Ugly unilateralism and following rights abuses

The sense of being let down hard spreads in areas of human rights and liberty (legal protection) as well. It was recognised that the US is a rights country, placing rights above rules and powers. Sacrifice of certain privileges serves the purpose of upholding rights for ordinary people; otherwise, the US is no different from some rouge states identified by US strategists as well as rights watchers. This myth has endured long enough for the US to house and entertain rights abuse victims from all over the world. As Seinfeld once passionately declared in that comedy show, whoever the people you don’t want, send them to the US, we will take them all. In countless Hollywood movie scenes, the Statute of Liberty in New York stood out as the ultimate symbol of this acceptance of and protection to genuine refugees and rights seekers. Rights are inalienable, above state persecution, and enjoyed by all.

This heart warming image, however, has since more resembled a bragging, sounding hollow for the first time in a post-Cold War world. The turning point is the Iraq war, with the attached horrible incidents of legal black holes in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and other US occupied territories, and of more recent shocking killing of 24 civilians in Haditha. How far backward a step the US has taken can be shown in Pentagon’s latest guidelines to their troops of giving their detained suspects basic Geneva Conventions protection and humane treatment. Those basic obligations and rights were offered universally early last century, and nasty violators in Japanese and German armies earned them eternal infamy. Rights can be instantly taken away by American military or civilian personnel, with little recourse or chance of an appeal. Justice is no loner relevant to those affected and victimised. In recent US-initiated conflicts, where the military was let loose, prisoner abuses bound to happen, in the hands of rank and file American soldiers and officers who passed years of their upbringing being taught to respect people’s rights. Human rights mean little in these closed sites, and abuses come in the basest, inhuman forms, comparable to those claimed to be used in Americans’ listed rouge countries. Those shocking abuses are in sharp contrast to lenient and over considerate treatment of those rights violators, who have enjoyed full legal defense for their gross misconduct and are given light sentences, in the name of serving American national interests overseas with distinction. That is an awakening, a terrible realisation that the US as the declared global rights defender can easily revert to be a rights violator when circumstances allow. Previous decorations of good deeds look so feeble these days.

If those exposed scandals of prisoner abuse and civilian killings are treatments non-Americans were subjected to, rights are visibly eroded also within the US, such as unauthorised phone tapping of millions of citizens. In the panic and sometimes hysterical atmosphere post September 11, draconian laws and rules came in haste to command people’s life in unprecedented ways, restraining civil liberties further by promoting public showing of patriotism. The well-known protestor Cindy Sheehan faced arrest several times, for her anti-war stance unpopular to the conservatives and her staging rallies outside the White House causing embarrassment and inconvenience to the Bush staff. An American activist was detained in Australia and deported back to the US for his peace appeal tour, classified as a possible threat to national security. Even country music stars Dixie Chicks got the axe and silenced for a number of years for their public ridicule of Bush junior. Under this chilling atmosphere, fear is bred deep and wide, fear of being targeted by terrorist groups, being constantly watched by the big brother with unbelievably sophisticated technologies, and, most of all, of being judged suspect of treason. Politicians and the public are cowed into not voicing their concerns in case being stitched with the label of unpatriotic to the country of God chosen. The media kept silent most of the time, avoiding annoying the administration and radical sections of the public at a wrong time and even cheer-leading the invasion of Iraq in humble and obedient ways seldom seen of this unique professional group which touts unrelenting pursuit of truth and accountability of the authorities. This is perhaps a rare time that rights give way to power, to concerted, choreographed sentiments, and to bolder fanatics, which has made a big dent on the solidity and sincerity of rights protection in the US in good times and bad. A uniformity of opinions seems not an impossibly distant reality in this land of diversity, even with recent expose by the media of certain government mishandling of affairs, essentially piecemeal and shallow in relation to issues of rights and principles.

The US government, in the heat of war effort and punishing offenders, failed to hold on to the bottom lines reserved to keep the basic human dignity in a civilised society managed by a civilised administration. They have also failed to defend the honour of the most powerful nation on earth and in history, proclaimed the only and last bastion of liberty and rights if all other places fall into dark ages. In truth, it fell hard by letting loose of its own disgraceful behaviours.

There are other serious concerns and deepened anxiety over the US’s disturbing behaviours, such as blatant double standards in domestic and international affairs, or a retreat from the proclaimed multiculturalism. Above all, the greatest let down of this century is the failure of the leading nation on earth to lead the right direction, which has caused considerable mischief and suffering. This is doubly disappointing, as the American way had to some extent proved a remarkable improvement on past trials and experiences in search of an ideal destination of the human race. That myth of ultimate achievement, an end of history, has been fast fading; no matter how strenuously and spectacularly Hollywood makes its splendid presentations of the nation, it ceases to be a magic. People around the world are now able to see that even the very best the US has to offer are only humans, rather than philosophy kings, and they unavoidable make mistakes as human beings, out of greed, self interest, misguided beliefs, and simply misjudgement. People can also through the statements and promises from the US government on rights, progress, destiny, the world order, etc. In surveys of recent years, the international image of the US has been on the way down consistently, tarnished badly by its irrational and unpredictable actions. The US has lost valuable credit and people’s confidence in good intentions of its policy or measures.

In regard to hopes and broken promises in this disorientated world, human societies are moving backward to the primitive stages of history when force and might, instead of unbiased rules and consensus, dominated the scene, resurrecting the very nature of law of the jungle. In a fashion reminiscent of the beginning of the 20^th century, soon after the euphoria, carnage and brute force prevailed, and human beings exposed their base nature and thirst for gobbling up available feeds. Most of the bad things common in the early years of the last century recur in similar fashion and forms. Between these two historic moments, one hundred years apart, there are countless similarities to make people seriously wonder what progresses have really been made, in terms of behaviours, ambition and vested interests, despite phenomenal advancements of technologies and sophistication of organisation, and whether the human race tends to buckle under pressure in history and repeat past nastiness. This is indeed a great leap backward of gigantic magnitude.

The performance of US has not lowered people’s anxiety but heightened it. It has long been an open secret that the US no longer respects individual national sovereignty and international bodies like the UN. The former is selective, of course; the US protects its own sovereignty solemnly at any given time. When national sovereignty concerns an entity against another power, this concept is also fervently guarded by the US, in line with its grand geopolitical strategies. This has been demonstrated in its determined stance supporting an ally such as Israel or in nourishing an East European lightweight against Russia. When American interests and strategies overseas are involved, national sovereignty of others proves an egg-shell thin shield likely to be smashed through at will. The explicit disrespect is relatively new, when US governments are convinced that they could not count on the UN to grant vital endorsement every time they demand it. The real rationale behind the once glamorous global village myth is that it needs a big guy as the head of village which get things done his own way, with unquestioned support of all members. In the scenario of a “consensus” unattainable, the US decides on a different approach, a resolute abandonment of an internationalised solution under the UN.

