of people who will serve in his administration – they are not as leftwing and embracing of political correctness as you might expect.”Anderson agreed with Howard’s thesis and declared the media in Australia and the US were preoccupied with characterising Trump as a “terrible person” rather than analysing his policies.The former Nationals leader and deputy prime minister did not reflect on Trump’s habitual lying while in office or the scandals that ultimately defined his presidency.Anderson noted that an “astonishing” number of Americans voted for Trump despite the mismanagement of Covid-19. Howard said in response to that observation: “He did have a number of flaws.”And Anderson said the looming runoff election in the state of Georgia was “a very important runoff for the globe – I mean what happens in American politics at this point in history is probably as important to us as what happens here”.“I’m so motivated by what I see as the real potential for us to lose our freedoms,” Anderson said. “I’m so despairing at our lack of, am I allowed to say, manning up.”After deciding he should instead say “humanising up” – “there’s a touch of wokeism in everyone” – Anderson concluded by stating that when it came to the defence of freedom “it’s all hands to the wheel”. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      UK and US lock in behind Australia in China row

      by

      The British government has vowed to stand with Australia to “protect our key interests and values” and push back at “disinformation” amid a deepening rift in Canberra’s relationship with Beijing.The American ambassador to Australia also accused a Chinese foreign ministry official of spreading “disinformation through fabricated images and disingenuous statements” about Australia.The United Kingdom and the United States are the latest countries to speak out in support of Australia, after France and New Zealand criticised China over an official tweeting a digitally-created image depicting an Australian soldier cutting the throat of a child in Afghanistan.China has accused Australia of overreacting to the tweet and hyping the issue for domestic political purposes.When asked about the tweeted image, a spokesperson for the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office told the Guardian the foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, “has made clear we will always stand shoulder to shoulder with Australia to make sure that we protect our key interests and values”.“Disinformation is an issue we take extremely seriously and we will continue to coordinate closely with Australia and other international partners to ensure our citizens are protected,” the spokesperson said.The Guardian understands the British government believes that China, as a leading member of the international community, should live up to the obligations that come with that. It views the tweeted image as clearly fake and deeply concerning.When asked in the House of Commons last month about China’s escalating trade actions against Australia, Raab indicated he had regular exchanges with the Australian foreign minister, Marise Payne, and expressed “solidarity”.Raab said the UK was also working alongside Australia and the other Five Eyes partners – the US, Canada and New Zealand – on issues such as the crackdown on pro-democracy movements in Hong Kong.The US ambassador to Australia, Arthur Culvahouse, responded to questions from the Guardian by saying the Australian government had “responsibly investigated and disclosed allegations that its soldiers committed crimes in Afghanistan”.“The world can only wish that the Chinese Communist party were to bring the same degree of transparency and accountability to credible reports of atrocities against the Uighurs in Xinjiang,” Culvahouse, who was appointed by Donald Trump, said in an emailed statement on Wednesday.Those sentiments were backed by the US State Department’s deputy spokesperson, Cale Brown, who described the Afghanistan tweet as “a new low, even for the Chinese Communist party”.The CCP’s latest attack on Australia is another example of its unchecked use of disinformation and coercive diplomacy. Its hypocrisy is obvious to all. While it doctors images on @Twitter to attack other nations, the CCP prevents its own citizens from reading their posts.— Cale Brown (@StateDeputySPOX) December 2, 2020
      The Florida senator Marco Rubio wrote to the chief executive of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, to ask why the tweet had not been taken down. A Twitter spokesperson has previously said the image contained within the tweet had been “marked as sensitive media”, meaning it is hidden behind a warning message by default.On Tuesday, Scott Morrison turned to the popular Chinese social media platform WeChat to reach out to the Chinese Australian community.The prime minister sought to make clear that the escalating tensions between the two governments – which led last week to the imposition of hefty tariffs on Australian wine – were not a reflection on Chinese Australians.Morrison wrote that “the post of a false image of an Australian soldier does not diminish our respect for and appreciation of our Chinese Australian community or indeed our friendship with the people of China”.The prime minister said the “difficult issues” that had arisen