logo
Cables reveal UK view on Howard's personality, Australia's part in Kyoto ‘awkward squad' and an aborted cricket match

Cables reveal UK view on Howard's personality, Australia's part in Kyoto ‘awkward squad' and an aborted cricket match

The Guardian5 days ago
Plus ça change. At the turn of the millennium, Australia was in the throes of 'one of its periodic bouts of angst over its place in the Asia-Pacific and the wider world'. It was doubting the reliability of its ally the US, wrestling with the issue of Indigenous reconciliation, and attracting criticism for its under commitment to addressing the climate crisis.
And it was trying to organise a game of cricket against the English.
Just released papers from Britain's National Archives shed light on intergovernmental correspondence between the governments of Australia and the UK before a prime ministerial visit to London in 2000 to mark Australia Week, and the centenary of the Australian constitution.
Correspondence between the governments of the conservative prime minister John Howard and the UK Labour leader Tony Blair reveal a suite of problems still being grappled with in Australia a quarter of a century later.
'Personality notes' written for Blair describe Howard as a leader who had 'started well' as prime minister, particularly on gun control after the Port Arthur massacre, but who 'appeared to lose his way' during his first term.
Importantly for the UK, it saw Howard as an 'instinctive monarchist … well-disposed towards Britain'. The sketch says Howard was a 'strong family man', significantly influenced by his wife, Janette, that he was a 'fanatical follower' of cricket, and a 'great admirer' of Sir Winston Churchill and Mahatma Gandhi.
In a scene-setting cable dated June 2000 prepared for Blair, the UK high commissioner noted: 'Australia is going through one of its periodic bouts of angst over its place in the Asia-Pacific and the wider world'.
It said Australia took 'enormous national pride' in its intervention in Timor-Leste the year before (despite significant damage to its relationship with Indonesia), saying that the Australian-led peacekeeping mission 'raised Australia's stock in Asia'.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
However, 'critics argue that it simply hardened a view widely held in Asia that Australia is ambivalent, even antagonist, towards Asia'.
Timor-Leste, the cable noted, had also strained Canberra's relations with Washington DC.
'The [US's] perceived reluctance to assist Australia is seen as an indication that the US could not be relied on automatically in circumstances that are of little interest to it.
'More broadly, some are doubting that the US will retain interest in the alliance unless Australia increases its commitment, in terms of defence spending.
'The litmus test is Taiwan: having to choose between the US and China is the nightmare scenario on Australia's strategic and diplomatic horizon. Few doubt Australia would choose the US but the calculations are becoming less clearcut.'
In 2025, the US defense secretary has insisted Australia lift defence spending to 3.5% of its GDP, while Trump administration officials have demanded assurances from Australia it would support the US in any conflict over Taiwan.
On climate, Blair was briefed that although Australia had signed the Kyoto protocol to cut emissions, it had not ratified the treaty.
The British government suspected Howard would not raise the matter during the two leaders' meeting.
'If Howard doesn't mention it, you should raise climate change,' Blair's brief states. 'The Australians are in the awkward squad on Kyoto (alongside eg the Russians and the US): you should tell Howard how important we think the issues are, and encourage Australia to do more.'
In the quarter-century since, Australian governments have been consistently criticised internationally for failing to adequately address the climate crisis. A federal court judge last week found previous Australian governments had 'paid scant, if any, regard to the best available science' in setting emissions reductions targets.
Other files reveal concern within Blair's government about an Indigenous delegation that visited the UK in late 1999.
Leading the delegation was Patrick Dodson, a Yawuru elder and later senator, often referred to as the 'father of reconciliation'. During the same trip, he met Queen Elizabeth II as part of a larger effort to foster reconciliation.
However, a memo written by Blair's foreign affairs adviser, John Sawers, reflects angst within the prime minister's office about a proposed meeting with the delegation, referring to an apparent intervention by the then Australian high commissioner, Philip Flood.
'The Australians are pretty wound up about the idea of you seeing the Aborigines at all,' Sawers wrote to Blair. 'Their high commissioner rang me to press you not to see them: they were troublemakers – it would be like [the then Australian prime minister] John Howard seeing people from Northern Ireland who were trying to stir up problems for the UK.'
The memo suggested: 'Can't we plead diary problems?' The word 'yes' is written in answer to this, in handwriting that resembles Blair's.
A quarter-century later, Dodson was a key advocate for an Indigenous voice to parliament, put to Australians in a referendum in 2023. The voice proposal was ultimately defeated.
Also within the National Archives files is a prescient document from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to the UK High Commission in Canberra. It reflects on a visit from a 'rising star in the Australian Labor party and a useful contact for the FCO'.
The 'rising star' had reflected on Australia's place in its region (and was summarised by an FCO official): 'There were two main problems to Australia being part of Asia: a large slice of the region did not accept them, probably because of a common experience of European occupation – and Australia were too white; and Australians saw themselves as Australians rather than Asian, or indeed Europeans or Americans.'
The visitor's name was Kevin Rudd, the man who in 2007 would replace Howard as the next prime minister of Australia.
As the 2000 Australia Week visit from prime minister Howard approached, a flurry of correspondence between the two governments sought to put the finishing touches to the trip. The files contain flight details, hotel bookings, and to-the-minute travel arrangements. There are discussions of trumpet fanfares and processional routes.
One idea ultimately discarded was a cricket match proposed by Howard, to be played between Australian and English XIs at a ground near Chequers, the British prime ministerial country house.
'The teams could, perhaps, consist of one or two current Test players, a recently retired great cricketer or two, with the balance being young players of promise.'
Blair's private secretary, Philip Barton, wrote in a memo to the UK prime minister: 'I suspect the last thing you will want to do is go to a cricket match on the Saturday. But if we just say no, this would no doubt come out and you would look unsporting.'
Barton proposed getting former Tory prime minister John Major, an avowed cricket fan, to raise an XI on Blair's behalf, 'but it may not be enough to stop the prime minister having to go to at least the start of the match'. A third option was to 'turn it into a charity match'.
The match did not go ahead.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Elite police unit to monitor online critics of migrants
Elite police unit to monitor online critics of migrants