The guiding principle is now ominously “with us or against us”. This is the equivalent of Americans saying “my way or the highway”. Although applying this slang to an international institution of UN sounds quite awkward and foolish, in reality the US has succeeded in effectively eroding those establishments through unilateralism and unmistaken demonstration of desire for hegemony. It is not that international bodies cease to exist; they rather cease to function properly and have lost even the nominal powers or restraints over what the US prefers to do against the wishes of other members, in particular those who are not bought or coerced. The Iraq war dispels the myth and disguise the US put on previously about its commitment to international cooperation and rule-observing. Failing to obtain a UN endorsement gives the US ample reasons to let loose of their contempt and grudge, thus sinking the last nail to the fate of the UN. Once people realised that one particular member of the UN can get away from stated obligations and seek own course of vengeance by force, the entire trust on this international body, along with all the hooplas of global village American style, crumbled. International laws and understanding of preventing war and penalising unprovoked aggression are dismissed flippantly. The reputation and credibility of the UN have since been seriously and publicly undermined. It may not be the official policy of the US to disband the UN, though a few American hawks did openly explore that possibility, but when US governments sense obstacles there to its strategies or schemes, they simply cannot repel the urge to lean on to unilateralism and make bold, unauthorised moves in the face of a stunned UN and simmering disagreement.

It is worth while exploring this unilateralism from another angle. Even though it stands at the opposite side of multilateralism, the question remains as since when has multilateralism in fact worked? Why unilateralism as a policy was so easily accepted? Multilateralism is meant to see justice and obligations in play both ways, rather than one-sided scrutiny over the less fortunate and voiceless. This rationalising, however, is not going to be played in real life, because only the powerful can make intruding request of search and investigation of other countries, with or without UN backing. The UN’s failure to accommodate and facilitate those demands from the weak exposes its weaknesses all along, suffering discredit and humiliation in the hands of a superpower and seasoned manipulator. Multilateralism is another casualty in this tilted arrangement of international brokerage.

Some showing of multilateralism existed simply because strategic interests of the US were not directly affected by talks and negotiations in areas of trade or cultural exchanges. Developed countries with considerable armed forces in general gave room for dialogues and tolerated certain inconveniences, such as voting and debating in the UN. Ultimate decisions were made by powers and allies, not by public will in a show of hands. Motions from poor and developing countries rarely got passed and fully executed. It is only the resolutions on international affairs from the US and allies which receive full attention and enforcement. This selective implementation of US resolutions then becomes farcical.

The transformation from some forms of multilateralism to ardent unilateralism by the US went seamlessly in a relatively short period of time. Multilateralism proves not genuine, lasting, and secured. It relies solely on the good will and tolerance of the superpower in a calm mood. Once vital interests are in some conceived jeopardy, the US sees little necessity to keep the pose of multilateralism, being overly expensive and exhausting, and would take the more effective strategy of unilateralism. There is this grievance the US harbours deeply that they wasted on sharing resources and decision making with large numbers of countries and it should now go it alone. The harsh reality of unequal status among countries does not sustain a feeble existence of multilateralism for long, and this misfit gives the US excellent excuse and incentive to switch to unilateralism by the early 21^st century.

Tolerance implies the degree a person or society to tolerate certain unpleasant or unwelcome things, even if unwillingly. Dependence on others’ tolerance is a risky business, since this tolerance could possibly reach its upper limit and break. The moral standards of the tolerant are supposed to be high and stable, but these standards come to endure painful tests till a collapse occurs, similar to a person who snapped for a variety of reasons. Dependence on tolerance from the powerful is even riskier: that tolerance can be withdrawn quite easily and casually when real interests are viewed as affected or endangered, and there appears little room left for further handing out or decent sharing. Tolerance is nice and comfortable, but it clearly changes nothing between the giver and receiver, in terms of status, perceptions, and negotiating power. Behind this veil of tolerance under proclaimed multilateralism, the US chooses to leave the UN’s authority challenged and eroded, but not tolerate challenge to and questions about its own authority in interpreting events and making unilateral decisions. Tolerance merely marks the line the US draws between multilateralism and unilateralism.

Acceptance and recognition are more appropriate, accurate, and commendable notions in international relations than this somewhat reluctant and self-imposed tolerance. To recognise others’ right and views enhances the notion of multilateralism and minimises impulses and risks in taking up the military option so recklessly in international affairs. This requires accepting equal treatment and dealing of others, based on common interests and understanding of rights in coverage and depth. Acceptance and recognition have only been nominally adopted within the UN, in routine procedures and protocols, but have failed true tests numerous times when real clashes of interest came to a head. A sincere embracing by the US is seriously lacking, in its entrenched habit of toying with unilateralism and earnest quest for hegemony.

This policy choice of unilateralism is understandable in the context of a newly found zeal for hegemony. After all, the US is a normal country, not a holy country or another Holy Roman Empire. This is a society of human beings with normal ambitions and shortcomings, and they make routine and odd mistakes, mistakes most people can quickly identify the absurdities with, except American establishments which hold an unwavering certainty of correctness and righteousness. It is odd that American politicians come under nearly daily ridicules and scrutiny, but their stance or approach to international affairs are mostly cheered on by domestic public opinions, an indication of how deeply entrenched the belief in superiority exist in this diverse and democratic nation.

The US uniqueness or exceptionalism has raised high expectations of many to follow a genuine world leader of no undesirable characteristics, expectations especially strong from those faithful who fled to the US to dismiss their own countries and cultural roots. In reality, the US did not escape the course of encountering series of failings. It has its own troubles, inability to solve domestic problems, economic disasters and mishandling, setbacks and low morale, lack of leadership, brutality, aggressions, and faults in management and corporate governance. The idea of US exceptionalism vanished at the time of the tech bubble burst, and the US went through familiar economic cycles, illustrating no immunity to market failures and upheavals. The US led wars in the early 21^st century undoubtedly shocked many to submission at first, but the ensuing predicaments and quagmires exposed wide open the limited capability of the US to put things in order in other territories. The best it can do is to offer certain solutions and formulas and see what would happen. With genuine intention and support, some may work, but a forced transplant mostly fails.

It is convenient for people to forget the short time span of the US ascendancy. Placed in a very long term perspective, this is only one piece of progress in a nation, commendable but less impressive. Watching closer, those generalised as absolute truths cover mostly post WWII US spectacle. To define all developments with the experience of a nation in around half a century is over-simplifying, and to take up the US supremacy since the end of last century as permanent and perpetual is beyond rational deductions. A wiser option is not to view Pax Americana as the end of history, a misguided view begging people’s homage to such a hegemony. Leaving that guise aside, people will see the US more of another normal country on a familiar course of shifts and wobbles, even with its recent awesome strength and might. There is little sacred or mythical about it.

There seems little in the way of a US hegemony or domination of the world, and benefits from occupying such a high-up position flow generously indeed. The point is whether hegemony can be benign or accommodating, or extremely unilateral and overpowering that put other peoples off. This extraordinary American unilateralism has hijacked the vehicle of anti-terrorism to violate international laws and cause horrifying destruction. Terror does exist, in both modes of terrorist organisations and state terrorism. Without genuine multilateralism and true acceptance of diversity, rights and the universal sense of security are in a fast diminishing streak under the weight of unrivaled might of a single member of the international community.

