From background information through historical accounts and not so much through Media reports, would say that reports from Iraq in particular have been deliberately quietened down.

That is why we should now look thoroughly into Middle East history since WW1, especially regarding historical reputations which certainly does not put America nor Britain in a good light.

With the present position in Iraq, the main focus should be now on Iran, which we should present more as a normal nation and not as evil as George Bush and John Howard would like to present it. A nation by its record against allies, America, Britain and Australia, as clear and honest as it could be in the circumstances dealing with our world’s so-called premier nation, which itself has broken so many laws in International Relations, politics and trade.

The US, for example , has highhandedly used its unipolar global positioning not only to illegally occupy Iraq, but to trash WTO rules by subsidizing its producers, and made a laughing stock of the UN, especially in the Middle East, by having personalities like Condoleeza Rice jump in front every time a UN leading personage is needed in a critical discussion.

We do believe that the above should influence our coming election, because if it does not, we are going to have the same old Middle East problem for years to come, mostly caused at present not so much by big power rivalry, as with the Cold War, but by a kind of slavishness from powers seemingly scared to say what should happen when one big unipolar power dominates, with certain smaller power leaders, as has been said, like Deputy Sheriffs just taking orders.

The above needs a drastic change, and it is so interesting that Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher and Father of the principle of a United Nations, was against unipolarity in world organizations, but better a Federation of Nations, not necessarily completely in agreement but working together both ethically and honestly.

If the above can get to Rudd, all well and good

An interesting evaluation, Ben.

Another example is the issue of Clusters munitions. At the CCW conference which just ended in Geneva, Australian diplomats did bugger all beyond that done by our major Ally, the US. In other words, they did nothing toward a clusters ban or moratorium.

Australia rushed through a commitment to buy "smart" cluster munitions, 155 mm antitank shells, this September. A year after the outrageous and inappropriate use of clusters in Lebanon.

And it now appears that the current Oz gov't chooses to call any opposition to its current cluster purchase an ideological opposition.

The ALP is taking a policy position in line with Oz DoD, and has claimed that the international Clusters Munition Coalition and Handicap International, among others, are in line with the acceptance of "smart" cluster munitions.

Here is part of the ALP statement, available at:
Hobart Peace Coalition Survey – ALP Response
http://www.peacetasmania.org/election07/Denison.htm

"It is noted that Landmine Action UK, the Cluster Munitions Coalition, and Handicap International, have conceded that precision-guided munitions that discriminate between targets, such as those in the process of being procured by Defence, do not pose a greater risk to civilians and constitute legitimate alternatives to general cluster munitions."

A response by Rae McGrath, International Spokesperson on Cluster Munitions, for the Handicap International Network says:

"[The] ALP statement is a total misrepresentation of Handicap International's position regarding the munitions being procured by the Australian Ministry of Defence. We are of the view that, on existing evidence, sensor fused weapons retain the indiscriminate properties of other cluster munitions. In addition we are of the opinion that these weapons are still subject to the design deficiencies which result in a persistent post-conflict threat similar to landmines. Neither have the Australian MOD made any viable strategic argument to support their decision to procure cluster munitions at a time when nations with substantial experience of these weapons are working together to achieve a ban on their continued use, manufacture, stockpiling and transfer."

How do we explain this glaring error on the part of Labor? Where will they be, November 20, 2008?

Australia has got itself into a difficult position, its relationship with the US has been based on conformity in foreign policy and military support.

This relatively minor contribution has enamoured Australia to the US to the extent we have got a free trade agreement and military co operation unmatched even with the UK, and was based to a large extent the bipartisan support in the US congress and senate for the US military.

The benefits of this have been the elevation of the global status of Australia and the ability to maintain a minute and inexpensive military.

However, with the disaster in Iraq, the support for the military in the US has now become very partisan, with the republicans supporting the continued involvement in Iraq and democrats vehemently against it.

