United States | 2006 Australian Official Visit

[Odinson]

"Some of the biggest pushback from a free trade agreement between the United States and Australia could come from the beef industry if Australian slaughterhouses are able to export to the United States, but then American beef would not be able to be exported to Australia. I think that would be a concern. Outside of that, I am very much in favor of a free trade agreement between our countries. I think that it would just help bring Australia and the United States closer together. I ran on a pretty protectionist and domestic platform, but I don't believe in being an absolutist. The only real concession that we would ask for is that an American company be able to set up our trade routes," he noted.

"I understand that our time is valuable and that you may not want to discuss this today, so I will direct the Secretary of Commerce to start working on something immediately," Sinclair noted.

Owen

 

[Owen]

"Yes we maintain biosecurity concerns about U.S. beef due to some of your cattle having their origins in Mexico and Canada, currently it is banned from being sold in Australia. We only allow for U.S. beef from cattles which have been born, raised and slaughtered in the United States. But Australia is a net exporter of beef, so we do not find it on our shelves because Australian beef is plentiful. We can definitely put provisions in an agreement to not make any trade concessions for beef.

Passing this on to relevant negotiators is desirable.

There are several defence projects that the Minister for Defence left me in a list before he departed. Particularly he highlighted several areas within the Air Force that are critical capability gaps at this time. He has outlined the need for air mobility capability, particularly to deal with situations such as evacuations and humanitarian aid and that we would like to purchase the C-17 Globemaster and the C-130J Super Hercules to fill that capability gap. Australia, also having a significant maritime coastline and a defence geography that we describe as the "sea-air gap", wishes to inquire about replacing its ageing P-3 Orion fleet with the P-8 Poseidon to deal with a greater range of maritime threats. There is also here a need for a AEW&C capability through the E-7 Wedgetail. As well, Australia lacks an air combat fleet and would like to acquire the F-111 for strike capability and the F/A-18 for air-to-air combat whilst also joining the Joint Strike Fighter program to look at a future acquisition of the F-35.

In terms of the Army, he has outlined Army Aviation as the primary acquisition need from the United States, including fleets of CH-47 Chinooks, AH-64 Apaches and UH-60 Blackhawks. As well, long-range missile capabilities utilising the HIMARS platform, as well as a fleet of 90 M1A2 Abrams and associated armoured support vehicles such as AVLBs, recovery vehicles and assault breacher vehicles to re-equip the 1st Armoured Regiment.

In terms of the Navy, also within the aviation space, such as MH-60R Seahawks and carrier aircraft such as the F/A-18F Super Hornet, pending Australia's acquisition of an aircraft carrier from France.

There's quite a lot on this list that he has left me but he would like it that the United States is aware of Australia's intentions to purchase and re-equip a very capable and lethal military, pending the passing of budgetary provisions in the Parliament."

Odinson

 

[Odinson]

President Sinclair kept eye contact with the Prime Minister as she spoke. Sinclair was one of the first airmen of the United States Air Force when it was created, and he was very protective of America's air abilities across all branches of the armed forces. He and the Secretary of Defense briefly exchanged glances at each other, but with no disapproval from the Secretary of Defense, Sinclair replied to the Prime Minister.

"I have no objections to the United States delivering those platforms to Australia, with the exception of the F-35. The F-35 is not currently in production, though I am pushing for the Marines, the Air Force, and the Navy to start again as soon as possible. However, it could be an option in the future. With that being said, considering the relationship between Australia and the United States, I think that all of these platforms could be delivered to Australia. We will not do it for free of course, but the price will be fair... On the topic of an aircraft carrier from France," Sinclair said, "if your government ends up having any trouble acquiring one, you can look to us.

"While the sale of military equipment like this will require approval from Congress, I feel confident that it will be approved," the President said.

"If I could put something on your radar," he added, "while I know that the stationing of American forces in Australia is still being worked on as we speak, I was wondering if your government would potentially be willing to entertain the permanent stationing of an U.S. Navy amphibious assault ship in Australia. With that warship will come a couple of destroyers or cruisers to escort her. Those discussions are down the road, but I was curious if that is something in the realm of possibility that your government would consider in the future?" he asked.

Owen

 

[Owen]

"Of course, but Australia will be more than happy to assist on the F-35 program if need be, to develop technologies or weaponry that can improve it or even manufacture components for it. Whilst I appreciate the offer of a United States aircraft carrier, we do believe that all available classes will be too large to meet our requirements, whereas the French have a smaller CATOBAR option which is precisely what we are looking for.

