From Schwartz Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am. When Arthur Sinnadinas arrived in Washington in twenty twenty, he was told the best way to get things done with Donald Trump was to go straight to the person in the White House handling the issue. In a lot of cases that wasn't a typical official. It was a business figure,
a loyalist, or even a family member. And now Trump two point zero has a cabinet of even more MAGA loyalists, a stronger America First agenda, and according to Arthur Synadinus, what Trump sees as unfettered power to enact it unchallenged. Today Australia's former ambassador to the United States, Arthur Cynadinas, on what it takes to negotiate with a Trump administration and Australia's place in an America first world. It's Wednesday,
March fifth, So Arthurs and Adidas. You served as Australia's ambassador to the United States from twenty twenty to twenty twenty three, which meant that for your first year in that role you were up close with the Trump administration. So could you take me back to that time to twenty twenty and to your first impressions of how that administration was working.
Yeah.
So I got there in early February twenty twenty, about a month before COVID. I started to get around meet people. I met the President presenting my credentials. He knew a bit about Australia. It was clear that he had a fairly benign view of the place as far as I could tell, connections with people like Greg Norman and the like. The piece of advice I got from an ambassador who'd been serving there for about ten years already. He was
from Southeast Asia. He said, Look, the way to do business with the administration, the Trump administration is get to know who at the White House is the point person on the particular issue, Go and do a with them, and then that's it. The point he was making was they were deal makers. A lot of them were from business, so they weren't necessarily into process in the way that you might otherwise expect in Washington, DC and.
Those point people. The deal makers in this Trump administration include Elon Musk. He's wielding a lot of power and is becoming increasingly interventionist in politics around the world, in the UK, in Germany, here in Australia. He had that standoff with Australia's e Safety Commissioner not very long ago. So how do you think that this Australian government should be thinking about diplomacy specifically with Musk, given the level of influence that he's currently enjoying.
Well, one of the things I've argued in stuff that I've written is that dealing with the Trump administration in Washington means also dealing with the operatives outside the government who have influence on the government. This may be longtime republicanyalists and lobbyists working in Washington itself. It means dealing with the business figures like Elon Musk who have influence
over government. In Elon Musks, that influence is very direct because he's been given a very senior, non elected role, being in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE. And you've got to get to know these circles because that's where you pick up information, learn about who may in certain circumstances have influence or not have influence, and understand also that the decision making model with someone like President Trump may vary from issue to issue. There will
be issues where he will take advice. There are issues where he may listen to the last person in the room. There will be issues where he just goes with his gut, and then there will be issues where if he doesn't like someone, for example, that may well be a factor that colors his decision making, whether consciously or unconsciously. I think we see that a bit with someone like Zelenski.
He clearly has not gone long with Zelenski in the past, going back to the time when he was impeached because of a phone call he made two presidents Zelenski, My.
Call was perfect. The president yesterday of Ukraine said there was no pressure put on him whatsoever, none whatsoever, and he said it loud and clear for the pred what these guys are doing Democrats.
My own view is that overwhelmingly the president makes up his own mind. He feels that he has at the moment the democratic equivalent of unfeathered power, and therefore he is going to push the envelope on all the issues on his agenda as far as he can. And there the courts, there, the Congress, theare the opposition, Democrats and others to try and stop him or claw him back.
And you mentioned this sort of benign attitude toward Australia that you witnessed from Trump the first time around. Do you I think that that has changed at all? And more broadly, how do you think that Donald Trump views America's role and its relationship with its allies like Australia.
I think he's still going to benign view of Australia, but I wouldn't be betting my house on him giving us an exemption on steel and aluminium. We'll find out soon enough, I guess. I just feel that with this administration they're going to go further in lifting tariffs than
they did in the first administration. There's a very strong faction in the White House, led by people like Peter Navarro, the trade manufacturing advisor, who feel that a mistake in the first administration was to have too many exemptions from tariffs. They're clearly going to implement the tariffs on Mexico and Canada. They're raising the tariff on China further, and that potentially has impacts on inflation depending on the extent and duration
of those increases in tariffs. So on economics and trade, it is business is business as far as Trump is concerned. Whether you're an ally or a potential adversary. Depending on how much he believes that America is being shortchanged in a particular relationship, he will take action. I don't think we're going to escape the effects of that, either directly
or indirectly. We're in a world where increasingly it looks like America is acting as another great power, seeking to advance its own interest as defined by the President, and not seeing for itself an expansive role as the underwriter of the global order. They will argue that they've had too many freeloaders, that others should take up the cause.
But the reality is America has had huge influence in the world by being the underwriter of that order, and that huge influence has been important to its own security. So I think, you know, if you take a more generous view of what the role of America has been in the world, they have benefited. It's enlightened self interest. Taking a more narrow view of American interests in the world, I don't think in the long term serves America well.
After the break, rethinking the Australia America alliance in the age of.
Trump, Hi, I'm Daniel James seven Am tells stories that need to be told. Our journalism is founded on trust and independence, and now we're increasing our coverage. Every Saturday until the election, will bring you an extra episode to break down the biggest political moments of the week. If you enjoy seven Am, the best way you can support us is by making a contribution at seven am podcast dot com dot au slash support. Thanks for listening and supporting our work.
The Australians and the Bridge.
Where you discussing discussing August with the Prome Minister the sun but what does that mean August the Australia US defense line, So well.
We'll discussing there. We've had another great relationship and you have to deal.
