The 2020 US election, Prostitution Laws & Human Trafficking

In many ways, Senator Joe Biden’s selection of Kamala Harris as his Vice President is historic: She is the first woman of colour on a major party ticket, as well as the first female Vice-Presidential Democratic pick in more than three decades. 

However, many on the left were not overly pleased with the decision, critical of Harris’s  regressive record when she was District Attorney of San Francisco and Attorney General of California. Among these critics were sex workers’ rights advocates, who have been vocal about Harris’s historically aggressive approach to policing the community and her perceived backflips on the decriminalisation of prostitution. 

The legal status of sex work is a domestic factor which can impact upon the incidence of sex trafficking. Under the Trump administration prostitution has remained illegal in all states (with the exception of Nevada). Alternatively, much of Europe as well as Australia and New Zealand have opted to decriminalise or legalise sex work. Eight countries have also adopted the ‘Nordic Model’ where the buying of sex is criminalised, not the seller. 

Senator Harris recently commented that a Biden Administration would be in favour of a national decriminalisation agenda. Would this legislative change work in favour of America’s fight against human trafficking or against it?

Regardless of the 2020 outcome, the current debate on how to best regulate prostitution has divided America. The core legal approaches are as follows:

Prohibition

Prohibition aims to eradicate the market for paid sex, undercutting the sex trafficking business model, by targeting both supply and demand. In practice, this approach is problematic. In the United States, law enforcement overwhelmingly targets the sellers rather than buyers of sex. Annually 70,000-80,000 people are arrested for prostitution and estimates suggest that 70% of those arrested are female prostitutes and madams, 20% are male prostitutes and pimps, while only 10% are buyers. This approach carries an unfair gender bias against females and discourages victims of sex trafficking from coming forward to authorities due to fears that they may be punished. Thus, the sex industry is driven underground making it difficult for the legal system to deliver justice to victims.

Legalisation 

Through legalisation, states opt not deter people from selling or buying sex. Proponents of this approach argue that the criminalisation of prostitution makes trafficking more attractive. They argue that permitting prostitution reduces the prevalence of sex trafficking by allowing sex businesses to recruit local women who freely choose prostitution as their occupation There is insufficient evidence to support such claims. Research suggests that rates of sex trafficking remain high in places where prostitution is legal. European adopters of the legalisation approach, such as the Netherlands and Germany, have ‘the highest numbers of trafficked women in Europe.’

Critics argue that legalisation increases the size of the sex market, encouraging traffickers to exploit women and girls in greater numbers to meet increased demand. Evaluations have also found that legalised prostitution allows traffickers to hide victims in plain sight as consenting sex workers. The Chief of the German organised crime fighting unit in Stuttgart claimed that, since legalisation, his unit was fighting organised crime with ‘one hand tied behind their back’ as legal brothels provide ‘the perfect place to launder the proceeds of other organised crime.’

Strongly supporting the experiences of the Netherlands and Germany, a 2010 quantitative analysis reported that ‘sex trafficking is most prevalent in countries where prostitution is legalised.’ A 2012 study also overwhelmingly supported these findings. Researchers investigated the effect of legalised prostitution on human trafficking inflows from 150 countries and found that on average ‘those with legalised prostitution reported a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited.’ The study also reviewed the longitudinal effects of legalising and criminalising prostitution and found that the criminalisation of prostitution in Sweden resulted in the shrinking of the prostitution market and the decline of human trafficking inflows while the inverse was true in Germany.

Nordic Model 

The Nordic model, also known as the Demand model, criminalises the buyers of sex, but not sellers. This approach has grown in popularity as it focuses on shrinking the market for prostitution in order to reduce demand for trafficked women. This approach assumes that sex trafficking is lucrative due to the economic principles of supply and demand. ‘Traffickers choose to trade in humans due to the low start-up costs, minimal risks, high profits, and large demand.’

The Swedish law aims to combat human trafficking by acknowledging the connection between prostitution and trafficking. Approximately 400- 600 people are trafficked into Sweden each year. Since Sweden’s adoption of the Nordic model, this number has remained constant, with no significant increase in the number of recorded victims. Two years following the passage of the law, a Swedish taskforce reported a 50% decrease in the number of women prostituting and a 75% decrease in the number of men who bought sex. Thus, while the number of people trafficked into Sweden is believed to have remained level, there have been reported decreases in the number of people selling and buying sex which has reduced the attractiveness of the Swedish sex market for human traffickers. Critics claim that since the Swedish law passed, prostitution has not decreased, but rather been forced underground. While it is difficult to assess these arguments empirically, Sweden is no longer an attractive market within Europe for human traffickers. Swedish police have confirmed this view that the Nordic model has resulted in deterring traffickers from Sweden and pushed them into other countries.

