Kurniawan Arif Maspul
When a visiting prime minister stands beside a US president to sign a multibillion-dollar security and minerals deal, the optics are meant to be scripted: handshake, reaffirmation, civility. What happened at the White House on 20 October was not that. Midway through a broadly significant meeting between President Donald Trump and Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Trump turned on the media handlers of the moment: he called an Australian reporter a ‘nasty guy,’ chided others, and snapped at Australia’s ambassador, Kevin Rudd, in a short, sharp burst of public theatre that broke the diplomatic script. The exchange was awkward enough to make the deals signed — important as they were — feel like an afterthought.
This was more than just a rude remark. It exemplified performance politics at its most transactional: an attempt to shift the dialogue, discredit an opponent, and divert attention from uncomfortable questions. That mix of sarcasm and personal attack is a common tactic in Trump’s rhetorical approach — not a rare anomaly but a recurring pattern of media discreditation evident since his previous presidency. It works by changing the focus from the question to the questioner, turning a democratic debate — genuine scrutiny of authority — into a spectacle of personalities. This pattern has eroded public trust in the media and undermined the norms that uphold democratic accountability.
Why does this matter for Australia? Because it was not just a casual domestic moment; it was a state visit. Leaders do not meet in isolated policy bubbles: their words and gestures carry international significance. For Canberra, the White House display posed a double challenge. It temporarily shifted attention away from meaningful cooperation on critical minerals and AUKUS-related deterrence, casting those achievements in the shadow of personal drama. Besides, it raised a question about reputation: how should a middle power safeguard its diplomats and journalists — and manage a relationship with a superpower whose leader uses performative contempt as foreign policy theatre? The solution cannot be to dismiss such incidents as simple domestic noise. They are a persistent feature of modern international signaling and, for a country like Australia, they are significant.
When viewed from an international relations lens, the exchange reveals how soft power and democratic credibility function as strategic levers. Respect for the free press is not a ceremonial nicety; it is a visible indicator of democratic standards that foster trust. When a big power’s leader openly mocks journalists and regards a visiting nation’s envoy as a personal enemy, institutional trust suffers. Other nations will wonder: Is this a responsible partner? Do public rituals convey substance or spectacle? In short, credibility, rather than capacity, is a strategic advantage.
No comments:
Post a Comment