Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiPresident Bush recently traveled to Australia to thank conservative Prime Minister John Howard for making that country a member of the "coalition of the willing" -- U.S. allies in the occupation of Iraq.
Bush's trip was supposed to shore up Howard as national elections approached. Instead, the president planted what turned out to be a political kiss of death on his most willing accomplice.
When the votes from Down Under were counted Saturday, it was instantly clear that the vast majority of Australians are no longer willing to participate in the American president's misadventure in the Middle East.
Bush's "Australian poodle" is no longer in charge.
In fact, Howard has been so thoroughly rejected that he's likely to be out of Australian politics altogether.
After a landslide shift to the left by the Australian electorate, Howard -- who was every bit as nasty and gaffe-prone as his pal Dick Cheney -- will be replaced by a left-leaning intellectual who was elected on a platform that promised to withdraw his country's troops from Iraq and to develop a new foreign policy that will be more independent of the United States.
As in Spain, Italy and a number of other former "coalition of the willing" countries, the Australian electorate has effectively voted the troops home. Australia has only about 500 troops in Iraq, but that contingent is one of the larger of the non-U.S. "coalition" forces left in the country.
Australia's abandonment of the Iraq project is not the only change that is coming to the country that had, under Howard's leadership, been the steadiest U.S. ally of the Bush era.
The new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, will adopt a radically different approach from his predecessor's when it comes to global warming. Where Howard was one of Bush's few allies in international debates about climate change, Rudd promises to sign the Kyoto Protocol and to make Australia a greener and more pleasant land. (He'll be assisted by his Labour Party's point man on environmental issues: Peter Garrett, the longtime lead singer of the rock band Midnight Oil, a veteran anti-nuclear weapons campaigner who left the stage to become a member of parliament.)
So committed is Rudd to shifting his country's approach to climate change that the new prime minister is expected to lead Australia's delegation to the upcoming United Nations climate change conference in Bali.
Rudd is no radical. He's the mildest of socialists in what is today only a mildly socialist Labour Party. But compared to Howard, who followed the Bush line so slavishly, Rudd promises a welcome change of course for a nation that remains a significant player in the politics of the planet.
And Rudd has a mandate. After 11 years out of power, Labour went into Saturday's election with a 16-seat deficit in the parliament. It now has a majority of at least 22 seats over Howard's right-wing Liberal Party. Among the many prominent Liberals who appear to be headed for defeat is the prime minister, who acknowledged late Saturday that he is likely to become the first head of government to lose his own seat since 1929.
To understand the scale of the rejection of Howard -- who for 33 years represented the historically conservative seat for Bennelong in suburban Sydney -- imagine Bush losing in the Houston suburbs. Of course, recent surveys have consistently shown that a majority of Texans disapprove of the American president -- indeed, a July Survey USA poll found that 57 percent of the voters in Bush's home state object to his approach. So, perhaps, the only difference between Australia and America is that there was an election in Australia Saturday. Had there been one in the United States, it wouldn't just be the poodle who was tossed out -- the master would have gone, too.
© 2007 Capital Newspapers
10 Comments so far
Show AllAs for our government's treatment of First Nations, Métis and Inuit people, don't expect things to change with a "Reform" Prime Minister!
I'll have to reserve judgement on Rudd.
As a Canadian, my memory of our last "left-of-centre" PM (Paul Martin) is still too fresh. Chretien was further left, of course. But Canada has been moving to the right in recent years (from Chretien to Martin to Harper), at least the Ozzies appear to be gradually moving in the opposite direction.
The major parties in Oz are the "liberal" party - the conservative right-wing business party; and the "labour" party - traditionally an appendage of the trade unions.
Another source of confusion for the americans is that our right-wing party uses blue (as in royal blue-blood), and the left wing party is red (as in commies).
The real thing to be watching is the size of the primary vote for the green party. We use preferential voting here, which means that vou can vote on a minor party without "throwing your vote away" as in the US. As labour drifts further to the right, the green party is attracting a whole segment of the electorate.
Good on ya Ozzies! But please explain, how is it that archconservative Howard belongs to the Liberal Party? Shouldn't it be called the Neoliberal Party, meaning conservative party?
Good work you folks from "down under," and that goes for the South American initiatives aimed at spreading wealth around and improving conditions for all. This new pharaoh-ification of civilization into an elite group of have-alls against the vast majority of got nothings is NOT sustainable... not for Earth Mother, not for starving populations, not for awakened souls who live for just ideals; nor is it in harmony with Higher Law, which ultimately "wins."
Mr. Rudd has promised to apologize to the First Australians, but beyond using the word "Sorry" (which Mr. Howard refused to do -- what a clown!), it's all still up in the air.
Grimas: I heartily concur with your expressed hope - cleaning up after poodles that play with bushes is no easy chore. He is so blushingly embarrassing for sure.
As for Rudd, he may change Australia's direction vis a vis the Iraq war and the environment, but how will he act toward the much abused Aboriginals? The Canadian government is disgusting in its treatment of our First Nations peoples, Inuit and Metis, but the Australian Aboriginals are more marginalized than in nearly any other colonized country. Let's hope Rudd does not continue Howard's racist cruelty.
The free world has been on a trend toward "the wrong track" (as they say in the poll question) with Bush, Merkel, Harper and Sarkozy. Australia should be celebrated for starting to put the trend in reverse, and America should be the "big next."
We should take note, though, of the author's assessment of Rudd as being "no radical" and the "mildest of socialists."
That's how Australia is getting change, and that's the only way America will get it as well---IF we get change at all.
Some of us would like a straight jump to Kucinich.
Can't be done. Obama or Clinton are possibilities, and we desperately need one of them to continue what Australians have wisely started after seeing the light from their end of the world.
We need to organize a reunion for Aznar, Tony Bliar, Bush, Cheney, and Howard at The Hague. I hear Slobodan Milosevic's jail cell is available.
And maybe we can get rid of the "Canadian Poodle" Harper, before too much more damage is done. He is nothing but an embarrassment.