The normative objectives and results of the Nordic model also cannot be underestimated. When Sweden introduced the legislation, it had merely 30% community support. Today the figure is close to 80%. The legislation has had the effect of changing Swedish culture. It is no longer socially acceptable to pay a woman for sex. This, alongside harsher penalties for buyers, has led to Sweden having a much smaller human-trafficking problem compared to other European nations. 

Recommendation

The fight against global sex trafficking is counterproductive if countries have conflicting approaches to regulating domestic prostitution. Having reviewed the various legislative approaches, it is evident that targeting demand is an integral part of any legal solution. Though imperfect, the Nordic model has a proven track record of reducing the demand for prostitution which minimises the incentives for human traffickers to conduct their businesses. 

According to the most recent polling, the Biden Harris ticket will be victorious in November. As the decriminalisation model has proven unsuccessful in reducing human trafficking, Biden and Harris should re-calibrate their official stance on regulation to reflect the Nordic Model. This will shrink the demand for prostitution in the US, thus making the American sex market less attractive to human traffickers. 

The Wolf Warriors of China are not diplomatic, who are they fooling?

China’s approach to diplomacy has adopted a brand new modus operandi. It is diametrically opposed to almost all diplomatic niceties once pursued and fostered by Chinese diplomats in their dealings with the world. Today, Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Xining’s insists that Chinese diplomats show a “fighting spirit” and become a vicious pack of wolf warriors. Despite such blatant behaviour on the international stage, the CCP continues to defend their actions arguing that they are diplomatic and noble. Is this hypocrisy really fooling anyone?

In recent months Australia has been the recipient of insults and threats from China, we are not alone in such attacks. From North America to Europe, to Asia and Africa, the Chinese wolf warriors have set fire to the goodwill that had been built up over two decades of so-called smile diplomacy.

On Wednesday, Foreign Minister of China, Wang Xining gave a speech at the Australian National Press Club in Canberra. His remarks underscored the importance that China attaches to mutual respect, goodwill, fairness and a grand vision for the China-Australia bilateral. All seemingly diplomatic aspirations. However, a glance at the CCP’s recent international behaviour reveals the utter insincerity of these remarks.

Consider the virtue of mutual respect, which Wang described as following basic norms of sovereignty and non-interference in international affairs. When the Turnbull government passed legislation to restrict the activities of China from interfering in and covertly influencing Australian democratic institutions, Beijing responded with rage. 

Wang’s claim of Chinese goodwill which he characterised as the need to resolve differences in an amicable manner also fails to accurately capture China’s recent behaviour. China ruthlessly imposed economic restrictions on Australian barley exports in response to the Morrison government’s call for an investigation into the origins of COVID-19, a virus which has killed hundreds of thousands worldwide and has reeked economic and social destruction.

Regarding the principle of fairness, Wang placed that virtue in the context of a non-discriminatory investment and trade environment. Yet, China has made it blatantly clear that is seeks more than merely win-win trading relationships with other countries. China has the most restrictive trading rules of all major world economies and has a history of intellectual property theft and forced transfers.

Last, the aspiration that our two countries evolve from economic partners towards agreeing on a ‘grand vision’ to enhance stability and prosperity in the Pacific region. While this sounds promising in a speech, the values of China and Australia are in conflict. China’s grand strategy seeks to shape the Pacific in a hierarchical and Sino-centric manner where the rights and privileges afforded to China are different to privileges of smaller countries.

Initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative, Made in China 2025 and concessional loaning to Pacific developing states enable China to weaken America’s alliances in the region and in its place create regional dependence on China. In the long term, this will enable China to dictate prices, policy and discourse when interacting with its economic partners. China’s “shared vision” is one in which Australia and others play a deferential role to China.

Australia and the world are less concerned with what Beijing says and more with what it is doing. For this reason, the Morrison government has moved to use external affairs powers available under the Constitution to outlaw independent state initiatives with China (and other countries) deemed to violate Australia’s national interest.

