Election Questions

# Is John Howard's close relationship with the Bush administration a net positive or negative?

It works both ways.

Positive in the sense Australia is 'flavour of the month' with the US administration and a lot of the American public. Whether this translates into any tangible benefit above and beyond security issues is a moot point.

Negative because Howard's 'lap dog' approach makes it difficult for us to be critical (in the nicest possible way) of the US and its policies. We seem to be so instep with the US administration it's hard to tell the difference between the two organisations' foreign policies.

No matter what you think about us going into Iraq, we're there now and it's going to be difficult to leave without negative fallout. We need to be strong enough in our convictions to withdraw if it's in the national interest.

(I'm also worried about the health of our more rabid right wing bloggers if we leave Iraq!)

# Does the obvious hostility between the Bush administration and Australia's Labor opposition concern you?

No. Not enough to effect my vote.

Hopefully, both administrations will be gone by the end of the year. No problem then.

If that doesn't happen, in the long term it won't make much difference. Mutual interest will prevail.

The Americans are even talking to the French now that they need the UN to mandate the new Iraqi government.

# Is the state of the relationship (US-Australia) important enough to sway your vote at the federal election?

Yes.

I think the current Federal Government is far too compliant in the relationship. I'll vote Labor because I think the relationship will be more even handed under a Labor administration.

# Do you think, now that the dust has settled, that US-Australia relationship was the main reason for our involvement in the action in Iraq?

No.

I think we are led by a man who craves to be on the big stage. Australia is, in global terms, a backwater. Howard wants to play with the big boys. Iraq was a vehicle to satisfy those cravings.

I remember a 'Four Corners' ABC TV program some months ago that indicated we weren't actually asked by the US to be involved. We came knocking at the door, wanting to be let in.

The US invaded Iraq because it wanted to, not because we said we'll be in it.

# Was this sufficent reason for our involvement?

Of course not. Iraq had no proven links to terrorism, no WMDs, and posed no direct threat to the US or Australia.

If Iraq did threaten or attack the US, then we would've been bound to assist under the obligations of the ANZUS treaty.

# Who do you think benefits most from the relationship? (Which is a tougher question than it sounds, I reckon.)

Hard to quantify.

The US gets convenient real estate to house its intelligence gathering bases. We benefit by getting some of this intelligence.

The relationship quells our xenophobic fears about being a European descendant nation in Asia, so I suppose it benefits the largish proportion of the population that have those fears. You can be sure that Howard will be pushing this angle a lot during the elections.

Australian TV would look pretty bare without the US. (Heavens, we would have to make our own programs!)