The Greatest Let Down

A place like Australia, a safe and peaceful environment without much want and with plenty of neutrality and goodwill to others, is the place to make likely unbiased observations and judgements on those knotty and vexing international affairs. It is possible that observations are less ideologicalised, opinionated, and one-sided in this essentially social democratic entity, though sometimes Western values, political inclination, and religious blood relations do come in the way of understanding others. Overall, Australia provides a preferred place for objective views of the world and powers.

At the dawn of this new century, there were apparently familiar outpourings of heightened expectations and great hopes for a consistent display of progress and peace. Unfortunately, the first decade of the 21^st century has yet indicated either. Hope is certainly insuppressible and surfaces persistently, but it is also a luxury item very often getting denied, rebuffed and dashed. In a retro view of past decades, high hopes came to be unceremoniously replaced by wanton breaches of rights and growing uncertainty of sound human behaviours.

Taking into account of cold realities of this young century, it would be more sensible to view the paths and modes Australia has persisted in a wider comparison with top players of the world and define the country’s easily unnoticed merits.

It goes without saying that the most powerful of a certain time is more likely to show the way ahead. In this case, the US has reached an unprecedented world leading position in history, and thus caused the greatest let down ever as well. Its supremacy spreads to so many areas, not only in unchallengeable economic and military might but also in cultural dominance and surge of creativity. These amazingly great feats, however, happened to reveal the vulnerable side of this lone super power in the recent past and lead people to ponder on some less obvious options in development and progress.

Let downs have the most to do with the behaviours and actions of the US. There was a time of nearly everyone looking up to the US for guidance, justice, and source of new, fashionable thinking. Such a conviction is particularly true of former socialist or authoritarian societies, where the norms and ideas differed substantially from the preferred, more enlightened ones in the US. On top of the unmatched economic and military might which suppressed open conflicts and secured stable international trade since the 1990s, the US held a position of pinnacle in the world out of its political and media power of persuasion, and made criticisms of the American way noticeably unpopular among those millions of US admirers the world over. One can be easily shocked to find many people passionately defending the US’s actions, in whatever fields of affairs, as if their own beliefs and faith came under attack. It is the life style and superiority complex of the Americans in many forms that urged people to pay homage to the US and seldom feel comfortable of challenging US policy or propaganda. Among other failed social experiments of the last century, the American way was the first to be recognised as the likely path to follow in striving for development and peace in the new century. That was grandly marked as the end of history. The magic potion is labeled and marketed Americanism.

On the vital issue of peace, the opening of the 21^st century has resembled in numerous aspects that of the early 20^th century. The coming century was widely expected to be more enlightened, fairer, a perfect world order in excellent shape, eliminating all violence and atrocities. There are countless international organisations where people are able to talk the talk, share their thoughts and converse in different languages. A concept of global village was tirelessly advocated and promoted by people in privileged positions. Instead, brute force in the hands of fanatics and ideologues arbitrarily determined the matters of the world, with explosive consequences and untold casualties beyond imagination. Dreams have been shattered, hopes vanished, and expectations dimmed. A peaceful environment turned out to remain mere projections at best than a reality.

One crushing disappointment of this century is undoubtedly the frightening realisation that the US as a typical democracy of the world is not genuinely working for preventing wars and maintaining peace. In fact, there have been clear signals of increasingly reckless use of force by the US since the end of Cold War, resorting primarily to military might and destruction in resolving major contentious issues. This tendency does not simply derive from an impulsive, hawkish Bush administration, but has certainly developed into a recognised and adopted policy agenda on his watch. It is understandable that politicians tend to treat the military option casually when aggressions bring desired results, and they are emboldened to sign orders to go to war with little hesitation on just cause, costs, and risks involved. As the US takes the enviable position of a lone warrior without an equal in military terms, the temptation to use force to clear every single obstacle is enormous indeed.

A single illuminating sign of this tendency is the pre-emptive strategy prominent in the
so-called Bush doctrine. This strategy is in principle an uninspiring and meaningless one, as any one nation can propose a strategy of pre-emptive strike if feeling like it. Imperial Japan was one of the leading practitioners of this strategy, first for gaining a position of relative strength to bargain with powers and then making a big splash in the Pacific Ocean against the US forces, seen as a potential threat to Japan’s survival and blatant aggressions in the Asia Pacific. North Korea, incidentally, made a claim in the similar vine when threatened verbally and militarily by the combined forces of the US and Japan. The point is that there is virtually no possibility for many of the nations of the world to actually take military actions under the guidance of this generalised strategy, as it means suicidal self-destruction in a real application. Due to its extremely destabilising and tension creating nature, the international community had largely thrown the notion of pre-emptive strikes down the dustbin and upheld national sovereignty and international mediation.

What is unique of the US’s choice of picking up this recycled strategy is that it now feels an almost absolute assurance in waging pre-emptive strikes without inflicting considerable damages to its own interests. The US relies on overwhelming advantages in conventional and nuclear weapons over adversaries such as Russia which willingly dismantled its own strategic weapons and thus lost credible capacity for a real contest. The development of anti-missile defense systems offers additional protection for the US to take actions it desires. Military means can now crush those far-away resistance and resentment when American propaganda and image building apparently failed. Implementing this strategy based on a superior military would make wars and armed conflicts inevitable, and numerous pretensions have been put forward for the starting of wars, as long as they are consistent with the self-imposed criteria of pre-emptive strikes. This much trumpeted strategy provides an easy trigger of war, as it in fact lowers the bar of commencement of military actions and gives the US a free hand to wage wars, even nuclear wars.

Being a democracy does not exonerate the heavy responsibility involved in reapplying this war-mongering strategy. Wars have been waged by democracies on numerous occasions. This was unavoidable when early industrialised countries (democracies) fanned out to grab colonies and places of vital resources in new types of international trade. The infamous Opium Wars (twice) were initiated by the then greatest parliamentary democracy of all times, Britain. It may sound cliché to remind people of this past of democracy and colonisation going hand in hand in modern history, since people of the 21^st century seem to seldom spare attention over this weird combination, it has been the truth all along. With varying degrees of democratisation and economic sizes, wars were also waged among European countries in destructive manners, including the two World Wars.

If those are distant, boring past and are not clearly convincing, then the war in Iraq in 2003 is a more recent and undisguisable case of war-waging capability of modern democracies. This war is totally unauthorised, unprovoked, unilateral, deliberate, deceitful, demoralising, and full of vengeance. The most worrying is that the causes to war are false, unjustifiable, and proved dead wrong soon after the war started. The war mongers in the US and the UK completely lost their credibility in front of the entire civilised world, as well as of savage tribal societies where the use of force is justified by simple need to survive, not by phoney accusations and slick slide shows of gathered intelligence. It was revealed that in 1939 German troops faked Polish identities to create a border attack as the excuse for invading that country. Less subtly, Japanese imperial army in 1931 blowed up a section of railways in the Chinese Northeast and started long planned military offensives and occupation right after on the pretence of being attacked. These tactics by the early axis of evil appear rudimental and childish if put side by side with those applied by the US for the war in 2003. The quoted causes to the Iraq war were more creatively and ingeniously invented and unreservedly sticked to thereafter, assisted by unprecedented blanket ban on media coverage of invasion processes. These camouflage and war triggering tactics are also marked improvements on what was displayed at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin conflict, during which alleged attacks on US warships excited Congress to pass resolutions for a full scale involvement of US forces in Vietnam. This history of spin and pretext for war strategies just replayed its routine tracks in the early 21^st century. To some American elites, history does not matter, because they have gone well beyond history and its heavy burdens, and they are creating an end of history anyway, which is 100 percent Americanised.

