There’s a meme doing the rounds at the moment that accurately sums up the current political moment in the United States. In it a woman on a phone call urgently declares ‘can’t today. I’m busy watching the season finale of the United States’. Even by the standards of US politics, the last few weeks have been simply bonkers.
In quick succession, we’ve seen President Joe Biden’s disastrous debate performance, former president Donald Trump survive (thankfully) an assassination attempt and then the Democratic party rip down its standard bearer and replace him with Vice President Kamala Harris as the party’s presidential candidate. The United States has, seemingly, imported a bit of the hard-edged Westminster tradition of prime ministers being defenestrated by their colleagues ‘for the good of the party’.
It is without question that Biden made the right decision to step aside – a final selfless act from the second Catholic to serve as president. After five decades of service, the loss of his daughter, his son and his first wife, and a solid record of presidential achievement it was time to pass for Biden to pass the torch.
As Lenin said, ‘there are decades where nothing happens and then there are weeks where decades happen’. Now that the dust is settling and Harris and Trump square off against each other, it’s worth examining which candidate for president would be more in Australia’s interests and what impact, if any, their election would have on domestic politics here at home and in Australia’s near neighbourhood.
China looms large over not just Australia but the entire region and one thing that won’t change much is the US’ disposition towards its greatest economic and military competitor. Trump, in his first term, ramped up the anti-China and protectionist rhetoric to an almost unprecedented level, and placed tariffs on an estimated $US250 billion worth of Chinese imports. He is threatening to go much further if re-elected, even though economists are warning it could spark a global trade war and higher prices for consumers. Biden, though his public rhetoric and positioning was far more nuanced, left the Trump tariffs in place and further tightened the rules on the export of some American technology.
Harris is more to the left on the political spectrum than Biden on some key issues, but on China she is unlikely to soften the US administration’s approach significantly – the sprawling defence-industrial complex and the bipartisan congressional that China is a competitor, more than ally, will see to that. Which means that for Australia, in our government’s dealings with our giant northern neighbour, things are unlikely to change much and the US will remain a reliable ally.
A steady, or even growing US presence in the region will be welcomed by our near neighbours too – from the Philippines, Singapore, Japan, South Korea and Vietnam, who overtly welcome the United States presence as a strategic counterweight in the region, through to Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, none of whom will publicly praise a strong US presence in the region but who privately welcome it.
'While things could be a bit rockier at times, the impact of another Trump presidency on US-Australian relations would not automatically be a disaster... A Harris presidency, with a more internationalist bent and a stronger belief in the US network of alliances, would undoubtedly be preferable for Australia – though few, if any, politicians would be willing to say that publicly.'
Where the pair diverge is on the war in Ukraine. A president Harris – subject to congressional approval – would continue to support and supply Ukraine in its war against Russia, whereas Trump has made quite clear he would seek to end the war as soon as possible. Practically speaking, that could see a re-elected Trump stop supplying weapons to Ukraine to force them to the negotiating table to strike a deal with Russia. And while the war in Europe is a long way from Australia, what does matter is the signal that US disengagement sends to China – it leaves open the question of whether a Trump administration would stand by Taiwan in the event of an invasion, for example.
More broadly on trade in Australia’s region, neither Trump nor Harris are likely to sign up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership – Trump, after all, walked away from it when last in the White House – and both candidates are likely to maintain an America-first approach to trade. For Australia, another risk will be increased tariffs on goods such as steel – which we avoided in 2018 under Trump, after some deft lobbying from then-ambassador Joe Hockey – as a real possibility.
The AUKUS submarine and technology deal would most likely be secure under Harris, notwithstanding the difficulties it is already facing in terms of having the workforce to build additional submarines. Trump is generally well-disposed towards Australia but it’s not difficult to imagine a world in which he decides supplying allies with high tech weapons of war is not enough of an America-first approach.
A Harris presidency would ensure continuity, more broadly, in Australia-US relations as both countries would still have centre left leaders, but the impact of a Trump presidency is more difficult to measure. Trump got along well with Scott Morrison and less so, at least initially, with Malcolm Turnbull as Turnbull stood up to him over a refugee deal first struck with Barack Obama.
Albanese and Trump’s backgrounds couldn’t be more different – one grew up in social housing and didn’t even meet his father until after his mother died while the other grew up with a domineering property developer father. But over the 28 years he has been in parliament, Albanese’s firebrand Left faction rhetoric has been dialled down and he has become more politically pragmatic. Albanese would go out of his way to ensure good personal relations with Trump and point out that, for example, Australia is pulling its weight in terms of defence spending as a proportion of GDP, and in terms of two-way trade and investment – points that would be sit well with Trump.
So while things could be a bit rockier at times, the impact of another Trump presidency on US-Australian relations would not automatically be a disaster. Ambassador Kevin Rudd is reportedly already working hard to meet key figures in the Trump orbit, too, and recently hosted Morrison and Republicans including former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, former VP Mike Pence and Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway at the embassy in Washington for the launch of Morrison’s new memoir.
It remains to be seen whether the early surge in support for Harris can be sustained. The naming of a vice-presidential candidate and the forthcoming Democratic convention will give her a boost, but at present Trump has his nose in front.
A Trump presidency would present potentially significant challenges for the Australian government to manage, regardless of who the prime minister of the day is – especially since the second administration would have more true believers and fewer establishment Republicans in key posts - but those challenges have been managed before.
A Harris presidency, with a more internationalist bent and a stronger belief in the US network of alliances, would undoubtedly be preferable for Australia – though few, if any, politicians would be willing to say that publicly.
James Massola is National Affairs editor for The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, based in Canberra. He has previously been South-East Asia Correspondent, based in Jakarta, and Chief Political Correspondent in Canberra. He has also worked for the Canberra Times, the Australian, the Australian Financial Review, as assistant editor of Eureka Street and is a regular commentator on ABC radio and TV. He is also the author ofThe Great Cave Rescue about the Thai boys football team.
Main image: Kamala Harris and Donald Trump (Getty Images).