in the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force’s report into alleged war crimes by special forces soldiers in Afghanistan were being dealt with in a “transparent and honest way”.Earlier this week, when he demanded an apology from the Chinese government over the tweet by Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian, Morrison said the dispute was broader than just the two countries, and that other nations were watching.Zhao’s tweet seized on the findings of a recent report from a four-year official investigation into the conduct of Australian special forces soldiers in Afghanistan, known as the Brereton report.Another Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, Hua Chunying, held up the front page of the Brereton report at Tuesday’s regular press briefing in Beijing as she declared that the “computer-generated graphic” was not a case of disinformation.“The Australian side … is under immense criticism and condemnation from the international community for the ruthless killing of Afghan innocents by some of its soldiers, but the Australian side wants to turn that into a tough-on-China position,” Hua said.The Chinese embassy in Canberra urged the Australian government to “face up to the crux of the current setback of bilateral relationship and take constructive practical steps to help bring it back to the right track”.“The rage and roar of some Australian politicians and media is nothing but misreading of and overreaction to Mr Zhao’s tweet,” an embassy spokesperson said.The former senior Australian foreign affairs official Richard Maude told the Guardian on Tuesday there was no end in sight to the rift in the relationship with Beijing, and it was a “pretty lonely and tough battle for a middle power to be in on its own”.“What we really need is enough countries to be willing to publicly take a stand,” Maude said.Australia and China have been at odds over a number of issues over the past few years, including the Turnbull government’s decision to exclude Chinese telcos Huawei and ZTE from Australia’s 5G network and its introduction of foreign interference laws that were seen as targeting China’s activities.But the relationship deteriorated sharply in April when the Morrison government issued an early call for an independent international inquiry into the origin and handling of Covid-19 and floated the idea of international weapons inspector-style powers for pandemic investigations.It triggered a furious reaction from Beijing, which has subsequently taken trade actions against a range of Australian exports including barley, red meat and wine, citing technical grounds. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Scott Morrison's climate language has shifted – but actions speak louder than words

      by

      Scott Morrison’s language about Australia adopting an emissions reduction target of net zero by 2050, and about climate action more generally, is starting to warm up. The recent shift in the prime minister’s language invites two questions: is there a pivot under way, and is the shift real?The story so farWe know the Coalition’s history on climate policy. The Abbott government repealed Labor’s climate price, attempted to gut the Renewable Energy Target and abolish agencies driving a transition to low emissions energy. Morrison while treasurer brandished a lump of coal in the parliament, telling his opponents not to be “scared”. For much of this year, the Coalition has ignored persistent entreaties from environmentalists and major business groups to adopt a target of net zero emissions by 2050 (at the latest), and to use the economic recovery from Covid-19 to lock in the transition to low emissions. Morrison has never ruled out adopting a net zero target but has created the impression the government wasn’t interested – an impression reinforced by the government’s declaration that it would pursue a “gas-led recovery” after the pandemic.When and why did the language change?In the couple of weeks before the US presidential election on 3 November, Japan, China and South Korea adopted pledges taking them closer to net zero. Morrison also had a private conversation with the British prime minister, Boris Johnson, in which net zero was raised. Leaders were anticipating the likely election of Joe Biden. The Democrat had promised to end the backsliding of the Trump era and revitalise international climate negotiations, starting with bringing the US back into the Paris deal. Biden’s appointment of John Kerry as his climate envoy after winning the election is a further signal of seriousness. From the moment Biden was projected as the likely winner, Morrison’s language began to change. It became noticeably warmer. Morrison now says Australia wants to “reach net zero emissions as quickly as possible”.What about 2030?Before we get to 2050, Australia has an emissions reduction target for 2030, and the government will be under pressure to update that commitment with a higher level of ambition in the next round of international climate talks.Australia’s current target is a 26%-28% cut below 2005 levels, and the government has been planning to meet that (not very ambitious) target using carryover credits from the Kyoto period. Official government emissions projections released in December last year found Australia was not on track