"I think that the core values of the Australian people, the quality of life, the standard of living, the aspirations that Australians feel are very much in line with the way Americans think and act.
So our relationship is essential to both of us. That doesn't mean we won't have relationships with others, but it does mean that this will remain the core partnership."
- Hillary Clinton, reported in the SMH, 9th Nov.
How nice. Ms Clinton seems to think that the United States and Australian relationship is somehow one of the US's "core partnerships". Something however doesn't quite add up here thought. Namely, why is it that Hilary Clinton of all people is the one to say that the US-Oz relationship is a "core partnership"? If it really was so important, wouldn't it have been the President himself to say that?
I think back to those heady days of May, before Ms Gillard became Prime Minister:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/barack-obama-to-visit-australia-in-june/story-e6frg6nf-1225867141364
US President Barack Obama's postponed visit to Australia has been rescheduled for June 18, featuring an address to parliament and a weekend in Sydney.
This means to say that even before Ms Gillard became Prime Minister, Mr Obama had already reneged on a promise to come to Australia. Sadly this wasn't even the first time this had happened:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/02/2807308.htm
US President Barack Obama and his family will visit Australia in late March, the White House has confirmed.
...
Mr Rudd initially invited Mr Obama to Australia when he was last in Washington in late November.
Let me get this straight: The then PM Kevin Rudd invited Mr Obama to visit Australia all the way back in November of 2009. Now obviously Christmas seems to have gotten in the way and he was supposed to arrive in March. That didn't work out and he was then supposed to arrive in June. That also work out and so he sent Hillary to arrive in his place.
I ask you, does this sound like the actions of a leader or a nation who truly believes in the existence of a "core partnership"? Perhaps this is similar to the idea of Mr Howard's "non-core promises", in that a "core partnership" must be something which can be ignored easily.
Certainly that's true of the American people because many American citizens think that the US Government ignores them as well. Perhaps there there is a grain of truth to what Ms Clinton says. When she says that "the aspirations that Australians feel are very much in line with the way Americans think and act". We both think that the US Government ignores us when it is convenient.
I think that if Australia wanted to be more important to the United States then we need to move on from our "core partnership" and move to a new "hard core partnership". We could start by charging rent on all the land occupied by US Military bases as part of this so called "core partnership", because you're not hard core unless you live hard core and the legend of the rent is way hard core... partnership.
No comments:
Post a Comment