People who think Australia is in Asia have only ever looked at Mercator's projection and never at a globe.

Paris is closer to Asia than Australia.
Note Indonesia is NOT in Asia, it is like Australia in Oceana.

Historical Australia has hitched its wagon to the West. When Britain was a power, we were "the branch office of the Empire". Today we are called "Deputy Sheriff" to the US. Point is, our role has been to act as a the regional representative of the Western centre of the day and likely to do so.

In more recent history, it has US policy to have Australia and Japan it's pincers in the region. Now, there is pontential China will become too big of this to continue. Is this bad. Probably, yes.

US Side: A likely response is for the US to increase its military presence in the East Asia region say 2012-2015. The US will also realise that China and its Diaspora hold huge US US dollar reserves in US dollars, which could be dumped on currency markets. Meanwhile, the US needs to deal with nuclear weapons being 1950s technology and Islamic states growing threatening powerful. China can leverage this situation.

Chinese side: China is sucking-in advanced knowledge from the West. This could prove to be an advantage for China and the West, especially Australia. However, China is in someways like Prussia c. 1840-1870, wherein there is an ancient mind on top of a modern(ing)body. Herein, China needs to develop a democratic leadership to avoid an military cum imperialist phase in its development. As we Japan and German took the old driving new course. When I see China's concerns about Tibet and Taiwan, I recall the German-Austrian relationships and the Japanese Sphere of Co-prosperity.

It is therefore important that the West and China, both appreciate history, wherein, the West needs to become less Sinophobic and China (and the World)needs learn, peril of being imperialist and territorial. The pride of the national-state needs to be eased in a nuclear age. Something Kennedy and Khrushchev appreciated in October, 1962. Austria and then the World didn't in 1914, when the "shot that was heard around the (nationalistic) World" led to WWI.

Einstein said, there will be no WW IV.

Our geographic proximity to the Pacific Islands is not insignificant. Both in terms of solidarity and of security, Australia must face up to the fact that the arc stretching from Timor-Lest to Fiji will require assistance in nation-building for some time, perhaps for as long as a generation. This is clearly our responsibility.

Running a foreign policy based purely on geography, however, would be completely wrong-headed. Bazz is right to put the distances into perspective: Beijing is closer to London than it is to Canberra. So, for that matter, is all of India. Obviously we need to be on good terms with our Asian neighbours, but it would be absurd to suggest that Asia should ever be the sole focus of our world-view.

We are not, after all, an Asian country. Chinese people are not ashamed of their Chinese heritage, so why should we be ashamed of our British heritage? New Zealand and Canada, for example, are also Pacific nations, but they are ones that share much of our history, our world-view and our values, not to mention our language and our institutions. They are our natural partners, and we already speak with one voice at the UN as the CANZ group.

The relationship with the United Kingdom also continues to be crucial, on any number of levels. It is, for example, the home of the greater part of Australia’s expats. Australia and the UK recently established an annual, ministerial-level forum called AUKMIN: a far more intimate kind of relationship than we are ever likely to have with most of our geographical neighbours.

Yes, Australia is a Pacific nation, but, like Canada and New Zealand, it is also a British nation. We are separate countries, but we are not foreigners: our common history, our common culture and our common values mean that we are family. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom: CANZUK. In an age of rapid travel and instantaneous communication, there could be nothing more narrow-minded than denying our logical place in the world purely for the sake of geography.

“ A refugee is a refugee - political or economic. “

Is that right, Mr. Henderson? Where is it written that people, who decide that they would like to come to Australia, because they want to make more money, have an equal footing with someone who can demonstrate the likelihood of persecution or death?

Tony Henderson throws “rights” around with abandon: “any regional or cultural group has the right to self-rule”. How can people who obviously don’t have the population, the resources and ability for self-rule – such as East Timor - have the “right” to self-rule when they need huge sums of foreign money to keep them going, and intervention from outside when things go pear-shaped, as they inevitably do?

Australian intervention then re-intervention in East Timor show that it has learned nothing from the independence granted to that cot case PNG, which we all believed had the “right” to self-determination.

Allan Patience, Professor of Political Science at PNG University, told the ABC’s The World Today on 1 June that that country has been in serious decline for the past 10 years, and is rapidly getting worse.