Most notably, Victoria’s previous commitment to the Belt and Road Initiative will not be permitted to go ahead. This is a critical step that will significantly diminish China’s political influence in Australia and will also ensure that Australia can speak with one voice in managing what will continue to be a problematic relationship with the CCP. 

Judging from China’s previous form, the CCP’s response to Australia’s new legislation will blatantly violate China’s stated virtues of mutual respect, goodwill and fairness.


ABC


Chinese diplomat Wang Xining’s National Press Club address

A Model Partnership

When two Australian Ministers travel to the US at such an uncertain and volatile time in history, it says something about the strength and significance of the relationship between the United States and Australia.

This week, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne and Defence Minister Linda Reynolds traveled to Washington D.C for the Australia-US Ministerial Consultations. AUSMIN provides a principal bilateral forum to discuss approaches on major global and regional political issues and cooperate on foreign security and defence. Notably, Marise and Linda are the first members of the Australian executive to travel overseas since Australia borders closed in March.

While other American allies have declined the Trump administration’s request to resume in-person meetings, suggesting instead to delay appointments or hold conferences virtually, the effort made by Payne and Reynolds to attend AUSMIN in Washington D.C demonstrates the level of priority that the Australian government places on the bilateral relationship.

A hallmark of the Trump Administration has been the trade war against Beijing. Trump has clashed with Beijing over numerous issues including Huawei, unfair trading practices and China’s cyber warfare. COVID-19, has only agitated tensions further with the US strongly criticising China for its mismanagement of the pandemic which has taken the lives of 150,000 Americans to date, destroyed the US economy and severely harmed Trump’s re-election prospects. Throughout this time, members of the Trump Administration such as Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo have rallied for their partners to take a unified stand with them against China.

Australia, a small population in the Indo-Pacific region of the world has managed to live up to this call by confronting the challenge of an increasingly belligerent China. Australia was the first among the international community to call for an inquiry into the mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis, a move that deeply angered and offended China. Despite relentless economic threats and bullying from Beijing, the Australian government also declared that China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea were illegal. Further, in response to China’s new security laws in Hong Kong which seek to undermine the human rights protections of Hong Kong citizens, Australia suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong and offered citizenship to dissidents.

Australia has shown that when it counts, it is not afraid to stand up for its values and choose a side. For decades, politicians, diplomats and scholars have stressed the difficult decision Australia will be forced to make due to its strong trade with China and military alliance with the United States as tensions between the countries reach an inevitable boiling point. While it is early days, it appears the choice has not been as difficult as some presumed. Australia has chosen to uphold its values and stand by its closest ally, despite the obvious risk of economic reprisal.

The AUSMIN meeting between the respective foreign and defence ministers – Mike Pompeo, Mark Esper, Marise Payne and Linda Reynolds went beyond the usual formalities as both countries are deeply engaged and committed to the challenge presented by China. The US acknowledged Australia’s bravery in standing up to China’s threats and utilised the opportunity to model the AUS-US alliance, juxtaposing Australia’s support with the tepid support it has received from some of its other allies.

A commitment to stick closest when times are tough is the true test of any relationship. This year, Australia and America have continuously proven that the relationship is far more than mateship or an obligatory tradition, it is a world-class model of an alliance which is above personalities and greater than the challenges of the day.

Does American National Identity still exist in 2020?

Watching the state of affairs in the US over the past few months has left many of us in a state of paralysis. Our hearts have bled for the millions of American lives lost to COVID. The violent imagery of George Floyd’s last breath and subsequent violent riots and protests have poured across our screens. From an Australian perspective, it seems America has never been more politically and socially divided. One might argue that Americans have lost the connective national tissue which once bound them together.

In spite of the recent social and political upheaval we are observing within the United States, it is important to keep in mind that socio-cultural movements are nothing new for the American people. A glance at US history depicts numerous movements which have fought to uphold and actualise the rights of minorities. I argue that the social movements bubbling within America today such as Black Lives Matter do not undermine the notion of an American identity, rather they demonstrate the attempt of modern Americans to live up to the founding values of their nation. In this way, movements of social change can help the United States move closer towards actualising the hopes and dreams that the American founding fathers had for a new nation.

