Australian Foreign Policy

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Australia’s foreign policy tradition
Which foreign policy tradition is good for Australia?
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

Australia has regarded itself as a European country on the edge of Asia but this relative isolation has brought about some considerable problems. For instance, it does not have enough or strong influence in any of the strong regional trade associations which include the European Union (EU) or the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA). Basically, the categorization of Australia as middle power has resulted in a mixture of both anxiety and opportunities.

Indeed, the label has been associated with both strength and weakness for Australia (Galligan, Roberts and Trifiletti 2001, p.147). For instance, Australia has used this label to advance its claims in matters of trade with the regional trade blocks; however, operating at the center of the most powerful and the less powerful, Australia’s middle power position has provided it with some benefits of credibility, independence and integrity (Galligan, Roberts and Trifiletti 2001, p.147).

These benefits have been realized in international achievements such as; Australia’s diplomacy was the key boost to the success of promoting freer agricultural trade through the Cairns Group as well as mid-wifing a peace-keeping force and free elections in Cambodia (Galligan, Roberts and Trifiletti 2001, p.147).

Despite this, the status of being a middle power has some its downside. For instance, the middle power has less power and influence in determining the outcomes that shape the global economic, political, trade or security agenda.

Though Australia may succeed in facilitating the setting up of agenda, its main contribution to international affairs may just be confined to providing substitute avenues of conflict resolution for the larger powers. This status has influenced the foreign policy formulation for Australia which in turn has helped in fostering its national and international interest in the world.

Therefore, the basis of this paper will be to evaluate Australia’s foreign policy tradition and how such policy tradition can help Australia compensate for its relative lack of power and enhance its international influence while at the same time advance its national interest in the contemporary world.

Australia’s foreign policy tradition

War in Australia has been regarded a central element to the development of the Australian identity while at the same time, Australia’s economy is intertwined extensively with the global economy (Gyngell and Wesley 2007, p.10). With the presence of such series of involvements, it still remains hard to locate Australia’s ‘position in the world’, it is located to the Southeast Asia and the Southern Pacific while its strategic ally is in North America.

Further, its trading partners are located in Northeast Asia and the largest percentage of its population is found in Europe (Gyngell and Wesley 2007, p.10). It is this sense of uncertainty that has engulfed Australia, which in turn has shifted the Australia’s policy-makers into the direction of activism.

Many comments have been expressed with regard to Australia’s foreign policy where some people believe that if Australia fails to shape foreign policy, then it will be shaped and “unless we are foreign policy makers, we will end up as foreign policy takers” (Gyngell and Wesley 2007, p.10). The position of Australia exhibiting looseness and confidence in foreign policy making is a strategy that has provided Australia with the psychological capacity to take risks that have less consequence to others.

For instance, Gyngell and Wesley contend that Australian process of making foreign policies can be described as having tinkering quality, a feature that assumes that things can be tried without necessarily exposing the country to too many obvious dangers (Gyngell and Wesley 2007). Alexander Downer states that Australia is a middle power with adequate capability to influence events, thus “we have to make our way in the world in a way other countries don’t” (Gyngell and Wesley 2007, p.10).

Therefore, Australia’s capacity to influence the external world has been described as that of middle power where Australia is seen as big enough to exhibit particular interests in issues of the globe that may include, multilateral trading system or control of weapons of mass destruction but it generally lacks the power to execute its will and as a result, it is forced into coalition building diplomacy (Gyngell and Wesley 2007).

The divide in Australian foreign policy strategy has occurred between those who have a strong conviction that Australia’s interests can best be advanced by establishing and reinforcing ties with what Robert Menzies described as “our great and powerful friends” and the other competing alternative vision expressed by Paul Keating’s where he observed that, “Australia must find its security in Asia, not from Asia” Gyngell and Wesley 2007, p.11). Apart from these two views, the other one stresses on the centrality of bilateral relations and at the same time a ‘selective approach’ to the multilateral agenda which has constantly featured in the foreign policy white papers.

In summary, Australia’s foreign policy tradition has been analyzed and conclusion has been that there are three main traditions: Menzies tradition, Evatt tradition and Spender-Casey tradition (Warhaft 2004, p.520).

Menzies Tradition

This is a totally realist, power-and-interest-based tradition where Menzies become fully a realist and a conservative who became cynical of theoretical general schemes. His philosophy rested on believing in interest rather than principle as the reason for actions and history and experience instead of theoretical reasoning for the aim of effective judgments.

To Menzies, the international environment in which there were numerous dangers implied that the global balance of powers was best if it could favor the leading democratic powers and hence, it was necessary for a country like Australia, geographically isolated, to form and have close friendly relations with such powers (Warhaft 2004, p.520).

