KATINA CURTIS: Cooperation, disagreement and the national interest: how to manage the era of Trump

Anthony Albanese got a lot of free advice on how to deal with Donald Trump and the new MAGA Republican administration.

The Prime Minister may not need to look far for an approach that works.

How does it sound? Cooperate where we can disagree where we must and always work in Australia’s national interest.

If that rings a bell, it’s because it’s the mantra the government has relied on for its approach to China over the past two years.

Albanese and his ministers repeated it ad nauseam in response to almost every question about the Asian superpower as they worked to restore balance to relations.

The phrase arguably expresses Australia’s diplomatic approach to any country with which we are nominally friendly.

But given that this specific wording is now closely linked to stabilizing Australia-China relations, don’t hold your breath for it to be adopted by the Trump-led United States.

But it could well be adapted.

Many Australians found the “Mateship Centenary” campaign, with its twin eagle-kangaroo logo and totemic tale of Leslie “Bull” Allen’s daring exploits saving the Americans, nauseating and ridiculous.

However, it was not aimed at them – and it worked to the ears of the Trump 1.0 administration for which it was designed.

Expect to hear renewed interest in the long friendship between Australia and the United States, a friendship that has withstood decades and changes of government on both sides of the Pacific.

“This will last until there is a big explosion,” said Peter Dean, director of foreign policy at the US Studies Center.

Then, he thinks, there will be much more emphasis on how friends can agree on disagreements on certain areas.

For all the focus on the closeness of the alliance, it is also true that there have been many disagreements over the years.

In the Bush White House, it was tradition not to talk about sugar or beef when Australians were in town due to long-standing trade disputes in those regions.

Tensions eased once John Howard finally sealed the US-Australia free trade deal, but with universal tariffs high on Trump’s agenda, the commerce could regain its hot button status.

AUKUS is also causing concern in Australia.

Over the past few months, for every Trump whisperer saying the submarine deal would be secure, there seemed to be another internal warning that the Republican would abandon it.

Few in Australian defense and government circles want to see the AUK storyline move from the final season of The Diplomat to reality.

Trump’s indication that he wants to nominate Marco Rubio as secretary of state is a good sign; he belongs to the first category of Trump whisperers.

Iraq and Afghanistan veteran-turned-Fox News anchor Pete Hegseth’s choice for Defense role is more left-leaning, and people will struggle to understand what he thinks — or can be persuaded – on these key questions.

The “people” doing this jamming are currently led by Kevin Rudd.

Right now.

The “people” doing this jamming are currently led by Kevin Rudd. Credit: Martin Ollman/News Corp Australia

The re-emergence of Rudd’s past comments about Trump and his post-election announcement that he was deleting them so they wouldn’t prove a distraction has been, well, very distracting to efforts to ensure Australia has ties strong enough with the incoming team.

It is worth recalling Shadow Foreign Secretary Simon Birmingham’s veiled warning on Rudd’s appointment: “Prime Minister Albanese has personally chosen a friend and confidant, a former parliamentary and ministerial colleague, and someone whom Mr. Albanese clearly trusts.”

In other words, if everything goes wrong, it will be on Albanese and Albanese alone.

It remains to be seen whether Rudd’s past insults will have a lasting effect on the mercurial Trump.

Everyone in Australia is backing the Canberra man in Washington – for now.

Rudd has built good relationships with Republicans and Democrats in Congress and Washington, and the administration repeatedly highlights bipartisan support for last year’s AUKUS legislation.

But if Trump doesn’t like Rudd, it’s likely those contacts on Capitol Hill will deteriorate.

In this case, the government would be in a bind.

Sacking Rudd would be tantamount to capitulation, but keeping him would be detrimental.

Canberra would pray in this scenario that Rudd follows the example of British Ambassador Kim Darroch in 2019.

Leaked cables revealed his assessment of an “incompetent” and “dysfunctional” White House. Trump tweeted that no one liked Darroch anyway, and a few days later he was returning home after resigning because he felt it was untenable for him to remain in the role.

Would Rudd do this if his bonds deteriorated? Or would he think he was more important than the US-Australia relationship?

Hopefully, if he found that cooperation was fragile and disagreements extended beyond what they should be, he would act in the national interest and get through it.