When economic and strategic self interests are involved, there seems no certainty that a democracy would behave any better and not resort to war or any available types of brute force. It is doubly likely that politicians under a democracy know well of utilising or even mobilising public opinions for a path to war and in turn skilfully display the will of the people as a trump card and defence for their provocative actions taken. Headstrong politicians in a democracy simply whip up sentiments of patriotism, scream facing a clear and present danger, and then ride high on favourable waves of public opinions to go to war. There seems no enforceable and workable checks and balances to this extreme pattern of behaviours. Democracy, after all, is respecting the will of your own people and acting against other peoples’. Don’t mess with my men; better thresh other blokes who are not my voters.

The sense of unmatched overall power at the disposal of US governments has understandably been heightened in recent years. A country with this wide range of power tends to demand uniformity and assimilation from other forms of culture or society, since the building of the most powerful country in the history of human race ought to provide adequate proof of a common path to success. There is supposed to be just one single truth among all the mainstream trends. With this strong belief of force and destiny, a “WW Factor” emerged in the United States since the end of the Cold War. These include right wing (conservatives) and war mongering (the Hawks), reaching a peak under the Bush administration of two consecutive terms (the West Wing). Previously, these combinations under Reagan and Bush senior were less apparent, due to the Cold War and confusion over the aftermath, while this new “WW Factor” has got a firm, unparalleled hold on US politics and administration. In human history so far, a mentality of God-send and treating others as pagans is not new at all. Without exception, strong beliefs in one’s own are essentially built on sheer might and current prosperity, and ignorance of past cycles reinforces these beliefs.

This propensity of belittling others’ status is vividly displayed in often heard proclamations of “bomb you back to the Stone Age”, a senseless military threat to any force challenging or eroding the US interests of any form. This American catchphrase was heard during the Vietnam War, and, judging from the high intensity of bombing and massive scales of destruction, the meticulously designed flattening and burning tasks were carried out with little hesitation or reservation. With that brutal war behind, the US was expected to change its behaviours nicely after the end of Cold War, leaving military actions the very last resort in a more interconnected global village. Quite the opposite, in ensuing invasions and military conflicts, even those pro-US groups could not believe the insistence and recklessness in execution of such a threat for real by this leading democracy and nation of freedom. They were dumb-founded: the US is not only intentional in waging wars and invasion, but also willing to go unprecedented far extreme to achieve the goals through flattening all. Its power to crush and destroy looks great and impressive, especially on TV. Civilian casualties draw scant attention from American officials and personnel, as these are termed collateral damages along side the tracks of military machines and warrant no sympathy or even mentioning. Physically wrecking or leveling down a region is also no longer unimaginable in military plans. In the consistent traditions of US armed forces, which move battalions forward only after destroying everything standing and intend to maintain “zero casualty” for troops in conflicts, the use of firepower in offensives is unrestrained and overwhelming, in consequence causing more civilian casualties than needed be. Minimising the loss of human lives is then placed at the bottom of agenda items. Few countries are able to stand for long in this killing and destruction contest with the US.

A new phenomenon in recent wars is the ubiquitous presence of western mass media, which preach, advocate and cheerlead the causes of the all powerful in millions of seemingly persuasive ways. This is also one of the means those politicians use to the full effect for advocating their causes. The media is “mass” in the sense of reaching massive numbers of audience and endless coverage bombardment bordering on brainwashing. It is not that “mass” because it is also the tools in the hands of an exclusive club that channels desired messages out. No wonder many headlines say what the most powerful intends to say simultaneously and have people to believe. The opposite norm these days is that murmurs from the weak are shout down or silenced. What a small Arabic TV station can do in facing giant globalised networks and big name anchors? Marketing and advertising practices would suggest that the former simply stands no chance. This information asymmetry was not an occurrence in the past, since the defense of the weak and the violated existed even during the most atrocious wars and social upheavals. The overwhelming blanket coverage by one voice from the source of war has become so stifling, that there seems no place to find recourse or just judiciary. The hawks’ urge to undertake sabre rattling and military campaigns at will are then reinforced by the media’s obedience and assistance in leading public opinions and justifying overseas adventures.

The tendency towards a military option and wrecking signifies a dramatic policy turn in the US in the post Cold War era. An ultimate solution to conflicts is through use of force, after temporary and heavy-handed rounds of talks, which may serve the purpose of getting precious time for military maneuvering and logistical support. This preference is conceivable, given the US’s unmatched power and deep impatience of evident inconformity and divergence in this complex world. This slight inconvenience to one particular nation of the global community was seldom tolerated, and that leads time back to the past, times when human societies saw no alternative to might, brute force and aggression. This back to the future scene is a giant step backward, effectively abandoning international consensus and organisations built up in the last century upon layers of bloodsheds and wreckage. Is a pen still mightier than a sword? Absolute firepower, in this case it gets deadlier every year in the stocks of the US military, thrushes through the boundaries of international treaties and consensus.

Let downs occur also in the political arena, where the US and its adherents prescribed and promoted democracy and elections for solving all kinds of problems in a variety of places. If other things failed in the US’s foreign policy, at the least the concept and screaming of democracy have spread far and wide. The reality, however, is far from ideal from the blueprints of American advisers and supervisors. In a typical American way, certification of standards of a democracy is quite selective, which implies that election results or candidates unfit to the US government’s liking are deemed fraudulent and unrepresentative, and those fitting or chosen are welcomed warmly. Democracy in the form of elections has become an effectively practiced tool of “divide and rule”, following the routes trailed successfully during the British era, since there are always some sections and cliques in a political contest which tends to lean to the US for overwhelming help and generous promises. In return, they are to heed American concerns more keenly than others, to be qualified as the favourites. Those with defiance or opposing tendencies are supposed to simply disappear or be starved to death. This is a nice chance to get rid of some disliked parties through elections. Regime change is a threat of destruction and reappraisal if elections lead to undesirable results.

The US’s keen peddling of democracy overseas met with mixed results, some of them notoriously unexpected. Election results in many occasions went against the wishes of the US, such as the ones in Iran, Venezuela, and Palestine. A majority rule by Hamas, even under unbearable American coercion and manipulation, emerged against American experts’ predictions and pollsters’ surveys. In these occasions, something are curiously in common, in that the candidates backed by the US did not have a big chance to win but went ahead anyway, and elections results are bad to the US intention and desire, so that a US recognition is not forthcoming, instead, accusations of frauds and crying foul ensued. The US government would then have to decide whether to take economic sanctions or military means to change the results themselves, employing the fraud pretext. If elections cannot achieve desired goals, then other solutions will come forth in play. This thinly veiled hypocrisy surely put elections, and its peddlers, in a very bad light.

It is now apparent that the US solution to many international problems, a force-feeding of democracy and elections, is creating more instability and uncertainty. Power conflicts and internal rivalries are fully exploited. Confrontations erupted, heading towards political and economic chaos, with false hopes of a promised prosperity of later days. The costs of confrontations are borne entirely by the participants and hotheads, casualties of earth shaking political upheavals.

