Before engaging in a trade war, you have to consider what the penalty is for ‘winning’.
This may come as a shock to politicians and bureaucrats, but winning is not always a victory.
Upsetting your de facto national security defence force over a tariff squabble is not a good idea, especially when the world’s largest communist expansionist power is doing laps around your island and hosting live-fire exercises within shouting distance of commercial air travel.
Sometimes you have to say, ‘Tariffs? Okay, fair enough. Hey mate, any chance of doing some business? We could use a few more warships.’
I will admit that Trump’s tariffs are dangerous … to the reputation of domestic politicians who champion Net Zero.
Their Budget sheets and election campaign hashtags are trembling at the thought of voters discovering who is to blame for the slow death of aluminium and steel.
The slow death of everything, actually.
As Queensland Senator Matt Canavan wrote on X:
‘Labor’s crying crocodile tears for our aluminium and steel jobs over US taxes (ie tariffs). Meanwhile, Labor has imposed a more than $5 billion carbon tax (ie “safeguard mechanism”) on the same aluminium and steel industries to get to Net Zero by 2050. If Labor really cared, just remove the carbon tax!’
As much as I love to pin faults on Albanese, carbon taxes are not solely his error. Labor inherited (and encouraged) Net Zero nonsense leftover from the former Coalition government.
And it is no good blaming the Rudd-Gillard years.
Conservative leaders have had multiple opportunities and more than a decade of uncontested power to retire Net Zero. In trying to out-Woke the Teals, plenty of city candidates brandished their carbon neutral virtue. Who can forget Dave Sharma and his poster that boasted:
Australia has pledged to achieve Net Zero emissions by 2050. We have updated our 2030 emissions reduction projection to 35%. And we are investing record amounts in solar, hydrogen, soil carbon, and other green technologies.
He followed it up with a personal pledge, ‘When I was elected to Parliament in 2019, I promised to fight for a more ambitious climate policy. With your help, I have delivered.’
There are lots of these campaign posters to choose from. Together, they helped sell the narrative of a climate apocalypse to a legion of voters obsessed with safetyism. Attempting to de-radicalise their ideology involves a retraction, not a perfunctory hat-tip to nuclear.
Considering the Federal Liberal policy printed in December 2024 reads: ‘…our plan responsibly integrates renewables, increasing large-scale solar and wind capacity’ and there is no viable plan to overturn nuclear bans to achieve their ‘Net Zero by 2050’ promise, we can safely assume our energy bills are going to suck under both parties.
The Liberals will preach nuclear and fund solar and wind.
Labor will preach solar and wind, and end up in court fighting Native Title claims.
The Teals will win the Blue Ribbon seats because their voters are too privileged to care about the peasants in the next suburb crying over power bills.
And the poor will vote for whoever offers them the most ‘free things’ on election day, not realising they are being robbed.
It is impossible to calculate how much public money is wasted on Net Zero, although it is certainly in the tens of billions. Nor do we know how many businesses and industries were ruthlessly collapsed after politicians tilted the market in favour of Asia.
Trump is not responsible for any of these errors.
What we do know is Anthony Albanese’s ‘Australia First!’ response to American tariffs on aluminium and steel is not embarrassing, it’s risible.
Labor has shown more interest in China’s debt-trap Belt and Road project than struggling local industries.
It is fair to say Canberra did not care one jot about ‘Australia First’ until politicians thought it might win over a few seats at the upcoming Federal Election.
Australian businesses and livelihoods are not fodder for politicians trying to hide their mistakes.
Every time you hear Albanese say, ‘Australia First!’ it should be a reminder to put him last.
One mistake Albanese must wear is his decision to retain former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as Ambassador to America. It is a mistake Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has promised to keep alive if elected. (Why? This is inexplicable.)
As nice as it is to have Ambassador Rudd quarantined on the other side of the ocean, listening to his interview on the ABC’s 7:30 Report makes it clear why American politicians remain cold to his advances.
Ambassador Rudd said:
‘We’re up against a deep ideological strategic view of this Trump Administration that they intend not to produce qualifications from the positions on tariffs that they undertook in the last Administration because of their deep view of their relationship with the rest of the world and the global economy.’
Translating this back into English, America is collecting on the debts owed to it by ungrateful nations who have been coasting along on entitlement since the second world war.
That Ambassador Rudd understands this makes his diplomatic approach of insisting the status quo be retained, without acknowledging what America is seeking from its allies, more evidence that he is precisely the wrong man for the job.
Surely it is unwise to use a man who has a history of making unflattering comments toward the President when we know the President takes such things into account?
Not to mention, Ambassador Rudd lacks the imagination to offer fresh deals to an Administration looking to enrich those who champion the dominance of Western Civilisation.
A quick Google of Ambassador Rudd by the White House would bring up his $20,000-odd Pride Party which, according to the Daily Mail, included flying over an Australian drag queen to act as DJ. Australia picked up the bill, but it is hard to imagine a function more ideologically opposed to the current regime.
Reported by the ABC, Ambassador Rudd has previously called President Trump a ‘traitor to the West’ and the ‘most destructive President in history’. The article from our public broadcaster stressed, ‘Trump has been willing to work with close aides who have previously denounced him – including his Vice President-elect, JD Vance.’
In which reality, I wonder, is JD Vance comparable to Ambassador Rudd?
This sort of logic is delusional.
It is worth listening to what Ambassador Rudd told the ABC about the ‘considerable and ongoing’ discussions taking place with Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, held prior to the announcement of the tariffs.
‘It’s important, Sarah, to just step back a little bit and understand that the America we’re dealing with since the 20th of January is a vastly different America from the past.
‘In fact, significantly different from the period of Trump 1.0, the first Trump Administration.
‘This Administration is more nationalist on questions of foreign policy, more protectionist on trade policy, and much more transactional in its overall approach to international negotiations.
‘We’ve seen that very much reflected in the way in which the Administration has approached these tariff negotiations.
‘These are deep-seated, fundamental changes in this different America which ever one of the 36 countries who negotiated tariff exemptions on steel and aluminium last time round back in 2017 have had to contend with this time round.
‘You are right to say that with Secretary Lutnick, I’ve had considerable and ongoing discussions right through the end of last week, in fact, starting a little earlier than that and through into the early days of this week.
‘These have been straightforward. Hard. Direct.
‘And I think the Secretary understands full well Australia’s negotiating position which is we are long-standing free trade partners with [the] United States. We impose zero tariffs against any American export. We’ve never had a trade surplus with America and on top of that, America has a 2 to 1 surplus against us.
‘Those arguments, at this stage at least, have not prevailed.’
Nor would they.
There is nothing in these statements that suggests anything other than a presentation of arrogance.
Donald Trump may be the easiest leader in the world to negotiate with because he tells people exactly what he wants. To make a deal. To make America great.
The business world knows all about win-win deals and the vast economic opportunity that sits in wait for anyone willing to offer something of value to both nations.
Unfortunately, simple honesty does not fit the language of modern diplomacy nor the intellectual drudgery of those who have spent too long living the swamp-life in Canberra and Washington.
Flat White is written by Alexandra Marshall. If you would like to support her work, shout her a coffee over at donor-box.