How much will have to be spent on that failed state in the near future?

Patience lays the blame on Australia’s doorstep, even though PNG is supposed to be a sovereign country and even though he (Patience) believes that Canberra doesn’t have: “.. the resources, the capacity, the foreign policy acumen… to deal with PNG.”

Australia is already overstretched in the region, militarily and financially. We, and New Zealand, have nothing in common with the two-bit countries in the area, and Australia’s best interests should dictate our only interest in them. Indonesia is the country we have to get along with, and suggesting that we dictate to them on “rights” is egregious nonsense. East Timorese, for instance, have swapped alleged Indonesian breaches of human rights for killing each other: machete hackings between people from the east and the west.

Perhaps the next suggestion from academic crackpots will be that Australia oversee separate development between west East Timor and east East Timor!

Further to my earlier post. Nationalism and statism are out of date in a global world with super-technology and super-communications. The question is can large emerging countries keep up the same pace with political systems. If Australia looks to China, it sees dollar signs, but it should also see a Sino leadership needing to make a difficult transition. If Australia looks at Britain, well, she's a spent force. A little like a silent movie star, living on 1920 memories in 1940s. The US, on the other hand, has a strong democratic tradition. But, it is really a French tradition. Australia has a good ally in the US. Trouble is she is also very nationalistic and self-centred. Just the same, the US is culturally closer to Oz than is China. Ther would be "two suns in the sky".

Given Australia's geophysical significance, she can't opt-out. Canada and New Zealand can. Perhaps, politically, we should steer a liberal progress course, like Norway and Sweden? But, I think if push comes to shove, we will continue to lean towards the US.

China has ruled itself for less than 300 years, since its first unification. We should welcome her into the World. Just the same, its leaders need to realise reformation is the price of entry.

If China can reform without imperialist intent, well, Australia and the World, can readily accept two superpowers

Oliver said;
Given Australia's geophysical significance, she can't opt-out. Canada and New Zealand can.
end quote

This is exactly what I pointed out. Canada is a lot closer to Asia than Australia ! If anyone is interested there are great circle calculators on the web.
A year or so ago there was great kerfuffle about Nth Korean missles and Australia being in range. At the most they might have reached Darwin at a stretch but central Europe was well within range and not a peep about that.

This is another example of how schools with Mercators projection on their walls has distorted history, and politics today.
Don't expect politicians to understand simple things like this.

Oliver, do you think that China will become an economic giant before the oil runs out? What is her future if the oil does run out?

Sage:

In theory China needs to be only one-fifth as productive as the US, to achieve America's GDP. But that assumes the involvement of China's 1.3 billion people. Chinese leadership according to the new is aware the cities are taking off but that Western provinces are being left behind. Whether China overall or just the big cities develop will have a major impact on the consumprion of resources.

However:

- China has plenty of big cities
- And moving resources, say, coal, arount a big country requires infrastructure.

So, I guess the answer is China will consume large quantities of oil and other resources, it develops.

Even, back in the 1980s it was suggest that the signicant development of China would create acid rain as far as away as the Black Forrest in Germany. Likewise, many products use oil (tyres), so development will require high oil consumption.

Personally, I feel that China should pace its development:

- To try and resolve the question you raise in the affirmative
- To allow its leadership to guide the country's globalisation
without making the political mistakes that Germany made in the
nineteenth century and Japan made last century.

There are several other inputs too. The US-Chinese relationship, spectulation on real estate (China is aware), the goverance of Banking (changing slowly) and potential tension between city entrepreneural-oligarchs and provincial mayors (this could be the hard one).

The staged growth of China would I think, see her become an economic superpower before the oil runs out.

In a globalised world perhaps we all need to demote passions related to the nation state, as we look towards a global community. Not only China, all of us. We have/have had tribes, garden cultures, city-states, kings & queens, temple-states, theist-states and, recently, nation-states. With globalisation it is jumbled together, and, we are not all equally prepared to make transitions.

Bazz:

You are correct flat maps do create distortions.

Canada's neighbour is the US. Our neighbour are the Kiwis. Australia is a continent plus islands at the foot of South East Asia. We can be seen to be a "European tansplant" with strongest ties elsewhere. I think this perhaps worries ASEAN more than China.