to meet the 2030 target unless it used the credits. Australia’s use of the Kyoto-era concessions has been strongly opposed by a large number of nations in international climate discussions, and experts say there is no legal basis for their use under the Paris agreement.After Biden’s victory, Morrison used a speech to business leaders to signal, hey presto, magic happens: Australia might not deploy the accounting trick to help meet the 2030 target after all. The prime minister said: “My ambition is that we will not need them and we are working to this as our goal, consistent with our record of over-delivering.” The hint from Morrison was that new projections, expected to be released in December, will show Australia is on track to meet the promised cut without carryovers.How can that happen?In part, because the Australian government has not been great at forecasting future emissions and tends to substantially change its estimates each year.Estimating future emissions is difficult. Each year, officials make assumptions about what will happen in 50 areas of the economy and come up with projections of how much will be emitted. For more than a decade, they have significantly over-estimated how much CO2 the country will emit in the years ahead before revising down the projections, sometimes significantly.The biggest miscalculation has been in electricity generation. Renewable energy has come into the grid much faster than the government expected – the national 2020 renewable energy target was met ahead of time, state targets in Victoria and Queensland have started to have an impact and the cost of solar and wind energy continues to drop, making investment more attractive. Officials also overestimated how much grid electricity the country would use – demand has fallen, in part due to nearly a third of homes now having solar panels.For reasons that are not clear, the official projections have assumed there would be less renewable energy in the system than the models used by the Australian Energy Market Operator, which runs the power grid. Addressing this will bring future projections down.There are other anomalies. The projections do not factor in drought, which in recent years has reduced emissions from agriculture as farmers have had to substantially reduce cattle and sheep numbers.Officials last year revised down the emissions forecast for the next decade by 344m tonnes. If a similar readjustment were to happen this year, it could lead to the government saying it was now on track to meet its modest 2030 target without the carryover credits.Has anything else changed that could affect the projections?The only new policy of note from the Morrison government this year has been its low-emissions technology roadmap. Released in September, it claimed developing five new technologies could “avoid” 250m tonnes of emissions a year by 2040.There was been no explanation of how that number was reached, and with the arguable exception of “clean” hydrogen, the government has not yet committed significant new funding to develop the technologies. It is unclear how this policy could reasonably change the projections in a meaningful way.More noteworthy is that, while the federal government has tried to slow the influx of solar and wind by neither continuing nor replacing the renewable energy target, the states keep stepping in to fill the gap.The big one is the NSW plan to underwrite 12 gigawatts of new wind and solar over the next decade – a development that will be banked by Canberra as “progress” in terms of projected national emissions reductions, but also criticised by the federal energy minister, Angus Taylor, because it might bring forward the closure of coal plants, which is of course a necessary development if you are a government now wanting to trumpet a downward trend in emissions. You know it makes sense.Would a lower emissions forecast be good news?Lower emissions would, of course, be great. But if it happens it isn’t something we should get too excited about, for two reasons.The first should be pretty obvious – the government will not have actually done anything yet. These are projections, not actual emissions.Before Covid-19 hit, Australia’s national emissions remained stubbornly flat under the Coalition, having dipped only about 2% in the more than six years since it was elected. They will be lower this year due to the pandemic, but that is not something the government can claim credit for, and it may not continue.The second reason is, as mentioned above, Australia’s target is nothing to crow about. It was a fudge from the beginning. The size of the cut – 26%-28% – was just a lift of the US commitment under the Paris agreement, with one notable difference – the Obama administration promised that target for 2025, while the Australian government pushed it back to 2030.Getting to net zero emissions, as scientists say is necessary, isn’t just about the end goal. It’s about how much you emit as you get there. To play its fair part in meeting the goals of the Paris agreement, Australia can only emit so much over the next three decades.Advice to the government in 2015 suggested playing its part would require a cut equivalent to between 45% and 65% by 2030. A recent analysis by analysts at the Climate Action Tracker found Australia’s fair share over that timeframe was 