Telegraph

time13 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Elite police unit to monitor online critics of migrants

An elite team of police officers is to monitor social media for anti-migrant sentiment amid fears of summer riots. Detectives will be drawn from forces across the country to take part in a new investigations unit that will flag up early signs of potential civil unrest. The division, assembled by the Home Office, will aim to 'maximise social media intelligence' gathering after police forces were criticised over their response to last year's riots. It comes amid growing concern that Britain is facing another summer of disorder, as protests outside asylum hotels spread. On Saturday, crowds gathered in towns and cities including Norwich, Leeds and Bournemouth to demand action, with more protests planned for Sunday. Angela Rayner warned the Cabinet last week that the Government must act to address the 'the real concerns that people have' about immigration. But critics on Saturday night branded the social media plans 'disturbing' and raised concerns over whether they would lead to a restriction of free speech. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said: 'Two-tier Keir can't police the streets, so he's trying to police opinions instead. They're setting up a central team to monitor what you post, what you share, what you think, because deep down they know the public don't buy what they're selling. 'Labour have stopped pretending to fix Britain and started trying to mute it. This is a Prime Minister who's happy to turn Britain into a surveillance state, but won't deport foreign criminals, won't patrol high streets, won't fund frontline policing. 'Labour are scared of the public, Labour don't trust the public, Labour don't even know the public.' Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, said: 'This is the beginning of the state controlling free speech. It is sinister, dangerous and must be fought. Reform UK will do just that.' In a further sign of dissent over the Government's approach to social media, campaigners claimed on Saturday that posts about anti-migrant protests in the past week had been censored because of new online safety laws.

Beware the blizzard of lies: US advice on how to handle Farage's Trump tactics
Beware the blizzard of lies: US advice on how to handle Farage's Trump tactics

The Guardian

time35 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Beware the blizzard of lies: US advice on how to handle Farage's Trump tactics

Truth, the progressive California politician Hiram Johnson once said, is the first casualty of war. His oft-cited remark was supposedly made in 1918 in reference to the first world war, which had by then caused millions of human casualties. More than a century later, truth is again caught in the crossfire, this time as a casualty of 21st-century culture wars. If Donald Trump is the high priest of disinformation, then Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform, is showing signs of being a willing disciple, if his behaviour in the UK this week is anything to go by. Farage has proposed sending prisoners abroad – including to El Salvador, where the Trump administration has sent hundreds of deportees and suggested sending US citizens. He also suggested an extensive police recruitment drive and prison-building programme all while cutting health and education spending. The parroting of Trump's policies by a UK populist has not gone unnoticed in the US. And for those who have studied the president's modus operandi, there is one particular tactic the British public should be braced for: the blizzard of lies and false statements that frequently overwhelms his opponents. The Trump experience, they say, contains sobering lessons for Farage's critics. US pro-democracy campaigners says Trump has become even harder to factcheck since his first term, thanks to a combination of factors including looser social media content moderation and a reluctance among some media owners to stand up to his intimidation. The Washington Post, which tracked more than 30,000 lies or misleading statements from Trump during his presidency, lost subscribers and public trust after its billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos, reportedly vetoed an editorial endorsing the Democratic nominee Kamala Harris for president. 'It's become more difficult because there's less commitment from those who are in the best position to do the factchecking,' said Omar Noureldin, a senior vice-president for Common Cause, a non-partisan group. 'Seeking the truth here comes with costs and risks.' Complicating matters is the loss of trust in institutions, with many consumers relying on social media platforms for news. 'Even the best factchecking can be unpersuasive, because we're not just facing an information crisis here, but also a trust crisis in the American information ecosystem,' Noureldin said. Media watchers say the political environment has become so deeply polarised that factchecking can even have the counter-productive effect of further entrenching misplaced beliefs. 'From a lot of research, we're reaching the conclusion that factchecking hasn't been as effective as one would want,' said Julie Millican, the vice-president of Media Matters for America, a media watchdog. 'One reason is that information and disinformation spreads faster than you can check it. It takes a lot longer to factcheck something than it does for it go viral. 'But the other thing is factchecking can backfire. People so distrust institutions that factchecking can validate the misinformation in their minds and make them more inclined to believe the lie they believed in the first place.' A 2022 report from Protect Democracy suggests this is the result of a deliberate strategy of authoritarian regimes. 'Disinformation is spread through coordinated networks, channels and ecosystems, including politically aligned or state-owned media,' the report said. 'The goal is not always to sell a lie, but instead to undermine the notion that anything in particular is true.' Further complicating the problem in the US has been Trump's appointment of allies to key government agencies that have traditionally served as sources of accurate and reliable data for factcheckers. A case in point is Robert F Kennedy Jr, who has engaged in anti-vaccine theories. As Trump's pick for health and human services secretary, he is in charge of the country's vast health bureaucracy. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'Factchecking wasn't working very well in the first place, but now you can't even get access to the facts that you need be able to factcheck as well as you used to,' said Millican. The outlook seems bleak, but campaigners say that does not make the problems insurmountable. One answer is to invest in independent, non-partisan research. A prime purpose would be to increase media literacy among young people, who primarily get news from platforms such as TikTok which can be subject to disinformation tools such as AI-manipulated videos. The aim is to teach consumers how to spot doctored footage. 'Media literacy is extremely important and something that should be invested in and taught at a young age,' said Millican. Another solution is the development of 'pre-buttal' strategies to inoculate the public against disinformation, in effect getting the truth out first. Media Matters for America and Common Cause used this approach during last year's presidential election, partly by producing videos designed to counter anticipated false narratives surrounding voting procedures in certain areas. Also important, said Shalini Agarwal, special counsel at Protect Democracy, is calling out the demonisation of vulnerable groups, such as immigrants, as soon as it happens. A crucial role is played by media, even as Trump intensifies his assault on journalists as 'fake news' and tries to exclude certain established outlets from press briefings. 'It's really important when there are opportunities for one-on-one briefings and there are multiple reporters,' Agarwal said. 'Part of it is a sense of collective action. Often, whoever is speaking at the podium won't give a straightforward answer or gives a false answer and then tries to move on – it's incumbent when that happens for other reporters to jump in and say: 'Wait. What about what the other reporter asked?'' Millican has two pieces of advice for Britain and other European countries hoping to arm themselves against any coming authoritarian onslaught: fortify the media and preserve legislation designed to combat disinformation and illegal content online – represented by the online safety act in Britain and the digital safety act in the EU. 'The first thing that's going to happen in these authoritarian takeovers is they're going to try to silence and take over the media and information landscape,' she said. 'Any efforts to rein in hate speech or misinformation on platforms will be seen as tantamount to suppression of conservative thought or free speech. 'I can't stress enough trying to buffer the pollution of your information ecosystem as much as possible. One of the first things that they're going to do is just take down any barriers they can.'

