Howard/Downer have continued the Liberal tradition of engagement with Asia. That is in Australia's greatest long term interest. Joe Lyons, had the support of Menzies, sdtarted it with the eventually aborted Pacific Pact of 1937. Menzies before and during his first Government clearly stated we should look to our north for our future.

'Our primary responsibilities are around the fringes of the Pacific Ocean ... setting up of real machinery for the cultivation of friendship
R.G. Menzies (Address, Town Hall, Sydney, 15 March 1939, cited in Hudson 1974, pp.105-106).'

During Chifley's time the Labor Party decided our relationships with the rest of the world were best centered on UN.

Currently our Asian involvement was due to Foreign Ministers Spender and Casey. With Japan mostly due to Frazer/Howard. China was first recognised by Whitlam but our significant relationships have developed under Howard/Downer.

US relationships started under Curtin. All Australian PM's and Foreign Ministers since have been cognisant of the importance of that relationship. But Howard/Downer, with our support in Iraq and Afghanistan, have succeeded in creating a 'very special place' for us in the US political establishment regardless of control by Democrat or Republican.

The most significant success of Howard/Downer is the establishment of significant relationships with countries who are traditional enemies, China and Japan, and with traditional (relatively new) super power rivals, the US and China. They have significantly enhanced our traditional Asian friendships and created a workable and mutually respectful relationship with Indonesia.

The most dangerous region in the world is the Central Asian countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

China and the US worked together in remeding the situation in Korea and that has established the basic nature of their relationship for years to come. Both want peace so their economies can grow.

Howard/Downer have had remarkable success in positioning us in an amicable and powerful position among our friends in our Asia Pacific region.

Involvement in Vietnam enhanced our relationships with many other Asian countries. Involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is doing the same for us in other regions.

Thanks Keith, most enlightening.
TRTL, depending on the threat posed to the region by radical Islamic groups in the Provinces of Pakistan and strategic assessments, perhaps there might be some common cause develop between the Pakistan Army or a significant section of it and influential elements in India.
Bruce

Bruce and TRTL

You're right that its unclear what Australian forces can contribute to keeping extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan under control.

Bruce, as you've detailed Afghanistan is a fragmented place that is basically uncontrollable by a central Government.

In that country Australia can only contribute to the allied effort to deny the Taliban control over large parts of it and keep them out of Kabul. Bombing, capturing and generally disrupting al Qaeda training camps is the other holding action that may be useful. I don't think anyone can actually "win" in Afghanistan but preventing its return to being a vast al Qaeda training grown may be worth it.

Australian and (quietly NZ) SAS contribute way beyond their numbers to chasing Taliban/AQ guerillas.

I've noticed that Afghanistan actually has an Australian Embassy http://www.dfat.gov.au/missions/countries/af.html . It'd be pretty small and could be augmented by diplomats and SECDET transfering from a closed Embassy Baghdad.

On Pakistan an allied US/NATU/Antipodean military force close to its border reminds the Pakistan military and ISI how destabilising it could be if that force spilled over the border in "hot pursuit". Therefore its up to these two nasties to keep their Muslim extremists under control. I think the US/NATO are actually pursuing this strategy. Its the threat rather than the follow through that is more effective.

Keith - reckon thats an interesting rundown - showing that both sides of Australian politics do build (even if they never acknowledge it) on each other's foreign policy efforts.

Plantageant

That is not what happens. In my view, I will confine it to the Asian region:

The Labor Party tend towards multilateral arrangements and grand gestures with security the main aim. eg's of the former Evatt's involvement in the UN, Keating's emphasis on APEC, Evan's dalliances with the UN. eg's of the latter Whitlam's recognition of China, Hawke's granting of visas after Tianiniamin Square, and Keating and Beazley's Security Pact with Indonesia.

While the Liberal/Nationals tend to unilateral arrangements with trade the first object coupled with an intent that tends to result in friendship and security. eg's Casey's establishment of relations with many Asian countries after WW11, Frazer and Howard's establishment of relations with Japan, Howard and Downer's formation of a mutually respectful relationship with Indonesia.

