Posted on 11/16/2005 1:56:01 PM PST by naturalman1975
AUSTRALIA today is in a most powerful position, with the greatest influence, globally, that it has had, and the connection with the US is central to that. This connection will be demonstrated and enhanced at this week's Australia-US Ministerial Consultations in Adelaide.
The view of Australian influence comes not from some redoubt of pro-Howard or pro-Bush neo-conservatism. Instead, it comes from the London School of Economics and Columbia University. Gwyn Prins, a Brit, holds chairs at both those institutions and is one of Europe's leading strategic thinkers.
His work focuses especially on making strategic analysis more complex, making it take account of more variables, and analysing how underlying trends can, wave-like, build up suddenly to breaking point.
He told me his assessment of Australian influence derives from several sources: our stellar economic performance; our status as a front-rank insider in the Western intelligence club, ranking behind only the US and Britain; that within the US alliance system Australia can project decisive force in a way few others can. That may seem an outlandish claim, given the small size of our armed forces. But the performance of our SAS in Afghanistan and Iraq was militarily vital. And finally there is the nature of Australia's defence capability, its inter-operability with the US and its technological quality.
US Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick, who, with Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, arrives today for the AUSMIN talks, said this week: "The US has no closer alliance partner than Australia." Zoellick is a precise man who never says anything he doesn't mean. Note his language; not no closer partner in the region, but no closer partner, period. This puts us in essentially the same position as Britain, allowing for our smaller size and weight overall.
The enhanced US-Australia alliance plays well in Asia, a region with few illusions about pooled sovereignty and the falderal of European Union-style transnationalism, a region instead dominated by strong nation-states with deep attachments to sovereignty and a clear-eyed understanding of power.
The US connection is an aspect of Australian power, it augments Australian power. Of course, it is not the definition or the limit of our power. The success of our economy; of our society as an open, welcoming, immigrant nation; the effectiveness of our military; the attraction of our universities to foreign students; and countless other factors all contribute to national power.
Some in our foreign policy circles hold that the US is in decline, at least proportionally and probably absolutely, in Asia. This is essentially a European view. It is not the view of the US, it is not the experience of history and it is not the view of the strategic hardheads in Asia.
Significantly, it is not the view either of John Howard, who believes the US will maintain its position in Asia, the US alliance system will remain the central organising principle of Asian security, and Australia and the US will grow closer.
This column has consistently argued that the US connection is overwhelmingly beneficial to Australia. But we should go further. As a new world nation of democratic and essentially republican values, we should also emulate the American ambition for national greatness. This does not mean emulating all US policies: gun ownership and its health system are two elements of US social practice well worth avoiding.
But the US drive and ambition to be a great nation that helps others and offers opportunities to its own citizens - in short, to be a big, strong nation - is an attitude that ought to be ours. This view is rarely put explicitly in Australia. One exception was the Menzies lecture by Australia's recently retired ambassador to Washington, Michael Thawley, earlier this month. Thawley called on Australians to believe in themselves, to understand their importance and weight in the international system, and to strive to achieve greatness (though he didn't use that word).
Essentially, Thawley wants us to choose to be a big, powerful nation instead of a small, weak nation. The metaphor he used was that we have the choice of being a strategic price maker instead of a strategic price taker. But to achieve this requires certain national commitments.
We need to continue to be actively engaged internationally, including strategically engaged. We should increase our immigration program so that we become, literally, a much bigger nation.
Despite the superb performance of our military in recent years, Thawley rightly calls for an increase in the 1.9per cent of gross domestic product devoted to defence spending. Just as, despite our fine economic performance, we need to continue the economic reform process and increase productivity. It's easy for Australians to underestimate themselves. We are, in fact, the 13th largest economy in the world. Our movie stars pervade popular culture, our corporations are big and expat Australians are to be found in key positions across the world.
Thawley integrates our US connection into this vision of a self-confident and growing Australia. Just growing bigger is a huge opportunity. Demographers misleadingly claim increased immigration would have no great effect on the ageing of the population, but while we would still grow older we would be much bigger, stronger, wealthier and therefore able to cope with this. If we took a net 250,000 people a year, that would be a million extra Australians every four years. If in 20 years we are 27 million, young and growing, we will have an infinitely greater capacity to shape our own destiny, to become strategic price makers, as Thawley puts it, than if we are 22 million, old and declining.
In all this, for as far as the mind can see, the US is going to be a critical player, no matter who is president. On that matter, too, I don't believe Bush is a lame duck yet. People write him off all the time, to their cost. But reports of his political death are wildly exaggerated. The power of incumbency remains vast. Bush, like the US itself, is exceptionally strong on the rebound. He gave a powerful speech on Asian democracy yesterday and didn't sound like a leader who's finished to me.