Australia: balancing international relations skilfully

Multi-facet and Skilfully-balanced International Relations

With that definite advantage of location, Australia is able to establish bold relations with major players of the world and avoid being hurt by feud, conflicts, and rivalries common in other continents of old civilisations. The country has been under strong influence of the UK, Western Europe, the US, and, more recently, East Asia. It must be a beneficial package of heritage containing Commonwealth, American, and Asian links while being neutral to all these stakeholders. It is thus imperative that Australia fully utilise these existing links and necessary detachments to advance its cause of progress.

A near total reliance on Britain collapsed when Britain sought an entry into the EEC and from then on spared fairly little thought of the Commonwealth, including Australia, aside from playing designated ceremonial roles. The colonial links offered soft cushions and therefore presented intangible barriers to the thinking in Australia of their realistic position in the world. When that shackles were broken by the British’s own initiative, Australia was left with a chance to examine the world again and seek new solutions. Australia became genuinely internationalised to exploit fuller benefits from its extensive links to other major players of the world. Sentiments and nostalgia of England stay well alive and are openly displayed in numerous occasions, but strategic thinking has forwarded to be sufficiently mature and pragmatic. It would simply be foolish and unfortunate if Australia failed to seek more trade, business and growth beyond the familiar British sectors and industries.

If Australia was far from previous centres of activities in Europe and the US and got its fair share of neglect, its location guarantees bumper opportunities to get right into the centre of matters in recent decades, East Asia. There is now no excuse to shirk from close connection and dealings with those Asian neighbours and new economic powerhouses. Priority has been shifted since the late 1980s, and Australia did benefit immeasurably from trade and interactions with the fastest growing economies of the world in this region.

The most profound challenge for Australia is the re-emergence of China, which entirely changes power balances and relations patterns in the region where Australia has vital interests in. Australia feels cosily comfortable with British and American presences and primacy, and it counts trade with Japanese clients from the later half of the last century very satisfying. China is something dissimilar to previous key power brokers. It is none of Anglo-Saxon, Caucasian, and Western democratic; it is not a former colony of fragmentation either. Certain ideological and cultural barriers persistently stand between the two countries, such as divergences in human rights and media freedom in which Australia has forever followed conventional ideas in the West to make patronising judgement on China affairs. Apart from the Tiananmen tragedy in 1989, which reduced former Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke to tears in public, a few incidents in bilateral relations or in China’s behaviours also caused concerns among Australians. Notable examples include treatments of Tibetans, Fa Lun Gong followers, and one child policy. The relentless press never misses reporting on these irregularities and making a point of their moral high standards in reflection. In addition, the aggregate strength of a continent-sized China sheds a shadow in the mind of Australians in a sparsely populated country. Due to these deep concerns over security and alien norms, Australia could easily have sought help from old allies and declined close contacts with Chinese interests.

Australia did not follow that assuring and comfortable logic for good reasons. It is vital for an export nation to keep the number of major customers increase and tie up with them for stable demand. There is no obvious problem in doing normal business and trade with China; the question is rather how far Australia would go before it is steered by ideological concerns in relation to this rising power. Being neutral is extremely beneficial to Australia in doing business all rounds. In this regard, Australia has been widely regarded in China as a good friend and a reliable partner. It has made some surprise moves in recent decades, utilising its well placed position and steadily setting itself into extensive working relations in trade and business with China.

Trade between Australia and China was less than 100 million USD in 1972 when the formal relations were established. It turned around to reach 24.6 billion USD in 2005. China is the second largest export market of Australia and the biggest export market for Australia’s iron ore. Trade surplus for Australia reached over 5 billion USD in 2005, while wool export to China takes over 60% of the total export of this raw material. The Howard government signed a 25 year contract in 2002 on LNG export to China, a secured billion dollar business order. On the sideline of government-sponsored bonding, a number of large Chinese steelmakers signed a contract with BHP Billiton in 2004 to buy 12 million tons of iron ore every year for 25 years, worth 7 billion USD. As of 2005, well over 3,000 Australian companies exported to China.

For these increasingly closer links in trade and business, Australia from the 1980s has adjusted its position regarding China and made it a priority in equal importance with other major international partners. This is not done out of appeasement, as some American and Australian ideologues passionately objected to, but of fair spirit and positive attitude towards a rising Asian power while not hurting core values and interests of Australia. All those well organised protests or outbursts of concerned groups on China related issues could not shake or hijack the central foreign policies off the course, which highlight the evident mutual benefits generated from a smooth relationship with China, backed by comprehensive understanding and acceptance of reality.

With these vital interests identified and clarified, Australia has shown a hesitation in tuning strategic thinking into the US led effort to isolate or contain China. In the Pacific, the US guards jealously its sphere of influence with both air craft carriers and economic incentives. It is inevitable that Australia, New Zealand as well, comes into the crossfire of a clash between the world superpower and a large regional power. This is particularly true during the long Cold War when the Australian Navy did the dirty work for the US of submarine spying missions on China and got caught. A heightened hostility on the basis of military confrontation has, however, dissipated in the last decade, thanks to mutual good intentions in multiple fronts. The Australian position to accommodate a resurgent China as a strategic partner is hard to be swallowed by the US, which tolerates no challenge to its supremacy and is often distracted by pacifying even the slightest offence in this regard. Subtle differences often surface to the open between the official lines of the two countries. A newspaper commentary by former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser in 1996 says it quite plainly: the US must give room to China’s rise and accept China as a great power despite overwhelming US influence around the world. From Australia’s point of view, China’s aspirations to a more assured destiny deserve some sympathies and understanding, given the country’s past historical glories and current growing weight in the world economy. This kind of rhetoric from a neutral and accommodating Australia has only been acknowledged grudgingly in the US in this new century, after no significant outcomes forthcoming from persistently coercing China into submission and hands being tied in a global “war on terror”. This lagging in understanding derives from an aggressive American world outlook of the ultra conservatives in the early post Cold War era. The more moderate Australian view of a rising China has eventually proved plausible and on the right track.

It has been chided that generations of Australian leaders and scholars looked to China with “affectionate and misty eyes”. This is not overly unlike the twists and turns in Americans’ attitudes toward China, as summarised by Paul Cohen. The Australian approach is only a more softly, softly touch, since it represents none of a condescending, commanding culture of a lone world super power. This approach is more restrained and non-confrontational, sensing that there is no cause for alarm or direct conflict, and that Australia’s hard line over proportionate reaction to events in China would achieve little, even with American consent. This pragmatic approach to focus on gains rather than forbidding dogmas and fierce denunciation towards a none-Western developing country undoubtedly draws loathing from right-wing commentators, both domestic and overseas, those taking moral high ground and spitting despise of cultures not conformed to their own.