Oz, as you problably know, established links with China via academics/Whitlam before Nixon. This would give us some Brownie points, methinks.

Through much of her history China has been an economic power. She also has not had a protracted Dark Ages.

Australia is a European Power in the Pacific region.
It is not in the Australian interest to be in the forefront of the Timor conflict.We should have a minor role as Portugese is the European Language adopted by the new nation,and protocol dictates that Portugal,should have the major role and cost.
Australia has also given the corrupt Marxist Government vast territories of the Timor Sea to finance the personal wealth of a few
Portugese/Timorese,and groups such as the Marxist controlled Australian Democrats are actively supporting the reinstatement of the Fretilin Government.
The Australian government is in danger of becoming a Portugese style of Empire,i.e. Interbreeding with the locals then making these people the government,such as the former colonies of Angola and Mozambique.

Yes Brock, "Australia has also given the corrupt Marxist Government vast territories of the Timor Sea to finance the personal wealth of a few". Must be because of all the Marxists in Canberra.

Naturally we shouldn't encourage Interbreeding, it might lead to idiots taking charge of our government.

Good day Leigh,

So for you, a person threatened with physical violence can be treated as a person of dire need but not a person threatened with death through lacking water, food or disease? Economic refugees properly speaking are not simply looking for a better deal, they want a deal of any kind that will let them live. Also, to live as a human being.

There are also environmentally threatened persons - some government builds a dam and the locals are submerged! Desertification causes population shifts across Africa and in China. Those people will die if not allowed to cross borders.

While physical threats of death because of political factionalism and fanaticism is clear evidence of priority when determining refugee status, this is more because it can be clearly shown and does not usually deal with masses of people - but there are instances. For example Vietnam with it’s abandonment by the US and the fleeing of the South Vietnamese.

“A refugee is a refugee - political or economic.“

We (of the Humanist Movement) will also reiterate that a group with its own identity needs general acclaim from its neighbours and needs recognition in its differences. That group needs respect for its culture. It certainly does not benefit from negative discrimination. What is needed is positive discrimination - discrimination being one of our higher faculties.

In the best case that group could be independent of other’s rule if indeed it can look after itself but it is well noted that many urges for independence and autonomy are resulting from an individual’s selfish motives or that of another group that wants to dominate.

In the absolutely best case - and this is where this dialogue about Australia’s relations to the Asia-Pacific vis a vis any other region is a most important topic - that group (or country) can actively assist its neighbours. We say the people of Australia are well set to do that and it is a wonderful thing to do, as a nation and personally. It liberates.

Tony Henderson

Tony
You say that any regional or cultural group has the right to self-rule. What does this mean?

Here in the West we have all the iron ore, the natural gas and the SAS so maybe we could go for the self rule bit, and leave the rest of the country to pay for the talk fests and big cars in Canberra. We would be doing our bit for the environment as our politicians would not have to keep flying back and forth.

The whole notion that we must choose between east and west is Prima Facie RACISM. It is also arrant nonsense.

Like in our personal relationships, who we associate with is based on PURPOSE and mutual INTERESTS.

Australia will essentially be the raw materials mine for a future world. There will be many other strengths but as-this-is-a-desert-land-ill-suited-to-overcrowding, mining will clearly define our purpose. We will NATURALLY align ourseleves with customers from Asia and elsewhere but will align ourselves militarily for protection and fiscally for technology with a US which has a constitution bound by a belief in liberty and freedom for all mankind.

Nothing is written-in-stone and as regional-politics shift to liberal-democracy we will develop new alliances in an ad-hoc-way.

This is precisely how we conduct our individual lives so its not unexpected that this is how Australia-will-develop-in-the-future.

The trick is to adhere to our implicit constitutional-values of democracy and individual freedom. Maybe now is the time we should enshrine them in a formal constitutuion like the US. These will be the rules by which we make friends and alliances, external to trade, in the future.

Further, Global corporate privatisation of Government is a threat to our future because it has NO allegiance to any constitution except that of profits, obscene CEO bonuses and lying to shareholders. We can not expect in good conscience and faith to align ourselves with anyone if we are being bullied and governed by corporate global Giants.

There is too, a clear and present danger that all future decisions including alliances will be taken from the Australian people. The Snowy sale was a very close call. At this dangerous time in our history we must stand firm to prevent the sale of our birthrights. We must vote for politicians who espouse this virtue and spit-in-the-eye of the Cash-Mcall companies that would enslave our souls for baubles, mirrors, trinkets, tollwayfunnels, neutered grainstock and pretty marrionette politicians.

The Trojan-Horse of Cash-Mcall is well and truly in our Midst. We know what happened to the people of ancient Troy, let's not make that mistake.

Peace,
you ask whether the West has the right to self-rule. I would say of course it does, but I'm not sure that it would be the best route. I would go for greater regional autonomy within Australia rather than leaving the federation altogether.

In fact, I would go for greater regional autonomy within a bigger federation (say, Canada, Australia and New Zealand: CANZ), because that way you could get the best of both worlds. You could have international clout of being part of a country with a certain global significance, along with the decentralised decision-making that Australia's federation is increasingly losing.

In a federation made up of New Zealand, the Australian states and the Canadian provinces, the West would be a significant player because of its resources, and would find natural allies among the resource-rich Canadian provinces. Isn't it better to be strong within something bigger than be strongish alone?

KAEP,
you suggest that maybe now is the time for a formal Bill of Rights. I disagree. As long as we keep our values, we will vote for governments that defend them. When we no longer elect such governments, it will mean that we no longer have those values. What would be the point in being ruled by a document enshrining values that we no longer have?

Ian,

The concept of liberty and freedom for all mankind is not negotiable. The US has had it in their constitution for over 200 years and will have it while they have breath in their lungs. It needs however to be put into our constitution. Especially at this moment when global corporations see us as savages whom they can buy for a few tollways and a bagful of trinkets. They are aided and abetted by THEIR marionette self seeking politicians whom we elect but whom we have no say over. At election time there is no real choice. Labour is haunted by a malevolent Keating's ghost and Liberal wants to bludge out the rest of the century in blissful power by privatising everything except themselves and the armed forces. This is an ineffective, stale political structure. It has already proven itself to be capable (the Snowy scandal and Sydney airport skulduggery) of abrogating the rights of Australian citizens.
There is thus no guarantee in our constitution of freedom and liberty for all.
If you think that is acceptable, get ready for civil war or go live in Iran.

Hi Peace,

When I speak about any regional group’s right to self-rule I am speaking about any group that has its own identity, usually historically-geographically-culturally and wants to secede from the holding power.

But that is just one case and usually the type we hear about.

In China there are over 30 ethnic groups and while they are not seeking independence, they do ask for recognition. When they have the mental space to think about it - as they are often marginalized and find it hard to get paid work - they want to hang on to their language, their songs and dances - but not for tourists, for their own cultural life.

While it might appear that the original inhabitants of Australia are too widely diffused today, across such a wide territory, any claims for special recognition appear complex and problematic, yet that is not so in other places.

Iraq for instance, the Kurds inhabit a certain territory and the demarcations for autonomy seem easier to accommodate.

Chechnya is similar. Chechnya has constantly fought against foreign rule, beginning with the Ottoman Turks in the 15th century.

Trouble is, people wanting to go autonomous/independent are often sitting on reserves of one kind or another and that is what the movers and shakers are looking at. They seldom have a plan that makes it clear how they aim to distribute everything and share the ‘spoils’ after the takeover.

However, in more ordinary affairs it is simply seeing a person or group of another cultural persuasion and respecting their right to be different. To be allowed that independance, just to be.

Australia is one nation so there does not seem to be a problem, however, among the peoples there are various roots to take into account. I was more looking at adjacent places such as East Timor which has an immediate problem. Also, PNG.

But this is a big issue for some nations such as China which goes into a veritable shake if any region hints at having real autonomy - over on the western end, the Tibetans, etc.

Regards

Tony

It is interesting that people only see two points of the compus: East and West.

Asia begins east of a river in Turkey and ends somewhere around the Himalayas. The rest is "east Asia". Europe is west of this river. Then there is North America. We assume this is west. But Central and South America are not assumed to necessarily have "western values" particularly in Venezuala, Cuba, Peru, or Haiti. Haiti's official religion is "Voodoo".

Interesting that Africa and South America are neither east nor west. We are in the Southern Hemisphere. Too often, we are dominated by powers in the northern hemisphere. But we are never invited to the dinner table.