But it goes without saying that the Australia-US connection transcends any particular politician, although it's a relationship that always needs political nourishment. As much as we can, we should use the Howard-Bush closeness to create institutional links that will endure. This AUSMIN will see announcements in defence co-operation in training and procurement, which are part of that.
Ronald Reagan used to call Australia the America of the 21st century. It was an inestimable compliment. It's also a great and defining challenge.
Works for me. The Aussies have more guts in their collective pinkies than all of Europe's pinkos. Here's one 'Yank' who's proud to call Australia friend.
The government and people of the United States will never forget who their staunchest allies are. One would think that Canada, long under the US defensive umbrella would be our greatest ally; but alas, it is not, by their choice it lags well behind Britain and Australia when it come to reliable allies. Note to Canadians: Yes, you're still our allies if you want to be. And yes, Canada has made significant contributions as a US ally. But that doesn't change who are best allies are.
Thank you Australia for all that you've done and for who you are.
Interesting piece. Loved the last line, too. Well, of course. Vintage RR.
Here, here.
Just a few comments.
If we took a net 250,000 people a year, that would be a million extra Australians every four years.
Immigration is a good model for growth. Australia should carefully consider the lessons of both American and European immigration. Selecting the right immigrants is critical and it is a choice so chouse wisely.
Essentially, Thawley wants us to choose to be a big, powerful nation instead of a small, weak nation.
Why did the word Canada just jump into my head when I read that?
Ping!
Wasn't there a time relations were strained between Australia and the US? My source for this is the book "Falcon and the Snowman". I know it is just a novel, recounting a true story - but the implication was that the US was spying on its ally Australia.
The relationship hasn't always been as good as it is now, but I'm not sure I would say it's ever been strained.
During the time Gough Whitlam was Prime Minister (1972-1975), the US probably had some concerns (as did many Australian). The Whitlam government was extremely socialist, and I am sure that the US government looked into matters at that time to work out if they needed to be worried or not. Some extreme left wingers here try to claim that the CIA was behind the Dismissal of the Whitlam government, but that is generally accepted to be a fantasy - Whitlam's problems were totally self inflicted.
Having said that, if Mark Latham had become Prime Minister at last years election, Australia could now be in extreme trouble - most people knew he was somewhat anti-American - but very few people had any idea just how rabid he was until his diaries were released.
It doesn't take much to ruin a relationship.
Are there a lot of local political analysts who see similarities between Whitlam and Canada's Pierre Trudeau in terms of socialist policies implemented? Both were leaders at roughly the same time but Trudeau managed to reshape the nation in his image and legacy stays very strong even today, while Whitlam's legacy is largely dissipated.
There are lots of arguments against what he has to say on immigration.
I concur. As a migrant myself I oppose admitting the lazy welfare bums and "fifth columns" intending to destory Australia/US/New Zealand/Canada/Britain/Germant/France as a nation.
Which unfortunately, it seems the radical Islamics are intending to do so, while receiving welfare payments simultaneously.
What is needed is quality not quantity. There are 20 million refugees in the world today. Less people, less terrorism, more democracies such as the one that the US is fighting for in Iraq, are what we need.
Whitlam was sacked - removed from office by the Governor-General - before he could implement all of his ideas. And the first few that he implemented were the least controversial ones in many ways. He certainly wanted to do a great deal and was prepared to subvert normal constitutional convention to do it - but that is ultimately why he didn't succeed.
He thought a Governor-General who he had appointed would let him get away with whatever he wanted. He was wrong. Sir John Kerr looked at what was happening and looked at the Constitution - and went with the Constitution.
Easy, by basing qualifications on what the immigrant can provide to the country not the immigrant’s family relationships, which is currently the case.
This country use to have vast grounds for exclusion but in the 50s we changed the law to base immigration on family reunification. At that point we switched from basing immigration on what was best for the country to what is best for the immigrant and his family.
<< It doesn't take much to ruin a relationship. >>
But it takes a bloody site more than a lunatic-left-wing-fringe-dwelling Labour Party wanker like Latham.
Why, not even Mr Latham's mentor, the much-vaunted megalomaniacal Whitlam, the Socialist Internation's sychophantic servant, whose in-the-end-unlawful, illegal, un-Constitutional and close to criminal government was decidedly unfriendly to all of Australia's conventional allies and was, thank God, ended - and the Australian Nation saved, only by the courageous action of the Australian hero, John Kerr.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.