Howard is stuck in the middle with two bad choices ahead of him:
a) Stick with Bush in Iraq and be seen as partisan by the future democratic administration, and lose some international prestige, or
b) Pull out, and lose the support of the American public, the democrats and the republicans. (as it will be seen as an abandonment however unfair).

While I think the war in Iraq stinks, and that Howard should have been honest and simply admitted that Australia was to provide moral and not substantial support to an unjustified conflict, the decision whether to stay in Iraq is fraught with dangers.

I am sure that Howard will be glad to hand that poisoned chalice to Rudd.

Ben, good overview of the situation. Australia does face a number of foreign policy challenges as the relative decline of the US results in a re-distribution of power in the international system.

I am not sure what you consider an "independent foreign policy" might look like, but I imagine it would involve the following aspects that always serve a smart middle power:

1) A return to an emphasis on multilateral institutions and multilateral commitments, de-emphasising unilateral or "coalition of the willing" type commitments.
2) Improve our reputation and parlay our liberal and democratic governance structures into an international system based an orderly, law-observing states. This rather than trying to "pick a winner" in the continuing struggle between great powers.
3) Work with other similar sized states with the same interests in maintaining an orderly, rules-based state system.

In process of accomplishing these goals, we also must make it difficult for those Australians who askew multilateral commitments to back out once we've made them.

Here is an idea.

You mention the "melancholy fate" for Australia as we have "eroded decades of Australian commitment to the instruments of collective security enshrined in the United Nations". This erosion has also undermined the United Nations itself. In order to correct this situation and meet the goals I mentioned earlier we could consider something daring, quite possibly revolutionary but certainly within our power to achieve: replace our ambassador to the United Nations with a directly elected representative.

A directly elected representative would fight for Australian interests within the context of the United Nations, while his/her very existence would lend strong support to a multilateral system. Moreover, a directly elected representative could leverage (hijack?) the commitment of the United States to "democracy" and "freedom", thereby using US power for multilateral goods. Finally, it would be near impossible for a subsequent Australian party to form government and then back out once UN elections had started - in fact, they would probably begin to implicitly support the system by nominating candidates themselves.

Plenty more to say on the topic, but I'll leave it there.

SjK, could agree with you, if the UN was filling its role as Immanuel Kant had devised it, though would say he was going too far saying it was an idea for the preservation of Perpetual Peace.

Much of this was talked about during the Cold War, but it has always been the case of strong powers lording it over smaller powers.

Then to try and even it up, representatives from smaller nations were put in charge in turn.

Kant's idea of a Federation of Nations was more regional apparently which certainly would have been more difficult in the late 18th century than now.

But certainly Kant was right to lock out unipolarity, as proven by what a mess is being made of the White House neo-con plan for the American 21st Century.

It has not only stuffed up the UN, but there does not appear enough top brains in today's world to fix it?

Some say it's modernity, we are not letting our thoughts delve deep and sensible enough, too much letting electronics do it for us?

Cheers - BB, WA

Bushbred,

I agree that the powerful have always lorded it over the weak. What I am suggesting is that we use the weapons of the powerful (the US), with their commitment to “democracy” and “freedom”, to further our interests by implementing a multilateral system that will be very difficult to rollback. In fact, it is designed such that to oppose the change is to oppose “democracy” and “freedom” … an impossible position for the US.

There are a number of reasons the United Nations is not presently living up to expectations. First and foremost is its design: The United Nations is designed to be an *arena* where national governments can convene to extract as much from the rest of the world as they possibly can. It is entirely appropriate for these national governments to do this, as they have no commitment to the United Nations nor to any other country. They are solely committed to using the levers of the United Nations to protect their own privileges as the national government. The current system could in no way be described as “Kantian”, it is not a federation of nations, but a jungle of national governments. Such a system favours the strong, hurts the weak and pulls at the middle.

