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.