This rationale of acceptance is taken up even by the Howard government, the staunchest supporter of the Bush administration. The stand was confirmed in government speeches, including Howard’s own, as his administration and ruling Coalition benefit most from a continuing prosperity based on surging demands from China. The recognition of China’s position in the Asia Pacific is the logical next step. Australia refused to join a secret forum in 2003 organised by the US on its closest allies’ collective responses to the rise of China. In Howard’s talks with Bush in 2005, differences caught people’s attention, in that Australia tended to emphasise mutual understanding and considered the rise of China “good for Down Under and rest of the world”, while the US focused more on crucial and strategic differences with China. Australia sees the alliance with the US as not there for a common ground in schemes against China. This caused some stirs in American strategic study institutions, as that would hint Australia being drawn further into China’s economic orbit and inclining to take a non-involvement option when the US does engage itself in a military confrontation with China, most likely over Taiwan. Since Australia’s one China policy covers Taiwan, Australian troops would have plenty of reasons not to go to battles there when the Pentagon moved fleets in first, at least not to involve themselves in combat missions. Even if Australian troops play routine symbolic and auxiliary roles, the presence of akubra hats along side GI full battle gears signals a hearty legitimising of coalition missions when American unilateralism makes international cooperation and crisis management seriously lacking. Australia would only take that path of hostility to China when strategic interests and gains are evidently at risk in a show down. That seems a predictably unlikely scenario.

Clashes of interest do exist in bilateral business and trade. Not small numbers of Australian businesspeople complained bitterly about difficulties in their investment projects in the China market, and some sold their ventures to exit due to losses. Prominent among them, giant beer makers Foster’s and Lion Nathan each claimed to have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in their “great escapes” from the competitive China market, which disappointed them immensely. The relationship between the importer and exporter of minerals is stable but not always smooth. Large buying orders create risks in demand and price setting. Australian mining giants have made fantastic deals with their Chinese customers, with fabulous earnings, especially in the most recent commodity booms. Subsequent requests on raising prices of iron ore exported to China present a particularly knotty problem. The price jumped by a whooping 71.5% in 2005, after previous significant rises of 18.6% in 2004 and 9% in 2003. These mining giants then demanded a further 20% price hike for 2006, on the ground of a near total world monopoly of iron ore supply between them and a Brazilian company. This urge for price rises also derives from a hidden fear of oversupply and dropping prices shortly after the boom. It is quite natural for a seller to grab a last chance of bargaining. Those raised prices brought extra export revenues of billions of dollars back to happy miners in Australia, approximate 1.5 billion AUD in profit between BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto from the 20% price increase alone. They pay scant attention to deep anger of Chinese steelmakers, are simply clouded by an immediate kill, and ignore the basic rule in doing steady business, mutual benefits. Well, you gain some, you loose some. Even if China in June, 2006 officially accepted this round of price rises BHP demanded, that sense of unhappiness will linger and lead to search for new sources of supply, equity control over new mines and driving price down through other means, let alone a more critical and less favourable view of existing Australian business partners. In the long run, driving a hard bargain and rash price hikes serve no purpose of sustained benefits and invariably destroy customers’ trust.

Export opportunities are not exclusive to mining sectors, but in numerous lines of production. A common phrase now is to “ride the dragon”, sustaining growth on the back of an increasingly hungry importer. The state of Victoria exports hundreds of millions of dollars of farm and dairy products to China. Short on mineral reserves, this small state has to rely on primary products and services to lure overseas customers, and China is fast becoming the largest goods export market of the state. A classmate of my son’s has his family in rural Victoria, Horsham in the west, whose property covers 5,000 acres of prime farm land, and export of grain there to China takes a large part in the total of their business. Booming tourism and export of Australian education haul back additional billions of dollars from China to Australia. Australian universities have grown a deadly habit of depending on tuition fees from foreign students to pay for upgrading and stay in operation. Although this is partially a policy issue of insufficient federal government funding, money from overseas students, Chinese in particular, make irresistible offers to those financially tight higher education institutions. Considering the size of China’s population, these inflows of bountiful revenues are to grow unabated. Australians have a particular strength in the field of professional services and enjoy trade surplus with China at well over 2 billion AUD in 2004.

It is crucial to handle the problems cautiously in bilateral relations and keep the momentum going. It is clear now that Australia can ride the tide of China growth for the near future, chiefly in receiving export earnings. This is in addition to security and regional issues, of which China plays a key role among leading countries.

The US remains Australia’s first priority in foreign policy and strategic planning, so much so that John Howard made it known that the country is willing to be the US’s deputy sheriff in the Asia branch. That slip of tongue accurately reflects the official lines and goals, though raising some eyebrows in the region. Bound by heritage, beliefs, and security concerns, Australia needs the US as a key ally as it used to pay unreserved homage to Britain. This tendency has come from a long line of interactions, starting from WWII and Japanese aggressions. It is not exactly the truth that American GIs saved Australia from Japanese occupation. Japanese attacks were half-hearted at best, and they were troubled by the tyranny of distance and extreme difficulties in coastal landing by foot soldiers, leading to the alternatives of occasional bombing and very rare midget submarine assaults. No Japanese plans came forth for an invasion, when they realised the limited capacity in their hold for ambitious and overstretched offensives in the entire Asia-Pacific. The Japanese felt desperately squeezed by large scale military campaigns elsewhere, land battles in mainland China and Indochina, and sea battles with the US in the Pacific. Invading Australia was an unlikely venture similar to Japanese attacks on the US mainland, at least in terms of distance beyond reach. Even if they took a foothold in the extreme north of Australia, they would not have succeeded in gaining any meaningful victories, as their columns would be far from any populated places of Australia and would be drastically weakened by the harsh nature. That possibility of landing campaigns was extremely remote and soon evaporated. On the other hand, the US used Australia as a support and transit base for ground and sea battles in Southeast Asia and strikes north to Japan, as well as being a refuge for General MacArthur on the run after being spirited out of the Philippines. Up to one million American GIs at one time or another stationed in Australia. This safe and massive base proved invaluable for Allies’ war efforts in the Asia Pacific.

Under a global divide of the Cold War and unchallenged US military supremacy, Australia sought American alliance as a matter of fact and considered itself lucky to be in the bind of the ANZUS Treaty. The security responsibility shifted from Britain to the US, causing minimum disturbance. Although Australia is not a NATO member, for various reasons including distance, the alliance with the Americans made it up for the absence of a membership of the European bloc. Australia thus placed itself in a favourable position, having security provided by a military agreement but evading strict rules and command problems of a gigantic military organisation. The unified command under NATO does not apply to this corner of the earth, while the US takes on increasingly global obligations and pacifies challenges elsewhere. Australia enjoys the shield of an American protection and contributes to certain overseas missions of American directing, but its positioning provides it with flexibility in seeking its own interests and developing strategies of its own, not being overly hampered by declared commitments to a military alliance. This treaty of half a century faces growing uncertainty over its extended application into Asia at the behest of the US, and over missions which involved territories far away from Australia and go beyond original intentions in the treaty.

This flexibility does not indicate that Australia is leaving the US camp; on the contrary, Australia shows publicly its enthusiasms and conviction to US led missions, especially under a conservative administration. I was told by some Melbourne Aussie friends that their close relatives served in the Special Forces and went into covert missions in Afghanistan and Iraq along with the Americans. Bilateral relations are particularly cosy and camaraderie. Australia is one of the few countries which agree to be partners in the US missile defense systems, which places the country in potential dangers of being the first targets of future military conflicts. The Bush administration created special visa categories for Australians entering the US, giving them rights to roam across, work and live unrestricted in that traumatised country post September 11. Considering ultra sensitive issues of screening foreigners and homeland defense, Australians received extra care and special treatment as a reward for their long standing closeness to the psyche and doctrines of the US. In the face of authoritarian or “failed” states, the two countries share common views and issue similarly worded statements. Even in private conversations, Australians often passionately echo their American cousins on serious international issues, such as Islam.