We are always open to more U.S. forces being stationed in Australia under our status of forces agreement. I do believe we are still working through the initial components but if there are further components you wish to add we can certainly entertain the idea. We are still awaiting your initial deployment if you want to finalise that here and now."

Odinson

 

[Odinson]

"Well, please know that we are always open to working with our closest ally in the Pacific," Sinclair said.

"I think that the Navy is finalizing the deployment to Australia, it isn't something that should take much longer," President Sinclair said honestly. The Navy had not had foreign vessels stationed in another country for some time, and this was a process that they wanted to make sure would be done correctly.

"Prime Minister, is there anything else that you would like to discuss? I'm looking forward to our governments discussing trade, I think there will be a lot of good to come out of that," he said.

Owen

 

[Owen]

"I did want to have a broad discussion on geopolitics and strategic directives. Of course Australia has now signed a defence agreement with the United Kingdom and is negotiating a free trade agreement. The United Kingdom, Australia and the United States are now all in alliances with each other. We believe moving forward there are many areas of trilateral cooperation between our three nations. We are looking into areas of defence cooperation and technology sharing. There is a long-term objective of Australia to acquire a nuclear-powered submarine.

We understand you already have a trilateral alliance with the United Kingdom and Sweden. We have embedded an RAAF Air Vice-Marshal as a liaision in London. Unforunately, Australia's relationship with Sweden has been frosty for sometime.... and frosty being a key word there. We see a lot of potential in Sweden, but they always seem to choose the wrong path. Whether that be cozying up with Thailand or neocolonialism. We understand that these issues may not be as important to the United States but we do take them seriously. South Africa is a major example of that, they were called upon to overthrow the apartheid regime but that was nearly 10 years ago now and they still have not left or given the nation non-racial independence which they have been longing for since the Dutch colonised them in the 1600s. We want more international action to give South Africa its independence and the United States and the United Kingdom would be crucial to that, given their relationship with Sweden.

And then we have the problem of Antarctica. Sweden unilaterally annexed the entire continent of Antarctica and this was reinforced by a Global Assembly resolution. Not only did they annex the continent but they also annexed sovereign Australian territory in the Heard and McDonald Islands, which was an external territory of Australia. We have advocated for years for Sweden to come to a settlement on Antarctica but they are.... extremely strong-headed about this. This is a continent they have done nothing with, as far as we're aware they have not been conducting research, they have not built research stations and they are simply sitting on land for the sake of having land. With climate change becoming a pressing issue, access to scientific research in the continent is crucial. Australia is a southern hemisphere nation with direct access to Antarctica from the mainland and the island state of Tasmania, as well as a subantarctic island of Macquarie Island. In some regards, we have an inalienable right to the Antarctic continent and this is backed up by historic expeditions by the greats such as Sir Douglas Mawson and Sir Hubert Wilkins.

We're not asking for the United States to sever ties with Sweden over these matters, but we would greatly appreciate it if more pressure was applied. We want to have a flourishing relationship with Sweden, we see massive potential in the relationship and we don't like that this is the situation, but ultimately fairness and the end of neocolonialism needs to prevail as a matter of principle. And their relationship with Thailand is a bit too cozy for our liking. How does the United States view Thailand in 2007 and do you see any other potential threats that Australia should take notice of?"

Odinson

 

[Odinson]

President Sinclair let out a sharp exhale when Thailand was mentioned, and the Australia Prime Minister could probably tell that she had touched a nerve with Sinclair.

"Prime Minister, in regard to Thailand, every time we try to work with them or make progress, they do something to torpedo it. In our experience since the Gore Administration, their government is erratic and cannot be trusted to hold to their word. Their armed forces, while functional, has repeatedly acted unprofessionally in international waters and international airspace towards the American Navy and Air Force - unprofessionalism at sea, and especially in the air, can easily result in deaths. In the past year and a half, Thailand seems to have calmed down and they are not as provocative as before, but the lack of something infuriating happening is the strongest sign of progress... I hope that something will happen to improve our national relations, but for now they are pretty frosty.

"I don't like that Sweden has grown close to Thailand, and I don't keep that a secret. But the Swedes don't run everything they do past me, and I don't run everything the United States does past them. We have not done much for some time, but we are still close allies and mutual members of TASA. I'm not sure what they see in Thailand, but Sweden is a sovereign nation and free to choose who they prioritize their international relations with," Sinclair said.