With regards to this, Australia should appear to be readily prepared to provide support to the United States and Britain politically when the need arises including offering military support. However, Menzies tradition does not believe in the power of international institutions like United Nations and postulates that such bodies had no moral authority to institute course of actions. This tradition is largely concentrated in conservative side of politics.

Evatt Tradition

This tradition is both seen as nationalist and internationalist and here, internationalism is favored not due to any great principle but from the conviction that international organizations are viewed and revered as the most congenial and effective forums for a middle power like Australia to announce and promote its presence and at the same time extend its influence (Warhaft 2004, p.521).

This tradition has evolved and manifested itself as forceful and vigorous and concerned to give Australia a high profile as a nation that has the ability to make distinctive contribution to matters in international arena. In addition, the tradition’s objectives have been to establish Australia’s independence by being suspicious of the big powers and always will work its way out to affirm its independence in order to protect its freedom of action and at the same time work out to make its identity stronger (Warhaft 2004, p.521).

By adopting this approach, Australia is able than the big powers to make assessment of the morality in a more objective way. Moreover, Evatt favored the utilization of effective organizational and institutional frameworks, procedures and rules for meaningful progress in any matter and this relied much on international law.

Spender-Casey tradition

Sometimes, this tradition is also known as the Keating tradition as it puts much emphasis on regional affairs. The content of this tradition has continued to vary but initially, Percy Spencer who was minister for external affairs fostered this tradition through “creating and extending the Colombo Plan, and developing diplomatic relations with the region’s new states” (Gurtov and Ness 2005, p.237).

Basically, the concept of regional concern had been overlooked by Menzies whose power-centered outlook portrayed him as a big-picture man who had no time to embrace regional approach (regionalism) and who viewed such attempt as an act of an enlarged form of isolationism.

Menzies agenda was blind to what can be seen as the “parochial affairs of weak, inexperienced, regional states” that was in the name of regionalism (Gurtov and Ness 2005, p.237). But as time went by and approaching the early years of 1990s, Paul Keating became more involved in regional matters and gave priority to regional relationships.

Which foreign policy tradition is good for Australia?

Australia has defined itself as having global interests that are not defined by geography. From this, the country is convinced and determined to continue pursuing economic and political freedom abroad since its security is perceived to be attached to it (Commonwealth of Australia 2003).

However, with the growing global insecurity emanating from legitimizing liberal democracy and the spreading of individual freedom, it has become necessary for Australia not to ignore such security threats and therefore, the country is relatively involved in outlining the necessary strategic requirements that fits the nation. Indeed, the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001 in USA and 12 October 2002 in Bali presented themselves as defining events for Australia as they changed significantly the Australia’s security plans.

What these events demonstrated was that, threats to Australia’s security were both global as well as regional. At the same time, the economic globalization is presenting a profound impact in shaping Australia’s world where the economies of the world appear to be more deeply integrated than ever before. Unfortunately, this globalization has accelerated the country’s vulnerability to transnational threats and therefore Australia’s concern for security has shifted from being of region to include global.

Australia will continue to use multilateral systems to advance its national interests in areas of global and regional security. At the same time, Australia believes that transboundary issues will require dependency among states and also, the United Nations together with other international bodies need to be sought and used to promote international issues.

In addition, Australia has tried to formulate independence of foreign policy from its main allies; USA and Britain, but analyzing the geographical positioning of the country and the role of UN bodies, Australia will continue to draw inspiration from America in regards to its foreign policy (Dean 2009).

Conclusion

It is only recently that Australia has propagated some form of independency as far as foreign policy is concerned. This does not that the country has become insulated from influence of its key allies USA and Britain.

At the same time, Australian exceptional historical events and circumstances have influenced the nation to develop approaches and characteristics that tend to inspire its foreign relation actions; thus what should be known in the minds of many people is that Australia, as a middle power, will continue to influence the global actions especially through its diplomatic methods but where the threat presents as lethal; it will also be willing to enter coalition arrangements to avert such threats.

Reference List

Commonwealth of Australia. 2003. Advancing the National Interest: Australia’s Foreign and Trade Policy White Paper. Web.

Dean, G., 2009. The Development of Australian Foreign Policy. Web.

Galligan, B., Roberts, W. and Trifiletti, G., 2001. Australians and globalization: the experience of two centuries. NY, Cambridge University Press. Web.

Gurtov, M. and Ness, P. V., 2005. Confronting the Bush doctrine: critical views from the Asia-Pacific. NY, Routledge. Web.

Gyngell, A. and Wesley, M., 2007. Making Australian foreign policy. NY, Cambridge University Press. Web.

Warhaft, S., 2004. Well May We Say: The Speeches That Made Australia. Australia, Black Inc. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!