American national identity is built upon the unique and radical founding of the United States.   Unlike nations whose identity is based on shared ethnicity and ancestry, America was formed on the idea of “the essential dignity of the individual human being, and of certain inalienable rights to freedom and justice.” Though at the time of America’s founding, these admirable ideals were not realised for most citizens, American history has steadily embraced and began to live up to the freedoms expressed in seminal founding texts such as the Declaration of Independence and U.S Constitution. Leader’s such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. come to mind as men who enabled America to live up to their founding commitments by abolishing slavery and segregation. While America has never been perfectly aligned with its founding values, what appears to bind Americans together is a dedication to see the United States lives up to its founding values.

The idea of American identity is under constant pressure to change by those who experience barriers when attempting to access freedom and equality in the United States. Racism is one of these barriers that is deeply rooted within American history. The United States will always contend with the harsh reality that while European colonists could claim an American identity, people trafficked as slaves from Africa were not entitled to the same privileges. The practice of slavery continued in the United States until 1865 with the introduction of the 13th Amendment.  Following this, black Americans endured an entire century of racial persecution and discrimination before the promises of the Civil War were realised. While America’s Declaration of Independence and the Constitution proclaimed universal liberty, such documents coexisted alongside the exploitation and exclusion of black Americans. Despite an increasingly diverse US population and racial progress [evidenced through achievements such as the election of Barak Obama, the first African American president], some Americans argue that there is an entrenched racial component to American identity that divides whites and non-whites. 

Building upon historic injustices against African Americans, The Black Lives Matter movement has emerged in response to controversial law enforcement policies and police brutality against members of the African American community. At the core of this issue is the social concern that African Americans are not afforded the same societal protection as other Americans. Black Lives Matter demonstrates a powerful message: African Americans, like all Americans, long for freedom, equality of opportunity and access to the American Dream. Historic and contemporary racism in the United States have prevented African Americans from accessing this promise. American citizens responsible for discriminating and continuing to exclude African Americans from the benefits of American identity are contradicting the very values which underpin American identity. In this way, the plight of members of the African American community throughout history expresses a pattern: the continuous attempt to reconcile society with the country’s founding values.

Social change in the United States has improved the freedoms of its people, reconciling the US with its founding principles and helping to evoke the true sense of what it means to be American.



Hong Kong: One Country, One System

In light of the ongoing 2019-20 Hong Kong protests, China’s ceremonial parliament has voted to bypass Hong Kong’s Legislative Council to enact dramatic national security legislation. According to the Chinese government, these new laws are intended to crackdown on ‘secessionist and subversive activity … terrorism and foreign interference’. Beijing has previously blamed the lack of a national security law for last year’s alarming anti-extradition protests. However, activists remain concerned that these laws will undermine civil liberties and bring an end to Hong Kong’s unique partial autonomy.

Hong Kong is currently governed under a “one country, two systems” model underpinned by two key documents: The Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. These established China’s rule over Hong Kong – subject to significant caveats including the continuation of British capitalism, maintenance of the common law, protection of civil liberties and an understanding that Beijing would not directly intervene in the city for a period of 50 years from the city’s 1997 handover. Significantly, Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that Hong Kong shall enact national security legislation “on its own.”

While details about the application of these new security laws remain unclear, they clearly encroach upon Hong Kong’s existing autonomy from China. The ‘crimes’ stipulated in the security laws have vague definitions and could potentially include any attempts to voice dissent against the Government. Such laws may also lead to widespread arrests on arbitrary political charges, a crackdown on free speech, and the unleashing of China’s security organs, such as the Ministry of State Security and the People’s Armed Police. If these reforms are unable to bridge the divide between Hong Kongers and Beijing, then Hong Kong may remain a tinderbox of revolt for years to come.

The enactment of this legislation has prompted wide-spread criticism from international actors such as the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada. In the United States, the Trump Administration has announced that it will no longer treat Hong Kong as being autonomous from the Chinese mainland as a result of Beijing’s latest intervention. In addition to the political ramifications, Hong Kong’s status as a financial hub is now in danger. For businesses, the main value of the city is that its financial and legal systems are more transparent and fair compared to China’s. These features make Hong Kong an attractive option for both foreign and Chinese firms looking to prove their credibility in the region. Any erosion of the rule of law and freedom of speech risks undermining this appeal.