There are equally quarrels of diverse natures between the two countries, on issues such as trade, international cooperation, climate change, nuclear disarmament, and, more recently, on dealing with Asia’s rising giants. American companies are in general welcome to invest in Australia, as the country needs foreign investment as the US does. This, however, often causes serious concerns and uproar about American invasion and domination in business, takeovers of local market shares by American corporations, and in the culture sphere almost everything American. Major companies have key American investors, and many Australian brands people have known when they were little are in fact from production lines controlled and managed by American multinationals. A tricky issue is American subsidies to agricultural exports. A few farming families I came to know complained openly about impossible competition with their American counterparts due to heavy government subsidies in the US, while they enjoy none of similar benefits from the Australian government.

Despite these rumbling quarrels, Australia remains a loyal ally of the US in so many fields. As countries like Libya buckles under American isolation strategy and many small European countries compete for American aids at all costs, the alliance Australia has with the US is in little danger of breaking. No one, politician or ordinary Joe, is foolish enough to throw away such a cherished, solid relationship with the sole superpower in the world. That would be suicidal and against basic instincts of human nature. The question is to what extent this country seeks to play the role of a deputy sheriff and does not shirk from that risky duty. Divergences from American agendas bound to occur.

Asia has become a place vital to Australia’s future. A trident policy stand is established, after much agonising, in which Australia moved from one leg support of Britain to two leg support of the US and the UK (Europe), and then to the current triple support. It was frankly hard for Australia to regard its closest neighbours in equal terms, either from the fact of poorer conditions there or from a deep fear of this small European settlement being swamped by inflows of Asians. Giving Asia a serious thought was impossible when those countries struggled with their abject poverty and were merely colonies of Western powers. Only with demonstrable sustained economic growth in East Asia, in emerging dragons and tigers, that Australia tempted to break away from an absolute and exclusive Western focus.

Sensibly, Australia turned to deal with them on more equal terms and has eventually developed its policy into taking Asia as the place to belong to. This is the location that binds. The continent of Australia is not going to drift to the Atlantic, and long distance flights are not to diminish the significance neighbouring lands pose. Isolation could instill a spirit of barricading against poorer, underdeveloped Asian economies, as the “white Australia” policy indeed intended to do, but a flourishing region nearby offers new and abundant business opportunities not to be lightly ignored and dismissed. Fast narrowing gaps in economic strength and living standards between Australia and East and Southeast Asia eventually convinced the country of their geographical advantages in a new era. Even the key issue of security can now be seen from a totally different angle, as stable and mutually beneficial bilateral relations with Asian countries prove rather enhancing Australia’s security and reducing tensions and hostility deriving from contempt and misunderstanding.

Labour governments began to incorporate Australia more with the region closest to this country, and the shift of policy focus led to the forming of a new perception, for Australia to be recognised an Asian country, in order to be legitimately “living in the fastest growing part of the world”. That might sound rather radical to some, dragging Australians to have a leap of faith. From Australia’s deep cultural heritage and mindset, it is a bit awkward to accept this extraordinary drift from the comfortable hug of Anglo-Saxon traditions. In terms of strategic positioning, this is not a surprise or a rushed move, but a reality to be admitted long time ago. In two decades, Australia fostered admirable stable relations with major Asian economies and made clear of its intention to stay in the right place. Even Australian Socceroos entered the Asian Football Confederation to compete with teams of more numerous Asian countries for a place, rather than with neighbouring Pacific island countries. Major targets of foreign policy in this region include India and China, but also old connections of Japan and Indonesia. Australia has ventured to get close to the ASEAN, a regional bloc related to Australia’s core concerns, especially trade and security. It has obtained a status of dialogue partner, similar to Russia, China and the US, being relevant major powers but not Southeast Asian member countries. Australia even sponsored the idea to form the APEC, the regular forum of Asia Pacific leaders. With persistent efforts, Australia has established frequent security, business, economic, and political contacts with those Asian countries key to its future development.

This shift is reflected in an acute sense of learning things Asian. Australia can rightfully benefit from its internal multiculturalism and external neutral approach to Asia, as it is much less perceived in that region as an intimidating and patronising partner as the US is. Open dialogue and constant interactions with Asia provide Australia with a unique capability to blend in. The learning of Asian ways and cultures for doing fair business is most impressive in the recent two decades. In one instance, Mr. Kevin Rudd, the Labour shadow minister on foreign affairs, had a lengthy interview in 2006 with a Hong Kong TV host on WTO and trade issues. The interview was conducted in Putonghua throughout, during which Mr. Rudd displayed his perfect Chinese expressions and was fluent on choices of word regarding specific and complex trade issues, so much so that his Chinese host lost points with his own heavy southern accent and frequent confusing phrases. Mr. Rudd’s outstanding performance on this occasion of course derives from his previous work experience in China and close contact with Chinese counterparts. If Labour were in office, Australia would have had a foreign minister talking straight like a native Chinese. This to a certain extent illustrates the depth of learning in recent times, for Australia to shift some of its attention and energy to East Asia, the place needing greater effort on cooperation and holding the key to identify Australia’s destiny, in particular for being recognised a regional power, despite its small population.

It is not easy to convince Asians of this country being one of them. Besides vigorous regional rivalries among existing powerful players, Australia’s connections with European and American powers warrant certain suspicions from neighbouring Asian countries. Is this country a Trojan horse or vanguard force of powers of other oceans? How deep Australia is allowed to get involved in regional affairs? Will it become a dominant force in handling relations and start to give directions? The military of Australia certainly got involved in numerous missions in the region, from the Korean War on. On the other hand, the good deeds of Australia are aplenty, in peace keeping, relief and aid. On balance, Australia is a harmless regional power, benign and voluntary. Unlike the rise of certain big powers, such as Germany, the US, or China in future, Australia, with its medium size and stable democracy, causes no stirs and attracts little attention of “coming threats”. Those big powers came to the world stage with a big bang and would inevitably cause a rebalancing to the existing orders. Repercussions warrant concerns as each move made means a counter response to be rendered, in order to minimise losses or secure shares. When things come to a head, force has to be employed to solve conflicts and quarrels in a straightforward way. That is why big guys tend to reflex their muscles in political, economic or military forms and tend not to mediate or negotiate. Unilateralist tendency and interventionism are in the blood of big powers, especially in the veins of the super power.

