>
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/EL20Dh03.html
>
John Howard has perhaps the sharpest political skills of any politician I have ever witnessed --- "political" in the sense of gaining power and retaining it.
However, I do not agree with the rosy tone of the conclusion ---
"John Howard's decision on how to support the US avoided damaging what he clearly believes to be Australia's most important relationship. It is his belief that there exists an unshakable common ideal between Australian national interests and US foreign and security policies. In his words it is "a relationship that, although expressed in security terms, really expresses shared values and shared ideals between two societies". Yet in the end, he made a decision that was based as much upon domestic political considerations."
--- unless the "considerations" alluded to here include an agreement to formally discuss (for the first time) a US-Australian "free trade" deal. Any such deal is, as I've said in the past, is not that attractive to US capitalists_in_general_, as they have never had anything other than a trade surplus with Australia, which has also had minimal tariffs since the late 1980s. (One possible exception would be US TV companies, which have been pushing for the removal of regulations requiring stations to show a certain amount of locally-produced material.) Whereas (if it comes off), such a deal will greatly assist Aust farmers and agribusiness --- one of Howard's key support bases --- not to mention all other exporters. Negotiations on the deal began while the first phase of the war was still in progress, if I remember rightly.
It's a win-win situation for Howard, because, if the deal _doesn't_ come off, his supporters can play the nationalist card and blame the "greedy Yanks".
regards,
Grant.