Following US President Donald Trump’s announcement that he would strip Hong Kong of its special privileges, China’s state media have taken aim at the US by comparing #BlackLivesMatter protests with the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong. A commentary published in China Daily – a mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party – said US politicians should do their jobs and help solve problems in the US, instead of trying to create new problems and troubles in other countries.

Chinese attempts to equate protesting in some US cities with wide-spread calls for democracy and freedom from China in Hong Kong are disingenuous and politically-motivated. At this critical time, it is important that Western media outlets critically assess China’s claims and report them for what they are. Racial tensions in the US and Chinese interventions in Hong Kong are entirely seperate issues. Failure to recognise these clear differences and blind acceptance of CCP rhetoric plays right into Beijing’s hand and may cost the people of Hong Kong their freedom.

Australia punching above its weight through global leadership

Australia is a middle economic power in the Indo-Pacific, geographically distanced from Europe and the US. Regardless of its relatively small population and military, Australia has galvanised international attention and support regarding its recent call for an international inquiry into the coronavirus. In Australian colloquial terms, the nation is ‘punching above its weight’ to pursue their own interests through advancing global cooperation. Though Australia faces increasingly tense relations with China, this reality has not prevented Australian officials from taking a stand on the world stage to criticise Beijing for its management of the coronavirus. This week, Prime Minister Scott Morrison urged the international community to support an inquiry into the origins and transmission of COVID in addition to the WHO’s response. 

China, fearing that such an investigation would harm its international reputation has responded to Australia’s suggestion for an independent investigation with threats of economic coercion. Chinese ambassador to Australia Jingye Cheng has threatened a freeze on tourists and students coming to Australia and a boycott on Australian beef and wine. While it would be easy for Australian officials to scale back their rhetoric in light of Beijing’s bullying tactics, Australia continues to remain vocal on the international stage, presenting a compelling case for the inquiry. At this early stage, Australia’s efforts appear to be successful in gaining international recognition with recent support pledged from the United States Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.

Australia is a regional power with global interests. Pursuing this inquiry is within our national interest as we seek to uphold international rules and norms of transparency and rule of law. An international community which respects these values and has international institutions which support integrity and facts over politics enables peace and prosperity to flourish among nations. The COVID inquiry will help to achieve this vision by seeking to uncover the truth amidst a sea of informational warfare. It will hold China accountable for their negligent handling of the coronavirus and set a clear standard for China’s future cooperation, forcing them and others to think twice before censoring critical health information and delaying international coordination. The inquiry will also uncover problems with the World Health Organisation’s response to this pandemic, a needed step to ensure the institution can develop clearer guidelines and international expectations for dealing with future international health risks. 

Australia’s announcement to pursue the COVID inquiry follows in the footsteps of the successful Australian-led MH17 inquiry. In the aftermath of a transnational tragedy, Australia capitalised its seat on the UN security council by introducing resolution 2166, leading the international community’s response to the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17. The binding UN resolution called for a ‘full, thorough and independent investigation’ into the crash and demanded military actives in the area cease to enable site access. Through active and determined diplomacy, Australia put vital pressure on those who controlled the crash site to allow access for investigators and for the victims to be repatriated and returned to their loved ones. Australia’s leadership from the downing of MH17 to the coronavirus pandemic indicates a promising pattern of behaviour emerging within Australian Foreign Policy. Australia is filling a US leadership void and acting independently to help maintain regional peace and security. 

Australia’s foreign policy is predominately focused on the Indo-Pacific region. Australia seeks to increase the stability, prosperity and health within Pacific nations and such objectives will likely be advanced due to a COVID inquiry into the WHO. The WHO works to advance public health infrastructure within the Pacific. It is for this reason that Australia has not followed the US to halt the organisation’s funding as this would unnecessarily hurt the people we seek to empower most through Australian aid. Advocating for an inquiry on the other hand provides a more nuanced policy approach. Australia can criticise the inadequacy of the WHO’s response, demanding a higher standard for future compliance, whilst continuing to support the organisation’s valuable work within the Pacific. An inquiry into the management of COVID will help to ensure that the future work of the WHO is more transparent and therefore more effective at managing future health risks through improving infrastructure and resilience among vulnerable states.