66%. The current target does not get the job done.So will the government do more on climate?It is not impossible, but it is far from guaranteed.There will be pressure on Australia over the next year not only to set a target of net zero by 2050, but to go further by 2030 than promised. The US under Biden will be required to set a new target for that date and other major countries are expected to do the same. Dropping the plan to use carryover credits will not be enough to satisfy their expectations.Apart from saying we can meet our (lowball) 2030 target without a Kyoto-era accounting trick (cue applause) there’s no sign at the moment the government is working up a higher 2030 target. It is working on a long-term climate strategy, which was a commitment under the Paris agreement. It was due this year, but has been pushed back to before the next major climate summit in Glasgow late next year. It is expected, but not guaranteed, to include modelling of what future action on climate will mean for Australia.There are a couple of other policies in the works. The government has dumped a long-promised electric vehicle strategy and replaced it with the promise of a “future fuels” plan on hydrogen, electric and bio-fuelled vehicles, but it is not expected to deliver significant new commitments to accelerate an emissions cut.Potentially more significantly, it has also said it will look at the safeguard mechanism, a Tony Abbott-era policy that was supposed to limit emissions from big industrial sites. So far, the scheme has barely justified its existence. Companies have mostly just been allowed to increase their CO2 limit, known as a baseline, and pollute more.Presumably recognising this is not sustainable, the government earlier this year said it accepted a recommendation from a review headed by former Business Council of Australia president Grant King that the mechanism should be changed so that companies would be rewarded for cutting emissions below their baseline if they were undertaking “transformative” projects and not just producing less or shutting down. It sounds like a step back towards carbon pricing – rewarding cuts and, if the Coalition can stomach it, finally penalising increases in emissions.Would the government go back to carbon pricing?Morrison should use his political capital and his internal authority to drive a substantive change – but he won’t want to lose his job over it. Part of what’s going on with Morrison’s shift in language is the prime minister testing how much he can get away with: how positive can he sound about emissions reduction before the right of the Liberal party starts having a tantrum, or before the National party has a public meltdown because someone has whispered coal is not good for humanity after all? Think of Morrison as inching along a dimly lit ledge several stories above the ground.But the rest of the world isn’t waiting for the Coalition to get its act together. Action on emissions is picking up elsewhere and at some point Australia will have to deal with rising CO2 from big industry and transport. In the meantime, as the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO recently reported, climate change is already here and extreme weather events are getting worse. More

    • 213 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Trumpism will persist until we rekindle faith in people’s ability to reshape the world | Jeff Sparrow

      by

      About 70% of Republicans apparently believe the 2020 presidential election to have been neither free nor fair.That’s a big chunk of voters rejecting, on entirely bogus grounds, the legitimacy of the new president.And it’s not the first time either.From 2011, Donald Trump engendered support for his own tilt at the White House by questioning the legality of the Obama presidency. He built his political career upon the embrace of “birtherism”, a racist conspiracy that emerged during the election of 2008.Back then, rightwing blogs and talk radio shows claimed Obama was not a “natural-born citizen of the US”, and thus ineligible for office under Article Two of the constitution.A Harris Poll in 2010 found an astonishing 25% of respondents questioned Obama’s right to serve, as the birthers tried to persuade electoral college voters, the supreme court and members of the college to block his certification.More than any other figure, Trump brought that rejection of Obama’s legitimacy into the mainstream.“If he wasn’t born in this country, which is a real possibility …” he told NBC’s Today Show in 2011, “then he has pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics.”For the Tea Party movement and the Republican fringe, birtherism underpinned a rightwing conviction that Obama’s presidency represented a kind of coup.You don’t need to cry fraud to explain recent presidential electionsMind you, after the 2016 election, a significant proportion of Democrats thought the same about Trump’s victory.As David Greenberg notes, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter and John Lewis were among those who publicly labelled Trump “illegitimate”, elected only as the result of Russian meddling. Some Democrats blamed Vladimir Putin for the WikiLeaks release of the Podesta emails or suggested Russian social bots fixed the outcome; others falsely claimed that voting booths had been rigged or that Trump was in fact a “Manchurian candidate” employed in Putin’s service.For such people, Trump wasn’t merely an odious, rightwing demagogue. He was also an impostor, whose presence in the Oval Office signified systemic institutional failure.The refusal by Trump’s supporters to accept the 2020 result as genuine didn’t then come entirely from nowhere. Indeed, it’s been a long time since partisans of a defeated presidential candidate haven’t denounced the process that allowed their opponent to win.Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised.For years, surveys have revealed a massive and ongoing decline in trust in basic institutions, including those associated with democracy.In early 2020, for instance, the communications firm Edelman polled 34,000 people in 28 countries for its Trust Barometer report. It found a tremendous decrease in the public’s respect for institutions, with almost everywhere “government and media … perceived as both incompetent and unethical”.Fifty-seven percent of those surveyed believed the media to be “contaminated with untrustworthy information” and 66% did not expect government leaders “to successfully address our country’s challenges”.Even in Australia, one of the wealthiest and most secure nations in the world, more than half of people polled saw the system as failing them, and a large majority no longer possessed confidence in the media.We might think this cynicism would favour progressives, given the left’s longstanding critique of institutional power.But it’s not as simple as that.Obama won office because George W Bush had plunged America into permanent, unpopular wars. Trump triumphed in 2016 because he faced a weak opponent; he lost in 2020 when his response to Covid-19 revealed his utter ineptitude.In other words, you don’t need to cry fraud to explain recent presidential elections. You can understand the outcomes easily enough in terms of decisions by voters.But only if you acknowledge voters’ ability to make such decisions.Conspiracy theories proceed on an entirely different basis. They present ordinary people as gulls, the perpetual dupes of power; they suggest events unfold, always and everywhere, according to the will of hidden string pullers.Rather than asking why their candidate didn’t appeal to electors, the conspiracist looks for external manipulation – implicitly accepting that only the elite can make history.In different circumstances, a widespread cynicism about the existing institutions might propel a movement to deepen and widen participation in political affairs. Right now, however, it seems to be linked to a prevailing pessimism about democratic agency, one that can all too easily provide openings for authoritarian demagogues.Joe Biden takes office as the embodiment of American business-as-usual. Despite polling far more votes than Trump, he remains the ultimate insider, associated with many of the most consistently hated policies in recent years (from the Iraq war, which he championed, to mass incarceration, which he helped initiate).Not surprisingly, if you survey rightwing social media, you can see the new argument cohering at a frightening speed, with more and more accounts claiming that Biden was illegitimately foisted on honest Americans by a nefarious elite. Far-right agitators, many of whom had long since given up on Trump, have embraced the #stopthesteal campaign with enthusiasm, with the upcoming Million Maga march potentially bringing together motley white nationalist and fascist groups in what looks very much like an attempted reprise of the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally.Just as Trump’s rise inspired imitators elsewhere, we should expect the right’s narrative to spread internationally. Already, baseless allegations of electoral fraud have been echoed by Australian politicians – and it’s still early days yet.Trump might be gone but, until we can rekindle faith in ordinary people’s ability to reshape the world, Trumpism will remain very much with us. More

    • 263 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      It's not 'Trump derangement syndrome' to see that the US has to be good before it is great | Nick Bhasin

      by

      When Joe Biden was declared the winner of the US election over the weekend, I joined millions of my fellow Americans in their relief. The nightmare of the past four years was over. Donald Trump was done. I couldn’t be there in person but I retweeted a couple of things and hugged my family.
      But after an exhausting election week – “North Carolina’s blue, now it’s red, wait only 17 people in the state have voted, what is happening?!” – the question remains …
      How was it this close?
      How did millions of Americans look at four years of lying, spreading disinformation, exacerbating racial tensions, and downplaying and mismanaging a pandemic and say “more”?
      Turns out a quarter of a million dead from Covid just wasn’t that big a deal. Child separation? Not a problem. Democrats chose a compassionate, moderate, old white guy so no one would be scared off by identity politics and spooky “socialist” policies and 71 million people STILL said, “Nope. Give us the rich guy who’s in a lot of debt and pays no taxes and says that caravans of immigrants and thugs and animals will ruin our lives.”