"When it comes to South Africa... in defense of the Swedes, if you will allow me, South Africa does now have a functional democratic system, if my understanding of it is correct. While South Africa is part of a Swedish commonwealth, it does have a government. We could also look at Canada, for example, which has the Queen as head of state with its own civil government in place. I'm not naive enough to believe that South Africa is acting totally autonomous from Sweden and that its part in the realm is symbolic, but at the same time I think it's pretty clear that Sweden has made strides to establish a native, South African government in the country that is made up of South Africans and partially, if not entirely, democratic. If evidence can be brought to me otherwise, than I might reconsider.

"Now, when it comes to Antarctica and other overseas territories... There are some territories that Sweden has obtained which, frankly... I find pretty curious. The Swedish government made it clear to us in the past that the United States could conduct scientific operations in Antarctica. I think that if your government reached out to them, they would probably be pretty open to it as well. If we wanted to renegotiate the international Antarctic Treaty we can, but that would take a global movement and it would be a matter that would have to be taken up by the Global Assembly. I suppose that the first path that would need to be taken would be to rescind the treaty, but that wouldn't change the status of Sweden controlling the territory.

"With all of this being said, Sweden is an ally of the United States. The kingdom has not ever done anything to make us question our relationship, and while premiership over South Africa is questionable, it has been peaceful for years now. And while their stewardship of most of Antarctica is substantial, I do not have any evidence that they have militarized the region, that they are harming it, or that they are keeping scientific efforts out," Sinclair said, explaining his understanding of what the Australian Prime Minister had mentioned.

Owen

 

[Owen]

"We have had a similar situation with Thailand. Always manages to torpedo it. We have decided to maintain a few small areas of cooperation with them in regards to culture and agriculture. We have also allowed them cooperate with our navy on our operations in South East Asia against non-state actors in the region. This allows us to have some leverage with them and enough to keep them at bay from doing something stupid or moving to threat us. I have made it clear to them that our cooperation in those areas is predicated on them obeying international law and not posing unnecessary threats in the region, which they have managed to do.

The Queen is also the head of state in Australia, I should remind you, Mr. President. It does allow us to have a very robust relationship with the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand because of our shared head of state. I understand this may be a system that Sweden has implemented in Australia, but we also have our doubts about the extent to which that gives South Africa autonomy. But primarily our issue with that is that it was not consulted with the South African people about and has been imposed on them against their will, which we believe is full independence as the Republic of South Africa. The situations in Australia and Canada are built on centuries of those types of ties with the United Kingdom and the similarities of our people in terms of culture, language and ancestry. There is very little people of Swedish descent in South Africa and this history is only a decade old.

In regards to Antarctica, we could try again to negotiate with the Swedish Government. As I have mentioned, attempts in the past have proven futile. Ultimatley though, the position of the Australian Government for the past ten years is that the Heard and McDonald Islands need to be returned to Australia under full sovereignty and a portion of the Antarctic continent which is adjacent to the Australian mainland should be given to Australia or at least negotiated as part or shared sovereignty with Sweden. They have done this favour for the United Kingdom, so there is precedence. And again, I don't know if they have much use for the continent besides the fact it's fun to have land.

Mr. President, I do believe that concludes everything I wish to discuss. If you didn't have anything else to add to what I've just said. One last thing though.... the Royal Australian Navy changed the name of the lead ship of the Adelaide-class frigate, HMAS Adelaide, to HMAS Bataan a few years ago. The name of the vessel reflects the Battle of Bataan during World War II, a battle which Australia was not involved in but the United States was and this was done to honour the Australia-United States relationship. This is the second ship to bare the name, the first being a Tribal-class destroyer. The naming of the Tribal-class was done to reciprocate the fact that the United States decided to name a Baltimore-class cruiser, the USS Canberra. Not to honour our capital city, but to honour the HMAS Canberra which was lost during the Battle of Savo Island. Even though not named for the city, it was the only United States naval vessel to bare the name of a foreign capital city, so we take that with great honour. We would greatly appreciate it if the United States Navy could name another vessel the USS Canberra, to reciprocate us naming an Adelaide-class frigate the HMAS Bataan.

I would also like to formally invite you to visit that city, Canberra, in the near future, address the Parliament of Australia and to visit the U.S. personnel which will be stationed in Australia shortly."

Odinson