Australia and other democratic middle powers have the ability to change this situation and possibly realise a Kantian vision of a federation of nations. It does not require any special vote, circumstance or agreement from the great powers. With enough elected representatives, these middle powers could turn the UN into an *actor*. Each representative would have a commitment to the UN (similar to present representatives in federal government systems), to the other representatives (in order to form coalitions to pass resolutions) and to their national *people* (in order to be re-elected).

Changing the UN from an arena to actor would result in a multilateral system that furthers the interests of middle powers like Australia. And it would be nigh impossible to roll back.

I would certainly agree that Australia will have to make some major foreign policy decisions in the near future.

Unlike several other posters, I think that both the Americans and the international left have got things wrong in the middle east.

The left considers the extremists to just be criminals; the Americans believe that the extremists are a political group determined to attack the west.

This was highlighted recently when the yanks upset everybody in Turkey by describing them as "moderate muslims". The truth was that turkey is split between the followers of Ataturk, who are atheists, and the muslims, who are not moderate.

I believe that the one world figure who has got it right is the Pope, and I am not a catholic.

Pope Benedict has said that what we are facing is a new religious war. I think he is right because no other interpretation explains the sort of people (educated, middle class) who are engaging in terrorism.

This makes muslims in a country like Australia like the catholics in England at the time of the Spanish Armada.

The trouble is that the left is so against religion that it can't believe that we could have another religious war.

Major changes are inevitable in the near future, possible including a withdrawal to their borders by the US as soon as they become independent of middle east oil. The big question for us is whether we are inside or outside these borders. If we are located outside, we may have to acquire nuclear weapons and a much bigger military for our defence.

However it is much too soon to write off the US. As the main culture that produces technological innovation, they will remain very important in a time of rapid technological change.

The major problems facing the world of peak oil, global warming, overpopulation, and mass migration mean that we face a very rocky ride over the next few decades.

Thank heavens we have a sea boundary.

War and Democracy

There is no more serious act that a government can undertake than to send a nation to war. There is no action that has more serious consequences. This is because there is no event that produces as much suffering, death, injury, destruction, resentment and hatred as war. It would be difficult to find a person who has witnessed war first-hand who would disagree with this statement.

Not only the armies of the nations involved suffer death, injury and hardship. Civilians living in the area of conflict are always affected by the destruction taking place around them. War also drains the wealth of nations, as the resources needed to sustain a strong military force are (and have always been) considerable. So what should happen when a government sends a nation to war for reasons not based in fact?

There are two circumstances that could give rise to this situation. One is for a government to rely on inadequate or wrong intelligence. The other is for a government to make war on a nation for reasons different from those that are declared to the public. In the first case, by taking a course of action as serious as making war on another nation without properly verifying the information that the decision to go to war is based on, a government demonstrates extreme recklessness and incompetence.

In the second case, by making war for reasons not declared to the general public, and by misleading the public with regard to the cause of war, a government demonstrates contempt for the will of the people and the right of citizens to participate in the political process. Therefore either way, it can be argued that a government which makes war on another nation for reasons not based in fact has by doing so committed the most serious error possible for a government, and should therefore be removed from power when the opportunity arises.

http://www.myspace.com/cameronaudio

Collective Securities: YES. It is would be a good time and place to start.

Thank You Ben. The discussion over our relationship with the US needs to move from spineless repression to a national strength. Can Australia revisit its own root sense of moral identity?

As you said Ben Eltham, "Australia now needs more than an exit strategy from the Coalition of the Willing. It's time to seriously rethink the bedrock of 60 years of our foreign policy and move towards a more regional, more internationalist and less hegemonic policy agenda. Engaging or re-engaging with international collective security endeavours (like the UN and NATO) and environmental security treaties (like Kyoto), would certainly be a good place to start".