      2016 wasn’t a fluke. It was an entrée. More people voted for Trump this time, and he increased his support among minorities if you believe exit polls, which I don’t because the polls – and the punditry based on them – were useless. They promised a decisive victory for Biden but Trump’s strategy of combining D-grade celebrity charisma and appealing to people’s basest instincts worked.
      As the famous saying goes, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but how your country can entertain you with a dark, ugly spectacle filled with chaos and emptiness.”
      In May of 2008, I met an American woman in Sydney who’d been living in the UK. She was a Harry Potter fan (always suspicious for an adult) and insisted that she’d never move back to the US because “that place is f**ked”.
      I was furious. I had just moved to Sydney and I wasn’t ready to throw my home country under the bus.
      Then in 2016 Donald Trump was elected president.
      Living abroad for the last 13 years has helped me appreciate the great things about my country (I’m also an Australian citizen). They were things I took for granted when I lived there – the energy and diversity of the cities, the geographical beauty, the Mexican food.
      But the flaws seem much, much worse. The mass shootings (that’s not a problem here); the lack of universal healthcare (we’ve got it); the climate change denialism (um … no comment); treating asylum seekers like criminals (no, Australia isn’t perfect). There’s something about American ideology that won’t allow these problems to be fixed or even convincingly addressed.
      The Trump administration wrapped up all of this and more into a bigoted package for its supporters – Trump never tried to be the president for the whole country – and stuck a big middle finger up to the rest of the world, which laughed in return. I’ve been living among the laughers. It’s not a good feeling.
      In four years of low points, one of the most personally wounding came in July of 2019, when Trump suggested that four progressive congresswomen (all women of colour, three US-born) go back to where they came from.
      With this classic battle cry for bigots, Trump and his supporters (including the Republican party – only four of their members joined the Democrats’ official rebuke) made it clear that I, the son of an immigrant from India and a Puerto Rican from New York, was not welcome. My family was not welcome.
      One of those congresswomen, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, was forced to remind the children of America that: “No matter what the president says, this country belongs to you. And it belongs to everyone.”
      For a lot of my country, those hurt feelings made me a snowflake crying lib tears. I had “Trump derangement syndrome”. I was taking him too seriously and literally – the President of the GD United States.
      I know we’re not supposed to focus on identity politics and cultural issues, but it’s episodes like this that make Kamala Harris’s ascension resonate. The first female vice-president. The first black vice-president. The first Indian vice-president. Not only do we belong. We can be in charge.
      Barring some catastrophe before 14 December, when election results are certified, America will try to move forward. Trump will do his best to make sure the transition proceeds with zero dignity for him or the country – he still hasn’t conceded and his 300 desperate lawsuits are still going forward, though many have been dismissed.
      But the damage he’s done will stay with us for some time. Republicans complicit in the degradation of the country’s character who kowtowed to Trump were re-elected. A QAnon believer will join Congress, as well as a certain other representative who relishes owning the libs.
      As most of the rest of world already knew, the myth of America as an incorruptible force for good in the world was due for dismantling. So in that sense, maybe Donald Trump has done the US a favour in showing us just how “normal” America is, no better than other countries that elect authoritarian populists with delusions of grandeur who encourage fear.
      And if we accept that, maybe we can start to make practical changes that help people and convince them that popular policies labelled as socialist by the right aren’t scary. Maybe we can start to dismantle another American myth – that everyone is better off on their own, free to get rich or sink into destitution. Maybe 2021 can be the beginning of a new era, when we acknowledge that we have to be good before we can be great.
      The 2020 election didn’t deliver the enormous repudiation America needed. It showed us how deeply divided we are. But a win is a win. Most of the country made the moral choice not to be represented by selfishness and hatred. And for now, that’s a reason to hope that America is a little less f**ked.
      • Nick Bhasin is a writer and editor. Follow him at @nickbhasin More