At the other side, small and medium sized countries tend to rely on international bodies to operate, one of them being the UN. These platforms are the best for initiating solutions to conflicts, and small participants can at least have some say and a role to play here. They make contributions to negotiations to reach desired outcomes, rather than through bilateral bargaining or horse trading deals those big powers prefer to undertake outside international bodies. Australia is in this camp of middle powers favouring robust multilateral systems and coalitions for solutions and settlements, despite its shared historical experiences with and heavy reliance on Anglo-Saxon powers. The country has been an excellent contributor to these international organisations and is active in the UN on numerous issues. Its commitment, neutral stance, and eager participation have earned it much respect, trust and admiration. Unlike the UK, or to a lesser degree Canada, Australia can make its points known without being seen as merely a mouthpiece or agent of the US. Even with John Howard in office, the most fervent US ally by far, equivalent of Sir Menzies to Britain, so to speak, Australians regularly show their differences from the Americans at the UN. This is a happy legacy of the British rule, since Australia under Britain initially kept distance from the emerging power of the US, and when the US became the super power Australians remain inclining to the British traditions in the face of overwhelming American culture invasion. Fortunately, Australia has no global ambitions, rather than its unending effort to exert and radiate good will. Those ambitions related to the region and nearby countries are chiefly for stability and economic advancement which set safe barriers for Australia. A clear and unchallenged Australian dominance in the region is either unintended or unrealistic. Even its deputy sheriff position is not agreed upon domestically, and it is quite clear to all that Australia prefers endorsements and resolutions of international bodies. This standing will minimise suspicion or hostility of certain Asian countries toward Australia.

Some indications of Australia’s limited world ambitions are that their leaders lack world standing and politicians are obscure. This is basically a reflection of national characteristics, being modest, less sophisticated, and fiercely straightforward. The downside is that average Australian political leaders run state affairs and primarily focus on local and national matters. Within a rare breed of egalitarian society, this is what they are required to do, and ventures across the world and global diplomacy are certainly not their cup of tea. Leaders and top civil servants are perhaps not with best qualities, being exceptionally intelligent or super bright in international dealings. An overly ambitious Paul Keating once lamented this paucity of world class leaders and desired to lift his world standing, but was roundly accused of losing touch with his own people. However, the plus factor of this apparent mediocrity is that they make fewer gigantic mistakes. In contrast, the US has so-called best of the best in their political and economic circles, and they are never shy of boasting this pool of superior genes. Talents match world ambitions of a super power, and those lucky selected found a centre stage for executing their master plans. In the end, these incredibly intelligent people made a lot of messes in the past and dragged others down along the way. The best of the brightest the US had, the blue blood elites starting with Robert McNamara and his “Whiz Kids”, conceived and conducted the Vietnam War and lost to guerrilla wars and crudely equipped Vietnamese army. The best brains of the country got their wishes of high flying and crashed spectacularly during the tech bubble burst and corporate scandals. The cream of the nation’s elite was there to wage wars on false information and defend their innocence against charges with more pretences and brilliant spins.

Along with blending in, power shift and deputy sheriff duty, the military of Australia plays a vital role in keeping a visible presence in the region and getting recognised. This recognition depends heavily on the real military strength of Australia in the south Pacific. In hardware, Australia has demonstrated its might with awesome air and sea capabilities. A ready air projecting power is to display a much needed military deterrent to other countries in the region. Several squadrons of F/A-18 Hornet jet fighters and F-111 fighter bombers are constantly deployed. To offset upgrading effort in other Asian countries, mainly in purchases of Russian Sukhoi jet fighters, the air force sought to get the delivery of more advanced American next generation F-35 joint strike fighters, costing tens of billions of US dollars. This ambitious grand plan was temporarily thwarted in 2006 due to multiple technical problems associated with the selected fighter model produced by Lockheed Martin. The hotly promoted model is claimed by some as too expensive to maintain and even becoming obsolete quickly, and the issue of obtaining next generation jet fighters remains on table. The air force could turn to American F-22 Raptor, already in service in the US, as an option. To keep aerial surveillance over vast land and sea territories of Australia, the air force deploys early warning recon planes purchased from Boeing. Also crucial are a number of long range air refueling planes in service. These recon, strike, intercept and refueling planes are the most advanced in the region where Australia has large stakes and leave neighbouring Asian military forces well behind. This strike force thus constitutes a firm guarantee of national security and air defense. The priority is on quality, not quantity, since the defense policy may project that once a large scale air invasion is on with hundreds of enemy aircraft, that will be the time to call an all out war and invoke mutual defense agreements with the US. Short of that disastrous scenario, advanced jet fighters, though only at a number of 100, will be sufficient to deter potential intruders and accomplish designated missions. A related issue of concern is that all these hardware and upgrading come from the US, paid by Australia’s military budgets. Lacking manufacturing capabilities, Australia provides research and maintenance technology and products by defense institutes and corporations. This would mean budget restraints on making more expensive future purchases and a shortage of local supplies.

The navy is the central part of Australian defense force since early times. As a land surrounded by water and a British tradition of overseas expedition, Australia has maintained its admirable maritime capabilities and owned fleets of significance. The navy had in early years cruisers and destroyers for undertaking tasks given by the British Empire and for protection of ports and shipping lines. The navy even had a few light aircraft carriers, prominent among them “Melbourne” after the Pacific wars. Their air strike capacity was not comparable to formidable carrier fleets of the Imperial Japan, but seriously intimidating to then inadequate Asian naval forces. With the carrier “Melbourne”, the Australian navy enjoyed numerous advantages in high seas of the region. Curiously, that only operational Australian aircraft carrier was bought, after being decommissioned, by a Chinese company and moored at a Dalian port for some time. It was speculated that this purchase perhaps facilitated a learning platform for future locally made Chinese carriers. The navy today is filled with frigates, guided missile frigates, and submarines, replacing previous heavy cruisers and destroyers. The size has shrunk but capabilities enhanced. As it is not war time and there is a genuine lack of world ambition of the US calibre, the Australian navy has commissioned no aircraft carrier after “Melbourne” was discharged. Instead, frigates hold helicopters, rather than jet fighters, to carry out tasks of recon, attack, and rescue. The shipyard in Williamstown, Melbourne, continues to churn out guided missile frigates and other ships with advanced equipments, for the navy and for export. One issue of concern is that the navy, as well as the air force, relies overwhelmingly on advanced technologies shared with the US under bilateral agreements, and there is every possibility that the latter would wield the carrot of this sharing to urge Australia into future missions it feels reluctant but unable to decline, such as naval maneuverings against China or India.

With self-production capacity of major modern warships and close relations with American and British fleets, the Australian navy has maintained its capability of defending national waters and shouldering international obligations, including troop delivery in East Timor and blockade in Iraq. The key issue of security in the Asian region is calmly and confidently dealt with, on the basis of an effective long range strike force. If Australia is small in population, the military forces have displayed an image larger than the country’s, through past successful military missions, advanced hardware and combat systems, and sheer martial professionalism.

Australia has turned its location from an initially remote, insignificant continent away from world centres of activities in modern times into a place full of advantages and potential in the 21^st century. This location, once despised and cursed, still binds, bringing unforeseen benefits to this essentially bountiful country. Fundamental shifts in external circumstances are economic rising of East Asia and prosperity of one generation, roughly the time span of economic reforms and opening in China after the tragic 1989. Intelligent foreign policy making by consecutive Australian governments grasped opportunities arising from this momentum trend of shift, wisely realigning relations with three key stakeholders, the UK (EU), the US and Asia. Standing firmly on its unique location of this vast continent and handling relations with required understanding, Australia has markedly enhanced its chance as a favourite long term winner.