And,

"Most importantly, we need to stop acting to support the moral legitimacy of US entanglements."

http://www.miacat.com
.

sjk: not a bad idea. but let's get our own house in order, before asking the rest of the world to participate in democracy.

real democracy in a nation-state needs direct election of ministers, open management of public affairs, primacy of citizen initiative.

we don't have any of those things here, most seemingly don't want them. how then can we promote democracy in the world at large?

as for the article, pretty good statement in my view, but i think we could get along without the usa easily, and should.

“The major problems facing the world of peak oil, global warming, overpopulation, and mass migration mean that we face a very rocky ride over the next few decades.” (plerdsus).
Actually, the big daddy of our problems is excessive consumption and its associated creation of waste (pollution).
Already at 6.5 billion, we Homo sapiens are headed towards 9 billion people - consuming and wasting on this finite planet.

Same as rabbits confined to a paddock. Too much the same, especially regarding sexual proclivity.
The rabbits don’t have access to contraception; the genus Homo have the Vatican and George W. Bush.

Plerdsus, the Pope does not have it right. We have the ability to control our fertility, but the Pope is the world’s greatest impediment to accessing it.
While that continues to be the case, any battle won against peak oil, global warming, resource depletion, etc. will be only a temporary win, as you have advocated so often.

“the reality of the declining reputation, popularity and "soft-power" of the United States in world affairs.”

Declining reputation?

Compared to?

Russia?

China?

India?

Germany, France (they are now satellites of EEC) and UK is much the same (although dancing at arms length rather than in a clinging embrace)?

Maybe, some Latin American or African nation?
Not one springs to mind.

Canada?

Australia?

Well, according to the author, we are just another Bush whore.

“The reason can be summed up in one phrase: the Bush Administration.”

The Bush administration, bad enough to be elected for a second term.

The thing I notice most about the USA is (unlike say UK) an enduring US strength, a change of government (Rep v Dem) makes no practical difference to “policy” and only marginally influences “strategy”.

Oh, US foreign policy is littered with successes and disasters, all the way from the heights of the Spanish-American War (McKinley – Republican) to the depths of Bay of Pigs (Kennedy - Democrat) and other highlights, like the US/British Alliance which facilitated the demise of Hitler (although Roosevelt’s (Democrat) “faith” in Stalin was a foreign policy disaster, as Churchill (Conservative) had been warning for months) and “nuking” Japan to end WWII which saved 1 million + allied lives.

Anyone who thinks the USA is likely to lose the mantle of most-significant nation and a “soft power” in world affairs is either completely deluded or has their head so far up their own backside as to have lost any memory of what daylight looks like.

So should Australia hang with the US or would we be better served by distancing ourselves from US?

For my money, regardless of the day to day, the US have long term “values” which are similar to Australia’s.

Whilst we may debate and disagree on strategy and policy, the values and objective on which those policies and strategies are founded remain the same. Thus, regardless of the wishes of the more leftward leaning, a strong US/Australian alliance and ongoing cooperation always has been and remains in our long term best interests.

Many thanks, HjK, reckon it's groups like us who should be bashing the global commonense can.

Though Kantian Perpetual Peace sounds ridiculous, at least we can try for it with agreement and commonsense discussion.

It is so interesting that so long ago Kant wrote much about ways to prevent war, having become so disgusted with Napoleon declaring himself Emperor while still carrying the Enlightenment banner of Liberty Equality and Fraternity.

Kant unlike his German philosophical compatriot Hegel was indeed more a peace man, while Hegel still as a so-called Christian followed more the Paganism that centuries before Constantine had instilled into Christianity with the birth of the Holy Roman Church.

Invading other lands became legit', the true Christian message falling by the wayside. Hegel much later thus saw merit in not only teaching the young Marx, but also his beliefs also gave sanction later for German Christians to follow Hitler, because Hegel often talked about the necessity of war as both a spiritual and political cleanser.

One might wonder which of the two great Germans thinkers we are following right now?

Uni' Schools of Humanities talk about it, so why shouldn't we?

Best Regards - BB. WA.

