This essay was written for International Studies 3/4 (2006), as part of course assesment, in response to:

“Over the last 15 years Australian foreign policy has been dominated by the need to improve the alliance with the US. Do you agree?”

While the US remains the preeminent power in the world, Australia will continue to focus on it, in the formation and execution of foreign policy. However, Australia’s national interests include closer relations with other nations in the region — in particular Japan, China, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. DFAT^[1] states that our “core interests… [are] …security and prosperity” and our close relationship with the US furthers these (both indirectly and directly). [Albeit with some disadvantages.]

In 2002, the United States spent $325 billion on defense — 6 times more than the next biggest spender. This lavish spending demonstrates the as-yet unparalleled economic power of the US and translates into the most powerful military in the world. Because of this, “no other country… [is] able to challenge the United States’ overall capacity to shape the global environment.”^[1]

In this post-Cold War world, the US provides a strategic umbrella for Australia. In return, the US sees Australia as “a force for peace and prosperity in the region.”^[2] Indeed, other nations in the region may appreciate a US presence, albeit by proxy. In the past decade, Australia has been far more proactive in times of regional crisis — with involvements in East Timor and the Solomon’s, for example. This assumption of “deputy” to the world’s “policeman” is “making a contribution to regional security”^[3] which itself is strongly tied to our economic and national interest. This is because “foreign, security, defense, economic and trade policies are more inter-related or connected to each other than ever before.”

In particular, Australia’s “greatest [security] concern… is the growth of Islamic extremism and terrorism.”^[1] Aside from taking part in the War on Terror, in which the US “will see relations with other countries… in terms of the campaign”^[1], Australia has had closer security ties with its neighbours. For example, there was a join investigation into the Bali bombings by Australia and Indonesia and such cooperation is “valuable.”^[1] This sharing of intelligence is also occurring with the US, and information is power in today’s world.

Australia views its regional links as “important and appreciating assets.”^[1] Our relationship with the US does not harm this — and may even provide benefits as a US presence counteracts that of China, which in the past decade has grown significantly economically as well as geopolitically. This is expressed by DFAT — “our strong and diverse links outside Aisa give us greater influence in Asia.”^[1]

Indeed, in the past decade Australia has signed FTA’s with the US, Singapore and Thailand. Agreements with China, Japan, New Zealand and Malaysia are in development. This reflects our priority of trade in the national interest — both in the region, and with the US. In fact, “Japan is Australia’s most import export market by far.”^[3] Our relationship with the US has not been to the detriment of those within the region. For example, “half of Australia’s total foreign direct investment goes to APEC countries”, as well as “…3 out of 4 export dollars…” come from “APEC markets.”^[3] Australia is a trading nation, and trade is a large source of our prosperity. As such, it is one of our highest priorities in the national interest, as “our mining and agricultural industries were built upon access to international markets.”^[1] For example, Wine exports in 2002 were valued at $2.5 billion.

Another thing which demonstrates that we are “strongly committed to the region”^[3] is the giving of relief to the victims and counties hit by the 2004 Asian Tsunami as well as $4 billion to IMF packages. In 2002-2003, approximately 110,000 refugees^[1] were accepted — the majority from within the region.

Our relationship with the United States may appear to be dominating our national interest, but the reality is that it is in balance with relations closer to home. Where the Australian-US relationship dominates is the security paradigm of the War on Terror. The government realises that our “economic interests are security can be tied up with events beyond our immediate region.”^[1]

Thus, the relationship with the US offers Australia the promise of greater security and stability, and is indicative of the government’s pragmatic approach to international affairs and the national interest. Our close ties with Japan, China and increasingly India could be seen as a hedging of bets in the long term (ie: if one of them assumes the role of superpower) as well as short and medium terms economic and other gains. So while Australia has taken actions to improve its relationship with the US (deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan most notably) they have not been in the leu of other relationships closer to home. The public perception of Australia’s relations to to the US and the region are somewhat different from reality. Ultimately, actions will be taken if they are in the national interest — primarily economics and security. In the end, this is pragmatic, and Australia’s actions are a result of this pragmatism.

References

1. In the National Interest, DFAT
2. AUSMIN 2005, Rumsfeld
3. Alexander Downer, 1998