With arthursin Adinez. I want to talk about Australia's relationship with the US on security. Trump appeared to not know what UCUS stood for when he was asked about it recently. Did that surprise you and do you think that there are ramifications at all for the deal going forward?
Well, well, people say that he can't remember all the acronyms, but personally I would have hoped that he would remember that acronym. I think he's broadly aware of the Defense Alliance and of the submarine deal, which is pillar one of orcus. He may not know all the technicalities and details. He may also have been told that we're investing three billion into the US submarine industrial base and a similar amount into the UK, so that we're more than carrying
our weight when it comes to UCUS. His attitude to Augus ultimately, well, it depends if he wants to further build up the US submarine industrial base accelerate the construction of submarines. He may well say, well, I need more contributions from Australia in the UK towards this as well.
I'm sure in all of that there's a capacity to do mutually beneficial things, but we have to remind him that this is a deal where ultimately we more than pay our own way, we augment the submarine capacity available in the region with the US to do more to counter potential adversaries up north.
And in this context, how do you think that we should be thinking about our other relationships, particularly with China? As Trump introduces tariffs and sanctions, do you think that there will be pressure on us to fall into line.
The pressure that could happen is if the Trump administration said, well, we want allies and partners to put similar trade and investment controls on China to the ones that we. The US administration have done tressured us on this in the past, but we had already been ahead of the game, for example, in saying that Huawei would not be part of our
rollout of five G in the telecommunications space. I think our answer to this would be that we're happy to talk with the US and others about how we counter potential economic and trade coercion from China, but we clearly have an interest in maintaining a stable relationship with China,
who is our main trading partner. Now, we're not about to abandon the US for China because of the Trump administration, but we will, I think increasingly also strengthen our relationships with other like minded countries in our own region and beyond, because I think it's important for like minded democracies do everything they can to stand together to support the global
rules based order. And I hope that we can persuade the US that all of us standing together means we create the circumstance is particularly in Indo Pacific for more peace and stability.
And in recent days we've heard the Prime Minister Anthony Alberanezi stress Australia's support for Ukraine and for President Zelenski, but he did decline to comment directly on how that confrontation at the Oval Office might affect Australia's relationship with the US, and similarly, he said he didn't want to offer a running commentary when he was asked about Trump's press conference in relation to Gaza Donald Trump, the US president, says the US will take over and own the Gaza strip.
Do you support that position, Prime Minister.
Well, I've said before though, I don't intend to have a running commentary on the President of the United States statements.
So he's in a pretty tricky position. What are you observing about the relationship there and how would you handle this moment?
Well, I think he's been careful and he's being diplomatic, and whether it's Albanese or Dutton, we can't be a commentator any and every time the US or the President
of the US says something. I think Macron and Starma in their appearances in the Oval Office showed by the way they treated the President that it's a mixture of trying to be as friendly as possible, trying to gently coax in a particular direction, rather than seek to be confrontational or argumentative or seek to lecture the US president.
I think as Prime Minister, mister Albanezi has to be pretty measured in his approach, and I think you'd find the same from Peter Dutton if he was the Prime minister. You have to be measured because we have our own issues to prosecute with the US and there's no point gratuitously insulting them, certainly not in public. If we want to discuss something and have it out with them about something, that's best done in private, and that's always been the best way to do it in relationships like this.
It's interesting, though, because news at the moment is dominated by the disruption that Donald Trump is causing, in particular the way that he is upending foreign policy and old alliances. But here in Australia, as we get closer to an election, it doesn't really seem like this is an election issue. Do you think that it should form a bigger part of the debate.
I think that Trump is a bit like the weather. He's there and sort of he'll loom over the election. And you've already seen commentary about who is better placed the Prime Minister or the opposition leader to deal with
someone like Trump. Now, I don't know that the issue will explicitly form part of the election debate, but I think the issue that should be part of the election debate is if we are going into a world where we are dealing more with great powers who seek to carve out spheres of influence, whether it's the Western Hemisphere, Europe or in the Indo Pacific, what are the options
for a middle power like Australia. And what I've argued in the past is, apart from seeking to continue to have good relationships with allies like the US, we also need to keep building up our relationships with other like minded countries. We need to be more doing more for
our own defense. Our diplomacy in statecraft is as important as our military build up, because our diplomacy in statecraft goes to the way in which we build up relationships with other countries and thereby strengthen our capacity to work for common interest. I think it'd be good to have an election debate which focuses on what is Australia's grand strategy as we enter this potentially far more transactional world.
Where we can no longer have the US potentially underwriding the global rules based order.
Arthur Sinidinis, thank you so much for your time.
Thanks Ruby.
Also in the news today, Anthony Albanezi says his government is open to Australia playing a peacekeeping role in Ukraine, amid a push from Europe to send troops in the event of a peace steal. The comments come after the announcement that European leaders will draft a proposal to take to the United States following the hostile meeting between US
President Donald Trump and Ukraine's Lord Miszelenski in the Oval Office. Meanwhile, White House officials say the United States has paused all military aid to Ukraine and a federal court action has been launched against Environment Minister Tanya Plibasak, alleging she's failing to meet the duties required for a number of threatened species.
Conservation group the Wilderness Society are arguing the minister has not complied with a legal requirement to create recovery plans for eleven species threatened with extinction, including the greater glider, the ghost bat, and the Tasmanian wedgetailed eagle. Am Ruby Jones seven Am see tomorrow