There seems to be a kiteflying campaign from commentators with connections to the government, suggesting that the US might reject, or threaten to reject, the Free Trade Agreement on the basis of Labor’s amendments regarding patenting. Howard raised the possibility when he agreed to the amendments, and the US Trade Representative spokesman Richard Mills, kept it alive, with the ominously worded observation
We have chosen not to intervene in the internal debate within Australia about the FTA implementing legislation and amendments at this point.
(emphasis added).
Now, Glenn Milne raises the prospect that the US will hold off until late October, after the Australian election (hat tip, Guido andJames Farrell, whose analysis I endorse). Milne is convinced this will be a disaster for Labor.
He’s following up a similar piece from Michael Duffy in the Telegraph
It certainly seems plausible that these pieces reflect thinking within the government. Under normal circumstance, I would have expected something substantially more positive from the US side by now. I would also have expected, if the US hesitated, a lot of pressure from the Australian government for a quick resolution. Neither seems to be happening.
If Howard really is conniving with the US Administration to delay confirmation of the deal, it’s a piece of high-risk politics on a par with his failed attempt to stop Labor’s amendments, and I think it will end even more disastrously for him. The natural interpretation is that the US delay or rejection confirms the existence of a secret deal to gut the PBS. This is a line perfectly suited to Latham – he made great play with Howard’s talk about the “spirit” of the FTA.
Of course, Howard will deny this. But then, MRD. It is in this kind of context that the children overboard stuff will really damage him in the leadup to the election.
I certainly hope Howard tries this line. If he does, it will be a big loser for him. And we might even reach the point where the FTA has to be dropped or renegotiated.
John Quiggin 
I raised this in the Monday Message Board. Milne that any rejection of the FTA would place doubts about Latham’s anti-americanism in voter’s mind.
I thought that any delay, or doubts the Americans have on the amendments could be exploited by Labor. Why would the US and the Howard government object to an amendment that is meant to protect our PBS?
James Farrell on the same Board gave an insightful remark that the Government believes that many voters desperately want the FTA, and I don’t believe that is the case. I would think that any rejection of the FTA by the Americans would be a plus for the ALP.
I forgot that you were the first to point to this, Guido. I’ve added a hat-tip, thanks!
No acknowledgment necessary! I am glad this you raised this because in my opinion the fact that some commentators think that the FTA is so popular amongst voters does not register with me. Am I so wrong?
Guido,
You’re not wrong; you’re very right. The FTA is now tainted goods in the eyes of the public. In terms of perceptions, it’s at best a neutral outcome for Australia. At worst it’s the death of the PBS and the local TV industry. On a scepticism-weighted assessment, it’s bad.
You’re not actually wrong, Guido, but I think it is the US alliance rather than the FTA which the Govt. believes is so popular; these two different things have been systematically confused by the Govt. I would like to believe that most people can see the difference, and also that they realise that an “alliance” which depends on exploitation on the South American model isn’t worth having.
It may be that the Liberal party has fallen into the old trap of starting to believe its own propaganda.
That the Office of the US Trade Representative saw fit to make comment, and do so in the way it did, is it not evidence that the purport of this type of arrangement (AUSFTA) is, as some suspect, the overall dissempowerment of democratic government in the face of corporate commerce be it Australian or American?
That a matter (the safeguarding of our PBS, which we were told was safeguarded anyway, by an intra territorial exercise of sovereignty), unquestionably and exclusively ‘our’national business to decide upon before now, can henceforth be seen as substance for debate and US deliberation as to its consistency with the Corporate purport of the trade agreement as legislated for by the US is itself issue for suspicion in my view.
Assuming we still value the notion of democratic sovereignty this populous should be alarmed by whatever is transpiring, and, I suspect, they are.
How long is it going to be before Latham (assuming he is fair dinkum) exploits this fertile ground of suspicion? A bit like Tampa and children overboard really; any genuine merits or weaknesses of the deal cease to be relevant; that the bite just might be anything like the bark (let alone worse) may show Howard to be so obviously disingenuous.
