Australia gives Canada some pointers (Aussies point out what's wrong with Canada's weasels policy)

HONIARA, Solomon Islands -- Federal agent Simone Kleehammer dons a helmet and flak jacket before linking up with an army escort for her nightly police patrols. This is where her police colleagues were shot late last year -- one killed, one injured -- after local gunmen targeted Australian police on this anarchic South Pacific island nation 3,000 kilometres northeast of Sydney.

The shootings "felt like all of us getting kicked in the stomach," admits Kleehammer, 31, as she drives past the shooting scene. "But we were all here to do a job and we knew this could happen."

The deadly ambushes sent a chill through this dusty tropical town, demoralizing Australian police deployed here on a precedent-setting mission: to rebuild a failed state by reviving its faltering police force.

Australia reacted to the shootings by airlifting combat troops and arming its cops on the beat. Now, nighttime patrols are still tense, but by daybreak Kleehammer dumps her body armour, ditches her military escort and leaves the safety of a police outpost blanketed in barbed wire.

Relying on a smile and a nine-millimetre Glock handgun, she patrols with her local partners -- fresh recruits from the discredited Royal Solomon Islands Police. Hunched in a rickety cruiser, they begin a bone-jarring sweep through "Borderland," the deadliest district in this ramshackle capital.

Despite the threats, most residents of this dirt-poor island chain look upon the strapping Australian men and women in blue as saviours.

Two years ago, these outsiders rescued the islanders from themselves -- from the chaos of a failed state riven by ethnic cleansing and gang violence culminating in the government's collapse. In fact, Kleehammer is one of 300 foot soldiers in an Australian experiment that has redefined her government's approach to global trouble spots. The police deployment is the centrepiece of a massive, decade-long intervention launched in mid-2003 with an amphibious landing by 1,700 combat troops.

As they restored order, the $1 billion operation was bolstered by squads of elite civil servants reviving the moribund machinery of government, ranging from treasury economists to customs agents patrolling the airport. It is a virtual takeover of a sovereign country -- albeit by invitation. The Solomon Islands rescue mission has served as the inspiration for an equally ambitious police deployment in Papua, New Guinea -- another crime-infested, corruption-ridden troublespot off Australia's northern coast.

Saving the day is becoming a habit for Australians. The federal police have set up an "international deployment division" as part of its "core business," says Will Jamieson, who ran the division before relocating here to run the Solomon Islands police mission. Australia's biggest and boldest intervention came in late 1999, when its military deployed decisively into nearby East Timor as it was struggling for independence from adjacent Indonesia in mid-1999. While Western countries stood by paralyzed, the global spotlight was shining on 5,700 Australian troops as they stared down Indonesian-backed militiamen.

Today, Australia projects its power from Iraq and Afghanistan in the West, to the Solomon Islands and other South Pacific nations in the East. Beyond the sheer sweep of territory, Australia's increasingly muscular and activist strategy suggests a country that is

punching far above its weight. Bruised by the 2002 Bali bombing that claimed 88 Australian lives and left the country reeling, it emerged more determined to ally itself with Washington's war on terror.

An early clue to Australia's inclinations came when Prime Minister John Howard famously agreed with an interviewer that he was America's "deputy sheriff" in the region; he created an even bigger stir by threatening pre-emptive strikes against terrorists plotting against Australians from neighbouring countries. But Australia's influence is about more than muscle and sabre-rattling. Australians beat the rest of the world to the punch by donating a remarkable $1 billion within hours of last December's tsunami, and sending in the first waves of military rescue teams.

Compared to Canada -- with a similarly modest population and compact military -- Australia is emerging as a global player and diplomatic powerhouse. It is often said that there no two countries more similar than Canada and Australia in terms of size and British parliamentary traditions, but on defence and foreign policy the two countries are following distinctly different paths.

While Canada concentrates on peacekeeping and emphasizes multilateralism, Australia opts for rapid responses to shore up failing states -- even without United Nations approval. Canada proudly wears its multilateral memberships on its sleeve and heralds the United Nations as the foundation of its foreign policy, while Australia's government is openly dismissive of Security Council consultations that go nowhere.