Eighty years on from Labour's landslide, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza brings Clement Attlee's failure on Israel and Palestine to mind
Eighty years on from Labour's landslide, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza brings Clement Attlee's failure on Israel and Palestine to mind

Sky News

time37 minutes ago

  • Sky News

Eighty years on from Labour's landslide, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza brings Clement Attlee's failure on Israel and Palestine to mind

Here's one for the aficionados: 26 July 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of Labour's landslide victory in the 1945 general election. Trade unionists and Labour MPs are celebrating, claiming the nation still owes a debt of gratitude for the historic achievements of Clement Attlee's government. Yet today, as the world watches the humanitarian crisis in Gaza with horror, it's worth recalling that one of Attlee's biggest failures was his Israel - Palestine policy. (Oh, and while Attlee's health minister Aneurin Bevan boasted he "stuffed their mouths with gold" to overcome doctors' opposition to the NHS, today doctors are on strike over pay again.) The 1945 election took place on 5 July, the same date Sir Keir Starmer entered 10 Downing Street last year. But with British armed forces still serving overseas in 1945, it took until 26 July to declare the result. 9:30 Labour won 393 seats in 1945, compared with 411 last year. But while Sir Keir's Labour only won 34% of the votes, Mr Attlee won nearly 50%. But then, there was no insurgent Reform UK back then. Celebrating the 80th anniversary, Joanne Thomas, who became general secretary of the shopworkers' union Usdaw in April this year, said the Attlee government left a lasting legacy. "Usdaw's predecessor unions were proud to play a role in the 1945 election victory and to see 18 of our members elected," she said. "Not least a hero of our union 'Red Ellen', a fiery trade union organiser who led the Jarrow hunger march and went on to serve as education minister." Wilkinson was indeed red. Attlee biographer Trevor Burridge wrote: "Ellen Wilkinson was made minister of education despite the fact that she had actively campaigned against his leadership." She was MP for Jarrow, not a million miles from the current education secretary and Starmer super-loyalist Bridget Phillipson's Houghton and Sunderland South constituency. But not even her best friends would call her red! Ellen Wilkinson was also the only woman in Attlee's 1945 cabinet. Last year, Sir Keir made history by appointing 11 women to his cabinet. Labour MP Marie Tidball, elected last year, joined the tributes to Attlee. "He transformed Britain for working people and this legacy laid the foundations for Britain today - our NHS, welfare state and homes for heroes. "Those public services meant I could grow up to fulfil my potential. Labour legend." But if Attlee's NHS, welfare state and nationalisation are viewed as successes by Labour trade unionists and MPs, his government's policy on Palestine is widely agreed to have been a failure. In his acclaimed biography of Attlee's foreign secretary, "Ernest Bevin: Labour's Churchill", former Blairite cabinet minister Andrew Adonis wrote: "Why did Bevin get Israel/Palestine so wrong?" Adonis says Bevin's policy on Palestine "led to the precise opposite of its declared intention of stability and the peaceful co-existence of the Jewish and Palestinian communities within one state at peace with its neighbours". He concluded: "Instead, Bevin's legacy was a Jewish state of Israel, much larger than even most of its advocates previously favoured, in periodic war and perpetual tension with both its Palestinians and its Arab neighbours." Where did Bevin go wrong? Adonis wrote: "In the first place, because, during the three key years 1945-48, he did not agree that his central policy objective was 'good relations with the United States'." As Sir Keir Starmer prepares to meet Donald Trump in Scotland, 80 years after the historic Attlee victory, that's clearly not a mistake the current Labour PM has made in his relations with the US president. " I like your prime minister," the president said as he arrived in Scotland, "he's slightly more liberal than I am, but I like him". So, 80 years on from Attlee, lessons have been learned. So far, so good, that is.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store