Wasn’t it the American colonists that coined a populist expression along the lines of “no taxation without representation”. Wasn’t it our own John Howard who said that Australians will decide who can come into Australia and, we assume, implicitly decide upon the terms of their welcome.
Perhaps we can now assume that in the interests of all Australians he meant to exempt Corporate Americans from any ‘unfair’ exercise of those proscriptive rights; must we now learn to accept (if not enjoy) rape by Uncle Sam’s wayward Corporate children as the tribute necessary for our survival in these modern times!!
Is it coming to a debate on the choice between economic liberalism or slow death?
I don’t think Latham can afford to win with an alienated corporate sector notwithstanding the risk of being seen as complicit in the sale of our domocratic sovereignty for a mess of potage.
If I’m anything like right, nothing more will be said and the soup will get watered down.
The FTA was meant to open us up to American corporations and to set standards for other trade deals. On intellectual property and pharmaceuticals it seems we let the world down a bit and gave more than the Americans would ever have got in a multilateral deal. Not so much immediately but over time.
To me it seems that the Labor PBS amendment drew a line in the sand. The Americans would not like that. It also cut through as a political issue, alerting the public to the dangers. (Commenter Rex pointed this out originally.) So while they probably could knock the Labor amendment out with a trade challenge, there would be an almighty ruckus if they tried.
It hasn’t been highlighted, but Labor have promised a whole raft of blocking measures if they are elected. There is a list of them in AFTINET Bulletin 100. Currently it is in the Latest Bulletin position. Later it will be in the Previous Bulletins position.
I suspect that the Americans would view this very negatively. It raises the question as to why any-one would need to go to such lengths to shore up their defences if it is such a ‘you beaut’ agreement.
Guido, I have no idea how the public feel about the agreement, but I suspect it may be how we used to feel about castor oil when we were kids. Nasty, but we are told it’s good for us.
So it will be interesting to see how it all works out. Some commentator somewhere said that the Americans really did feel they could influence our elections. I hope they try!
I must admit that until John’s post and the comments above, I had also been thinking that Howard would conspire with the US Administration to have them ‘veto’ the Labor amendments for domestic Australian political advantage. This may still happen, if Howard thinks the FTA/US alliance will seem at risk and that this will disadvantage Latham. But with the benefit of the debate above, I agree it’s probably not a winner for him.
Another aspect to consider (where Glenn Milne makes a very big assumption, still the received wisdom in the Press Gallery, it seems) is the election date. I’ve thought for several months that the election will either be held in the second half of October or in February/March next year.
I think the polls are quite likely to keep bouncing around over the next couple of months. Howard is not much of a gambler. If he continues to seem in danger of losing the election then I think a major consideration will be the fact that just before Christmas he will become Australia’s second longest serving PM, surpassing Hawke. Ego and a sense of history (Janette’s – not just John’s!) could be the determining factors if the Govt looks like going down the drain.
It’s hard to say how the FTA issue would play out post-US election. You’d think, though, that Bush’s backers would be keen to have it locked in before his election date. So it would probably be well out of the way of a late Australian election.
The Americans seem extremely happy with the agreement they’ve gotten. If they really see it as great precedent for future bi-lateral deals then they’ll be unlikely to scuttle it themselves.
It might be tempting for Bush & Co to do this to get Howard re-elected, especially if they’re in desperate staights themselves and an important ally losing an election will have some sort of negative impact on their own electoral chances.
But in the end, the drivers of this agreement on the American side have been the American corporate interests desire to change international IP system. They don’t give a damn about Australian politics and won’t let this FTA be thrown away to help win an election they don’t care about. US officials may try to make it as ambiguous as possible as whether they will accept it, but there really is too much to lose and almost nothing to gain from their point of view by throwing it out.
Also agree this would be loser for Howard, as long Latham played the politics right. Gordon is spot on about the mistaken confluence between the FTA and the alliance in Liberal eyes.
robert, Chris Sheil at Back Pages has been running a constant monitor on the election date implications.
The latest seems to be that Howard will have to head off the Senate, which would mean going ASAP, which is probably as soon as the Olympics are over.