Australia's long-serving foreign minister, Alexander Downer, is a harsh critic of "sclerotic" multilateralism that has become "a synonym for an ineffective and unfocused policy of internationalism of the lowest common denominator." Interviewed in his Sydney office this month, Downer restated Australia's determination to follow its own course -- in close consultations with its American ally -- rather than taking its cue from others overseas. And like many influential Australian foreign policy analysts, he made plain his displeasure with Ottawa's readiness to sit on the sidelines while others do the "heavy lifting."

Despite the apparent similarities, Canada can coast on Washington's protective umbrella while Australia has to look after itself, while keeping firepower in reserve for neighbours in need.

Downer says Australians are keen on looking after themselves because "this is our neighbourhood. Canada's neighbourhood is completely dominated by the United States." He adds that Australia is more than merely self-reliant -- it is also a reliable ally. "We pull our weight," Downer says pointedly.

The contrast with Canada, which prides itself on being a "middle power" that absented itself from Iraq, is inescapably unflattering. Despite significant domestic opposition -- the country is still split on the issue -- Australia didn't hesitate to send troops during the U.S.-led invasion and now has about 400 soldiers in Iraq. It is also sending more soldiers to Afghanistan, again. Nor did it wait for UN approval before dispatching forces to the Solomon Islands, fearing a Security Council veto by China.

"The political will comes from a commitment to try to make a contribution to dealing with some of the world's problems," Downer says. "Sometimes we can do it alone -- at least lead the operation, as we did in East Timor," he continues. "We did the heavy lifting. Same in the Solomon Islands. With Papua New Guinea we do it alone with the PNG government."

Australians are unabashed about flexing their muscle. "We're all very proud to be punching above our weight," says Susan Windybank, head of foreign policy research at Sydney's Centre for Independent Studies. "We don't want our backyard to become a junkyard."

The risk, however, is that Australia is stretching itself thin while trying too hard to please the Americans, says Owen Harries, a foreign policy advisor to previous Australian governments.

Despite his skepticism of Australia's over-arching ambition to be in the big leagues, Harries is contemptuous of Canada's more cautious foreign policy. "I don't admire Canada's foreign policy very much. For a country of its weight, it should be doing more than engaging in good works."

Good on ya for your self reliance and helping on the frontiers. Poor Canada has be come the fat and lazy ex wife of America.

Australia can only become more robust and independent from taking responsibility for it's own future. That makes you more desirable as an ally to all the country's of the world.

One very incorrect item in the article mentioned that we have comparable populations and militaries--although we have 20 million people and Canada 30 million, please don't compare our military to Canada's--the Canadian's just aren't in the same league as the Aussies--they lost the will to adequately fund and staff their military many years ago. Not sure the Canadians could repel an attack from Greenland.

Good on ya for your self reliance and helping on the frontiers. Poor Canada has be come the fat and lazy ex wife of America.

We're with on that mate. Americans love you Ozzies, Of course you talk sorta funny. (kidding of course).

What is the OZ citizienship's political view of the middle eastern dillema? Are the OZ folks on board with the USA?

Curious since my Dad was stationed in Perth during WWII and loved you guys.

Out of respect, I'm certainly hoping members of the Canadian Armed Forces currently deployed in Afghanistan, which number four or five times that of what the Aussies have in Iraq, ARE NOT reading FreeRepublic right at this moment.

I'm referring to the COMMENTS posted here, NOT the news piece itself (which the average Canuck volunteer grunt over there would probably agree with).

Very disrespectful. And I'd imagine it would be somewhat demoralizing if they were reading it from over there as well. I'm actually embarrassed that nobody here seems willing to make the distinction between the ARTICLE and the volunteer Canadian soldier deployed.

But by all means. Carry on. It speaks volumes about some of the posters around here.

Well I not going to dump on Canadian across the board there is a good size minority in Canada that know the score and conversely the US has it's own moonbat minority... There are Free Dominion Canadian http://www.freedominion.ca/ and DU Americans

So as they say ..."There but for the Grace of God"...