Excellent analysis filled with accurate critical thinking. Prior to Bush being elected I had read PNAC and was worried. Once he was elected the neo-cons immediately started formulating plans to put PNAC into effect including plans to attack and occupy Iraq to a) obtain the oil and b) develop a military base in the ME in preparation for invasion and occupation of other oil-rich ME countries. Of course 9/11 played into their game plan, delayed invasion of Iraq but allowed the neo-cons to formulate the ‘war on terror’ and thus keep the international community from protesting too much about the PNAC plans for world-wide American Empire.

Consequently with a ultra conservative neo-con PM I knew that Howard would become Bush and the neo-cons puppet and draw us into the ‘coalition of the willing’….in other words, blindly support the US neo-cons plans for American Empire. What’s really upsetting is to see that he has continued to be a puppet, spouting out the same spin that Bush and the neo-cons in the USA are spouting. In the process he has ensured that our international reputation has sunk to low levels, destroyed our credibility in international relations and allowed the Howard government to take away many of our rights and natural justice in the name of protection against ‘terrorists.’

I’ve been pushing this barrow for years so it was refreshing to see this article, Ben. Thankfully there are a few lateral and critical thinkers around. IMO, if Rudd is elected, we have the chance of redeeming our international reputation, restoring our credibility in international relations, becoming involved in the UN and become our own country and doing what is best for us rather than blindly parroting and doing whatever the American neo-cons say we should do

Well I think if now the US is slowly starting to be on its way out as was with the UK then its time for Australia to finally consider its own position in the world without consideration for the interests of large nations. In fact Australia with our size and resources should try and bargain our way into a position of power and presteige ourselves to ensure our independance, economic and strategic interests are protected without other powers to consider in every single foreign policy we make. If Australia were to possibly invest in desalination plants and alternative water technologies, then grow her population then there'd be nothing stopping us from becoming a great power ourselves.

colinsett,

You got me wrong when you criticised my statement that the Pope had got it right.

What he got right is that we are in a religious war. I made no claim that he got it right on population, rather the opposite. The point I have made on population is that it is the issue that unites George Bush, the Pope, the third world and the muslim world, and that any mention of it usually results in allegations of racism or genocide. The fact that such powerful interest groups have the wrong idea on population control is what makes me despair about the future of the world. This is why I believe that, because of human inaction, the population problem will be solved by the four horsemen of the apocalypse, and that won't be a lot of fun for anyone.

As far as your comment on overconsumption is concerned, I would agree with you except that the only way we know how to run an economy is with continuous growth. The last sustained period without growth was called the Great Depression. Without growth in consumption improvements in productivity feed directly into umemployment. If you have a better formula, I would love to hear it.

folks, as a little warm-up exercise before reforming the u n, could we reform oz first? after we have achieved democracy here, we can use our new-won citizen initiative to press for democracy elsewhere.

of course, talking about the real possibility of reforming our own country is more threatening than vaporing on about the world stage, as it requires actual responsibility. ozzies don't do responsibility.

bushbred, thanks for giving me a hearing.

DEMOS, I understand your sentiment, but the article we are responding to is asking us to re-think our foreign policy.

The need to improve our democratic institutions does not absolve us of the responsibility to use whatever tools we have at our disposal to create a multilateral international system that protects Australian interests. Our democratic institutions may not be perfect, but we can still use them, along with American support for "democracy" and "freedom", to entrench a multilateral system that will protect our interests whilst being difficult to overturn.

Foreign policy post-Bush confronts Plerdsus’ grim hosts of reality: nearer, clearer, more deadly than before!
We could at least stop putting the telescope to the blind eye. In fact no telescope is needed for those not already blinded by dogma.

Let’s start by giving the full treatment, and more, to what we signed up to (together with the rest of the world) at Cairo in 1994: limiting our own population, and contributing adequately to assistance for developing countries to do the same. Education and emancipation of women underpinned that – providing them with the ability to control their own fertility rather than being enslaved to un-wished for pregnancies. Allow foreign policy to be influenced more by the Australian Parliament’s Parliamentary Group on Population and Development rather than by some personal religious dogma seeping out from under the carpet from Cabinet. Help the throttle to be eased off the population express.