Furthermore, an inquiry provides an opportunity for Australia to differentiate itself from China as a partner of choice for future trade and development partnerships within the Pacific. Over the course of the past decade, China has increased its presence in the Pacific providing new opportunities for the Pacific to participate in the Belt in Road Initiative and accept concessional loans to grow their economies. Australia now faces exceptional competition with China, particularly in the area of development. By standing up to China and exposing their negligent management of this pandemic, Australia is presenting a strong case for why it should continue to be a partner of choice in the Pacific. Australia’s display of leadership has outlined its priorities for transparency and international cooperation while exposing the risks associated with participating in trade and accepting development from China. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on Australia’s ability to lead the international community and contribute to global stability and prosperity. As a regional power, it is within Australia’s interests to hold states accountable for their disruptive actions and to build international institutions that promote transparency and integrity. In a time of great pessimism and uncertainty, Australia’s recent leadership provides hope for an international system more committed to truth, transparency and cooperation.

The value of a strong US-Australia alliance

The enduring alliance with the United States remains Australia’s most important defence relationship. Close economic and cultural ties between the nations also continue to flourish and significantly benefit Australia and the US. The historic US-Australia partnership is unique, resilient and enviable among other nations. 

Former Australian prime ministers Malcom Fraser, Kevin Rudd and Paul Keating have each consistently argued for a recalibration of our alliance with the United States. Fraser, a former Liberal prime minister who passed away in 2015, was a major critic of Australia’s military alliance with the US and the implications for our relationship with the People’s Republic of China. Fraser called for Australia to forge an independent strategic posture apart from the US, arguing that the defence risks of our close relationship with the US outweighed any possible benefits. Likewise, previous Labor prime ministers Rudd and Keating have both asserted a need to scale back our alliance with the US government, in favour of stronger relationships within Asia. 

Though the positions of these outspoken former prime ministers might indicate division within Australian foreign policy community, our most recent Foreign Policy or Defence White Papers reflect the Morrison Government’s clear commitment to deepening Australia’s long-standing alliance with the United States and keeping this relationship at the centre of Australian security.  

Australia’s relationship with the United States is based on a robust relationship underpinned by shared democratic values, common interests and strong cultural affinities. The US-Australia partnership is formally recognised in the ANZUS treaty, which has seen significant military coordination between the two nations. The relationship extends much further, however, securing an economic boost for America and Australia and a wealth of cultural exchanges in areas such as health, science and education. For these reasons, Australia should continue to foster and strengthen close cooperation with the United States to secure a safe, prosperous and enlightened future for our country.  

Defence and Security

The history of Australia’s relationship with the United States is based on a close military alliance which has served both American and Australian national interests. The ANZUS Treaty, concluded in 1951, is Australia’s foremost security treaty alliance. While the ANZUS Treaty was created in the wake of World War II when the risk of invasion from Japan was still live in our collective memory, our military relationship has since deepened due to the ANZUS Treaty and ensures that Australia continues to develop its military alongside the strongest in the world. The US-Australia Force Posture Agreement signed in 2014 and the 2015 Joint Statement on Defence Cooperation have instructed the annual rotation of US Marines to Darwin and enhanced rotations of US aircraft to Australia. The Talisman Saber is a biennial military endeavour between the two militaries, enhancing our respective combat readiness and interoperability of our forces. This project reflects the progressive, forward- thinking military relationship that America and Australia have managed to create that is responsive to modern security threats. 

Our relationship with the strongest military in the world provides Australia with privileged access to information and high-end military equipment. This has allowed Australians to foil at least a dozen domestic terrorist plots since 2014, break up transnational crime networks, and stop money laundering and illicit trafficking of drugs, weapons, and people. Our military alliance with the US assists the Australian Defence Force as it responds to security threats and provides an added edge for us within the Pacific region. As China continues to rise, pursuing an aggressive foreign policy agenda, the muscle of the US Armed Forces can be leveraged as a counter-balance to China and shape a stable, prosperous Indo-Pacific region. Australia is a small population, with limited military force in a culturally diverse region. For this reason, it is important that hubris does not stain foreign policy, leading us to think we are better or more powerful than we really are. Our military relationship with the United States has ensured that Australia remains a secure, free and open state in a region where this is not the status quo.  