And thank God for the Aussies

Owen Harries, a foreign policy advisor to previous Australian governments ...... [declares that] [d]espite his skepticism of Australia's over-arching ambition to be in the big leagues, [he] is contemptuous of Canada's more cautious foreign policy, [saying] I don't admire Canada's foreign policy very much. For a country of its weight, it should be doing more than engaging in good works."

God bless the Aussies. They have the old "can-do" spirit that the US once had, but is woefully lacking today. Troops should be stationed on our southern border right now to stop the lawlessness there, but the president is too timid to fix the problem and people are dying because of it. It's so much easier to make speeches about securing the territory in Iraq than it is to secure Laredo, Texas. Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, across the Rio Grande, has had more people killed since Jan. than we've lost in the war in Iraq this year, and this malignant crime spree sends thousands of illegal criminals into the US. Many Texans still have the same spirit that Australians have, so we look for a good turnout of Texas Minutemen to patrol the border in Oct. and show the girlie-men like Fred Barnes how it CAN be done.

Are you trying to engage me in some kind of pis*ing contest between the Australian/Canadian military? Well, don't bother. I'm American.

Re-read my post. The original article is about the divergent policies/philosophies (at least, according those interviewed) between the two countries GOVERNMENTS. Yet, right out of the gate, the first half dozen posters started ragging in on NOT ONLY the Canadian government, but Canadians in general, and (what COULD be misread as) members of their active military itself, who are currently engaged WITH US in Afghanistan.

I could care less if Australia has 10, or 10,000 troops in the ME/Afghanistan. Same goes for Canada. And Poland. The fact is, they're all there, FIGHTING THE FIGHT. AS ALLIES, as well as individuals.

But other point I was trying to make is, and please READ THIS CAREFULLY: If there's some 19yo Canadian kid/grunt stationed in Kandahar, who volunteered to sign up DESPITE the shortcomings of his Liberal government, and just happens to be reading FreeRepublic and some of these comments on his or her laptop at this very moment, THEN I as an American, and a freeper, am deeply offended and embarrassed by those same comments. And for that, I deeply apologize to any Canadian military who may be reading this (and any part I had in it).

If you want to slag off the Canadian government, go ahead. Have a ball. But don't slag off the kids who are there helping out. That's just (for lack of of a better term): pathetic.

I believe I also mentioned something about RESPECT re: the above.

Got that? MATE?

Are we to conclude from his sanctimonious prattle that Harries thinks Canada should be engaging, not only in good works, but also in bad works, non-good works, silly works, macho works, mindless works, or, more likely, pretentious works that would give it an appearance of having military strength that Canada (like Australia) does not and never can have in a world in which U.S. power is utterly preponderant in every way -- except in putting down insurgencies?

Brilliant observation. Kinda' thought of it that way myself. An obvious Aussie poseur, yet the article was written by a Canadian. Too funny.

Last time I was skiing up in Whistler, BC (I'm from WA state and visit Canada all the time) the entire town was just teeming with Aussie expats. You name it: waiters/waitresses, hotel and bar staff, ski lift personnel, etc. None of them were planning on going back home anytime soon. Could it be they were in Canada hiding out from this Owen Harries dude? Fosters and ski bunnies a little more appealing than invading the Solomon Islands, perhaps?

Way too funny...

He does have his facts straight. Canada has troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and other middle east countries I can not disclose as well as air support elements in the entire region. We also have troops in Bosnia, Golan, Siera Lione, Sudan, Haiti, Siani, Jerusalem, Darfur etc.

Last time I checked Canada was doing more than their fair share of ship boardings in the Gulf.

Canada entered WWII less than a week after Great Britain did so in September of 1939 whereas 85% of the U.S. population still opposed U.S. entry into WWII more than two years later, on December 6th, 1941. This only changed after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7th, 1941 AND the declaration of war on the U.S. by Germany on the same day. Does this mean that the U.S. did not do its share in winning WWII? Of course not. U.S. contributions in WWI and WWII were decisive. However, it does mean that Canada did its share in both WWI and WWII, long before the U.S. entered either conflict, and has nothing to apologize for as recce guy has noted in post #19 of this thread.

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.