Follow that up with declared and practical acknowledgement that the world’s resources are finite; that treating others as “untermensch” in accessing scarce commodities is hardly nice or lawful, and counterproductive in the long term, as it is for “leibensraum”. Make part of that a demonstration of a desire to live within the limits of our own landscape and climate rather than push them until we completely flog the place to death.

Face up to the problems inherent in economic growth, which breeds boom and bust. “We have never had it so good”. Whacko – why make it “gooder”? Put a McDonald’s in every suburb instead of just every second one; to admire even more the escalated value of our houses (heaven help the non-owners)? There are economists who believe in a steady-state economy – put them at the helm. The HIA, Property Council, etc. might weep a bit, but there is viability in it. Now that economic system would be a great Foreign Affairs talking point, and we would get brownie (greenie?) points from it across the world.

All worth trying. Plerdsus’ four horsemen might gallop over us more gently if we make a start.

You excite me, Aussie mates, in this latest OLO get-together.

Just a retired old Cockie aspiring, but possibly my German Irish Welsh heritage has made me a natural rebel, helped by the part-German mother that we always had our farmhouse overloaded with interesting books. Even those of my stepfather, a keen reader of Edgar Wallace.

But still do feel us Aussies are champion innovators, not only the Sunshine stump-jump plough, but it was our ideas that made up the huge combine harvester that we now import from Americana.

Latest in the field was the Victa Mower now its brethren all world-wide.

So why what not leave the Yanks behind in a recipe for a better world. Though we do still need them, why not pluck up the courage to tell 'em a few things? - as we did with our rural gear, why not use the wonderful knowledge of our history going back to the Greeks, why not use it to push more sensible ideas for a global future.

Not an erzatz world democracy as the White House neo-cons preach of so much, with Americana always holding the four Ace cards, building up a Nuclear fortress more to protect itself than make way for an unselfish world.

Further, as far as Climate Change is concerned, we have Western Australia, which both Vlamning and Dampier termed A Land in Need, but the perfect spot on earth to prove what commonsense innovation can achieve.

Indidently it was myself with help from Curtin Uni' which produced a series on WA, called a Land in Need - information of which is available on Google.

Cheers - BB, WA

The Foreign policy of the USA seems distasteful to the majority of humanity.
I would ask who formulates it? One correspondent notes not the electorate in any direct and informed sense.
Numerous authors find the F.P. particularly in America, has been hijacked by interest groups. Prof Falk writing an introduction to the Contra affair goes so far as to describe them as fascist, but the point is by particular groups be they PNAC, the Poe or Israel.
Two questions arise is this correct and how would the electorate be involved?
Most are not equipped and recent events have shown how malleable under pressure of the Media it is. So much so the N Y Times issued an apology well sort of in 2004 and I think some Aust media outlets did similarly. But not only was the media itself partisan it was apparently suborned by the interests of the powerful.
Is F.P. about national state interests regardless of other concerns and can this remain so?
Increasing limitation of resources without alternative the economists happy retort to most claim requires co operation or theft. Theft by force of arms seems not only unproductive but fraught with Nuclear options as well as bankrupcy.
Granted such fears about new weapons have been expressed in the past but Nuclear perhaps is different. (The new explosive bombs of Russia reputed to be as powerful as nuclear?)
Does F.P. have to be based on the expectation of threat? Or is threat invoked to provide platform for hubris and wealth?
If we seek to improve the F.P. of the world and the standing of the UN, presumably seeing it as a world court then the power of the ICC and respect for it must be enhanced.
One way would be to implement prosecution for war crimes. In many countries the method is incorporated in the national law and the US is currently oscillating in its desire to impeach as is possible under the constitution.
Can national sovereignty cope with the coming world problems ?