Interesing that Germany is lobbying to the EU, that Uraguay in South America should join the EU as so many in Uraguay have German backgrounds. Yet no EU member counties have ever argued that Australia should join the EU, since most Australians have European backgrounds. Meanwhile, Poland is in serious breach of EU standards in human rights, and could have their status revoked. They could face expulsion over such serious alegations of backing Neo-Nazi activity.

So what is European? A race, a value or a geography? If Poland is expelled, then the notion of "European" is a standard. Conversely, Uraguay is under question for entry to the EU.

Yet no one in the EU ever notices poor old Australia, sitting under the planet, lost about our identity. Germany lobbied for Uraguay. The UK never lobbied for Australia to join the EU, they obviously see themselves as "above us". They are north, and they always gave Australian culture the "cat's bum".

Nothing would please me more than Australia to joining the EU. But no one has the imagination or the guts to run with the idea.

I mean, what values do we relate to if we have to join an economic block to remain economically viable? EU countries have many people from Asia and Africa too. It is not a racial block.

We are south, like Uraguay, but does that make us east? I think not.

saintfletcher,

I think one reason why the UK never lobbied for Australia's entry into the EU is that we never asked for it. A second reason could be that only about 30% of people in the UK think it was a good idea for them to join in the first place. As for Brits rejecting Australian culture, just look at how many of them love to watch Australian soaps and visit Australian beaches.

I have no desire to join the EU, in fact, because I don't want policy to be dictated by Brussels. What I would like to see is closer cooperation between countries that genuinely have something in common other than geography. The obvious choice for me would be some kind of arrangement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (CANZUK). We have a common history, common values, common culture, common institutions: far more than the EU member states have.

Australia and New Zealand already have virtually a single market and very close ministerial cooperation. Australian and UK ministers have agreed to an annual meeting to be called AUKMIN. Australian state premiers and Canadian provincial premiers are working towards a meeting in Adelaide next year, where they will discuss a range of development issues. Bring all these together - together with the enormous exchange of people that goes on between our countries -, and you have the basis for a very strong group based on real similarities.

In my previous posts I drew attention to the false impressions given to many people by the typical school world maps.

Did you see the news item on TV this week showing the range of a North Korean missile with 4700Km range ?
The idiot news people drew a circle around North Korea of 4700Km which covered to New Zealand.
The distance from Nth Korea to New Zealand is 10,366 Km !
The whole of Australia was covered by their incompetance.
Now all the people think Australia can be subject to Nth Korean missle threats.

It really does make you wonder about the rest of what they "inform" us about.

Baz

I see two common types of ecomomic union. The first is regional, driven by 'scales of economy' The US, the former USSR & now Europe are examples where a common currency is involved & I see the advantages as purely logistical. Common currency does not change companies & businesses - there is obviously a one-off cost, & then marginally reduced costs for those who trade across the borders involved. Stability of trading costs (through currency stability)is the main, ongoing benefit. There is similar benefit for the individual.
But all this is transitory - soon forgotten. Economics is simply a game of relativity, at different levels. The overall 'wealth' of a State, measured through purely economic means is rubbish.
Right now, people are understanding this. Even in the 'high capitalism' of modern Australia terms such as 'wellbeing' & 'life satisfaction' are becoming common in everyday communication. The church of economics is being questioned daily regarding its extremism & lack of humanity.
The second form of economic union is the 'free trade agreement', apparently an invention of the US & driven by multinational corporations. It is usually a parasitic connection between vastly different economies, for the benefit of the larger. Modern day colonialism, if you like. It should be questioned & denounced as much as the US administration itself.
But this economic thread of discussion relates minimally to Tony Henderson's article. Tony puts the point foward in his response above. Our 'position' in the region, & we do mean a geographic region (the boundary of the region is irrelevant), is being questioned by the way we handle & respond to international events, by how we 'relate' to our neighbours in times of difficulty & crisis, right now.
Australia is under pressure to grow & confront its dualistic relationship - between the english speaking West & between our neighbours, predominantly non-western, or english speaking.
I believe we (Oz) need to show more political independence from the Anglo West of the US & UK, at all levels. This would gain the respect of our neighbours & facilitate our greater political ties with the region.