With the terrific news still streaming in that is predicting an overwhelming win for the Australian Labor Party (ALP), the implications in that country are obvious and very distinct. To name a few, Prime Minister-elect Kevin Rudd will demand that the government and states take a greater role in health administration, phase out many of the adverse effects of WorkChoices, such as the restrictions to collective bargaining, recognize and take on the climate crisis, and implement a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
This is all well and great for the people of Austrialia, who as of right now, have elected 83 members of the ALP to the 58 for the Liberal Party (they are predicting 86 when all is said and done). But what does it mean for the global community, and more specifically, the United States? Most notable and important are the issues of global warming, Iraq, and leadership.
Climate Change
Australia is the single highest emitter of greenhouse gases on a per-capita basis in the whole world. But that didn't deter PM John Howard in March of 2004 when he publicly stated that he would not sign the Kyoto Protocol because, like a whining baby, China and Russia were not subject to the same limitations that would face his country. According to the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization (CSIRO), here are some of the dire effects that Australia would see in the event of a temperature rise of 2 degrees:
- 5–10% increase in tropical cyclone wind speeds
- 20–30% increase in tropical cyclone rainfall
- 12–16% increase in 100-year storm tides along eastern Victoria’s coast
- 10% increase in forest fire danger index in N, SW, and W Australia
- More than 10% increase in forest fire danger index in S, central, and NE Australia
Likewise, here are a sample of the ecological travesties that would occur:
- 97% of the Great Barrier Reef is bleached every year
- 10–40% loss of core habitat for Victoria and montane tropical vertebrate species
- 92% of butterfly species’ core habitat decreases
- 98% decrease in Bowerbird habitat in N Australia
- 80% loss of freshwater wetlands in Kakadu (30 cm sea level rise)
Apparently, anything short of the oceans literally rising up over Australia would not be sufficient reason for Howard to sign the protocol.
What is PM-elect Rudd's position on Kyoto? Simple: he would sign it without hesitation. Said Rudd:
Rudd, if he wins, would further isolate the United States on climate issues and send a message internationally that Australia intends to work closely with the United Nations on a post-Kyoto treaty.
There is no better way to reinforce that than prime ministerial attendance. It would be a way of indicating ... that we intend to be globally, diplomatically active.
And there you have our implications - we would be the last major nation left to refuse to sign the Kyoto Protocol. While I'm certainly not naive to believe that this would persuade President Bush to sign, it sends a very strong signal to our nation's people and the next White House that climate change is not only real, but a global emergency. Yesterday's elections were so important that Al Gore made a visit a couple of months ago and effectively endorsed Rudd.
Iraq
It is likely that, since Tony Blair stepped down, Howard has been Bush's highest-profile ally in the war in Iraq. Today, Australia has about 1500 troops stationed in and around Iraq. That's about to change. Despite Bush's attempts to sway the then-opposition leader Rudd a couple months ago, Rudd held strong and refused to budge - once in power, he and his party will begin to negotiate a staged withdrawal from Iraq. Said Rudd:
We do not have a huge army. Ask any defencey [defence force personnel] or army expert how we are coping with our operating budget for army, the equipment with which our troops are being sent abroad.
We actually need that capacity closer to home, given the range of contingencies we're responsible for here.
According to an article by the Associated Press last month, as of mid-2008, non-US multinational forces were expected to number about 7,000. This will have made our presence 95% of the "coalition of the willing." With Howard promising withdrawal, I expect that number to dwindle to around 6,000 and the percent to increase to 96 or 97%. Not only were yesterday's elections a huge blow to Bush's PR machine with regard to Iraq, it will put increasing pressure on Congress, and who knows, maybe even the administration itself, to begin withdrawal of our own.
Leadership
I'll let a couple of videos largely speak for themselves.
John Howard attacking the Democratic Party and Barack Obama:
I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for (an) Obama victory.
If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.
Kevin Rudd admonishing Howard and coming to the defense of Democrats and Obama:
To accuse the Democratic Party of the United States as being al-Qaeda's party of choice.
To accuse the Democratic Party as being the terrorist's party of choice, this is a most serious charge.
To accuse the Party of Roosevelt, to accuse the party of Truman, to accuse the party of Kennedy and Johnson of being the terrorist's party of choice.
I cannot understand how any responsible leader of this country can say to the nation that it is his serious view that the Democratic Party of the United States is the terrorist's party of choice, but these are your words Prime Minister.
Yesterday's elections were one helluva win for Australia, the United States, and the rest of the world.