Trade and Investment

Australia and the United States are not only strong military allies. Our economic partnership is critical to our interests. While Australia’s trade relationships, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, has lead to unprecedented growth and prosperity, the United States remains Australia’s most indispensable economic partner. Our economic relationship encompasses extensive two-way investment supporting production, growth and jobs in both countries. The United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has served as the basis of our bilateral trade relationship since the agreement came into effect on January 1, 2005. Under the FTA, all tariffs have been eliminated for products exported from the United States to Australia. The FTA has led to the growth of trade and investment in both countries. The United States is the largest foreign direct investor in Australia, accounting for nearly 25 per cent of foreign investment – more than the next two countries – Japan and the UK – combined. The foreign capital provided by the United States is a crucial driver of employment, economic growth, and also the ability to export. Ultimately, foreign investment facilitates Australia’s trading relationships by providing the necessary capital and know-how for production of goods and services.

Innovation and Cultural Exchange

Australia and the US have successfully established and maintained partnerships that benefit both states. As part of the Australian National Innovation and Science Agenda, the Australian government has established a ‘Landing Pad’ in San Francisco to facilitate cooperation by US and Australian entrepreneurs. Australian scientists, researchers, and innovators enjoy maximum access to America’s world-class innovation ecosystem, and US academics and researchers travel to Australia to share their findings and learn from Australian counterparts. US and Australian government agencies also work together to advance global environmental goals. Zoos and universities in the United States and Australia are working collaboratively to save threatened species, such as the iconic Tasmanian Devil.

The United States and Australia also share best practices, personnel, and technology and equipment to combat wildland fires. In 2017 Wildland Fire Management Agreement was signed, building on 15 years of close collaboration. The United States and Australia also work together to build and strengthen health system capacities, including addressing antimicrobial resistance, human resources for health, and infrastructure within the Asia Pacific region. A recent example of this strong coordination was demonstrated in a call between US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Prime Minister Scott Morrison indicating plans to coordinate responses to the coronavirus in the Pacific. With President Trump’s recent decision to halt funding to the WHO this may make further funding available to strengthen bilateral and regional health coordination between the United States, Australia and their allies.  

A special relationship worth preserving

US presidents and officials have often referred to Australia as America’s closest friend and most trusted ally. This reputation is consistent with the special treatment and benefits Australian’s receive within the United States. For instance, the E3 visa is a United States visa only available to Australian citizens created by an Act of the United States Congress. Approving 10,500 slots for Australians each year, this visa is exceptional and signifies America’s appreciation of our alliance. In 2013, Ireland called for the E3 visa to be shared among Australians and the Irish, but these calls have so far been resisted in Congress. Then-Australian Ambassador Joe Hockey and the Embassy’s congressional liaison team successfully advocated for a change in the language of the first version of the proposed E3 amendment to ensure this outcome. Australia succeeded in Congress because of our historical defence bond and strong relationship with America.

Nonetheless, the narrative that Australia must choose between China and the United States has gained considerable traction in the media in recent years. At the heart of the story is the notion that Australia is economically beholden to China—a perception that China encourages. While there is no denying that escalating competition between China and the United States carries risks, Australia can continue to enjoy a strong, multifaceted partnership with the US whilst trading with China. The argument that Australia is at a cross-roads and somehow at the behest of China is weakened by the fact that China and the US have closer economic independence than China and Australia. Australia’s significant trade with China provides few, if any channels for the PRC to coerce Australia economically. The Chinese are not purchasing Australian commodities because they want to cultivate a friendship or drive a wedge between Australia and the United States. We are a supplier of choice to the Chinese as we have proven ourselves to be an efficient and reliable supplier by international standards. If China does not buy our commodities, someone else will. Research by Shiro Armstrong on the China–Japan relationship—a relationship marked by deep mistrust and periodic heightened tensions concluded that “trade has not been diminished or disturbed by politics to a significant extent”.

If Japan and a host of other countries in our region including South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam and Taiwan can enjoy growing trade with China while maintaining a strategic relationship with the US, surely Australia can do the same. Australia’s foreign policy debate needs to progress beyond an unhelpful focus on binary alignment choices toward a deeper dialogue about the practical challenges that China’s influence poses for alliance management. In saying this, it would be beneficial for the US and Australia to build a more resilient coalition where we discuss areas of divergence in our approach to China. This will secure productive, US-Australia relations and a united front on future foreign policy.  

Shared history, values, and prosperity have allowed the US-Australia alliance to thrive for the better part of a century, furthering both states militarily, economically and culturally. It is within our interests to maintain and grow the US-Australia partnership to ensure both nations can work together to tackle geo-political challenges with force and unity.