Now what I believe occurs is that once a relationship has been initiated the Foreign Affairs Department takes over and fosters the relationships regardless of who is in power and regardless of the overall policy direction. The Department while implementing the policy of the Government of the day just applies the mechanics of diplomacy to existing relationships.

Of course some PM's and Government policy have a detrimental effect on some relationships when their policy is like a bull in a China shop and without significant advantage to Australia. A prime example was Keating with APEC and Mahithar with the East Asia Group. China and Hawke was another. Whitlam's recognition of China affected our relations with others. However longer term wiser heads and practicalities hold sway and damage is minimal.

Having said all that there have been exceptions. Spender's fostering of the Columbo Plan springs readily to mind.

But with Rudd well who knows as he has given no indication of an overall policy.

However generally I believe the Liberal /National approach is the one that has served us best over the past 70 years and has seen our relations within our Asian region develop without major disruptions or ... headlines. Typically Australian. Understated and over-achieved. :-)

Bruce, only interesting?...350 words was limiting and didn't allow for my provoctative understanding to be fully detailled.

Plantagenet, After reading over many of your replies to me petulance, vanity and indeed arrogance have been the hallmarks.

Its pointless accusing me of ‘parroting’ anyone. I can just as easily accuse you of parroting the soft-left rubbish that all war is about imperialist ambition. It gets us nowhere.

There is a lot of support from military analysts for the idea that Iraq will degenerate into full scale civil war if the US leave without ensuring a reasonably solid represenative gov’t and a defence force able to protect the country. No small task, I know.

I notice that you decided to ridicule me instead of making any comment on what you thought a rapid reduction and withdrawl of troops from Iraq would precipitate.

Your ideological bent gets in the way of reasoned analysis every time. The idea that Australian troops are “oil security guards in Iraq” is preposterous

Overwatch Battle Group West have been involved in numerous reconstruction efforts in Al Muthanna and Dhi Qhar province as well as training the new Iraqi security forces. They are a force for good in Iraq. The way Australian soldiers/service personnel go about their business in a professional and successful manner can only be a good thing and one hopes a little might rub off on our coalition allies.

Without doubt Australians are also playing an important role in Afghanistan. You are correct in your assertion that the Islamic fascists are engaging in a war of attrition. They rightly suspect that our ability to sustain casualties is limited politically. But the divisiveness of the current debate and the willingness of many on the left to publicly suggest we should throw the towel in gives the terrorist renewed hope for victory and encourages them to prolong the conflict.

The shame of the Vietnam war wasn’t the troop withdrawal, it was Congress cutting the funding to South Vietnam so that in the end they did not even have the bullets to defend themselves. The idea being, of course, that South Vietnam fighting on alone would have been a dreadful embarrassment

Paul.L

As reconciliation by stealth I inflict on you the following:

I agree with your “parroting - counter parroting’ argument in the sense that its better for us to agree to disagree.

I don’t think the West artificially structured Iraq in the 1920 to ever achieve “ a reasonably solid representative gov’t and a defence force able to protect the country”. Quite the opposite. In the 1920s the provinces (largely delineated on ethnic lines) were squashed together to from Iraq to keep them weak and divided (UNLESS some outside force could keep them together). Iraq’s potential was seen by the West (and Russia) as a subject territory, containing oil and a few Arabs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Mesopotamia#Oil_concession

Why isn’t OIL a consideration for the US and its allies? Its the world’s most valuable commodity – politically, strategically and economically.

The extreme expense of the war fought so far (for counter-terrorism, military lodgment (yes there are other reasons) and oil) supports the argument that American’s see their control of Iraqi oil as a way of repaying the cost of the war over future decades.

Only a breakup of the country along ethnic lines will resolve the civil war question. Nothing else has worked. There are no deep democratic roots – least of all from foreign guns.

The Coalition occupation of Iraq has had no demonstrable effect in dampening civil war tensions over the years. The Americans are admitting this. Military and civilian casualties are steadily increasing. The Coalition presence appears to be acting as a magnet for Saudi, Iranian and Kurdish money to feed and arm insurgents from the 3 sides (Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish).

Hence their is unlimited insurgent support, across porous borders…like Vietnam. Yet the Iraqi army and police have infinitely less ethnic unity and patriotism than South Vietnamese troops had. It seems most Iraqi energies go into fighting each other.

More to follow: