It took me a while to find it, but I eventually found the non-obvious link to Obama's speech in Berlin. Sometimes a speech is a speech and it should be linked as a 'speech'. The main reason for interest in this is that it outlines Obama's most likely approach to foreign policy.
The first part of the speech discusses the common causes of humanity, seeking freedom over tyranny through the action of both the few and the many. He uses the analogy of Berlin, isolated by communism, as an outpost of liberalism sustained by both local action, and national action - such as the airlift and NATO - to ensure that freedom was maintained.
The second part of the speech contains global issues that are bigger than any one nation to tackle. He uses the analogy of Berlin and humanity's common cause in freedom to thread to shared concerns by individuals, communities and nations at a global level. However he celebrates diversity in that cause:
Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more - not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity. That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.Obama's approach to foreign policy is international liberalism. It is predicated on the freedom of human action, global markets, and the open communication between individuals, communities and nations. The policies stem from the common causes of humanity and shared interests; rather than real politick of 19thC European power politics or the Cold War detente. International Liberalism and its strands, such as Wilsonianism carries an element of idealism in it, but so does American politics courtesy of its innovative constitution and the imprint that leaves on the American people and politicians. Obama's conclusion in his speech is consistent with American aspirationalism:
But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived - at great cost and great sacrifice - to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom - indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us - what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America's shores - is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.Neoconservatism was always too small and myopic for America. Its insular nationalism and fear of international institutions left it isolated. A paradox as America is quite an international and global culture - and despite President Bush's constant rhetoric about freedom in his intervention into Iraq it always stunk of real politick and the Carter doctrine. Obama's foriegn policy speech is big enough for the American dream of a better world, but implementation counts too. Woodrow Wilson was unable to establish his view of international liberalism either at home or abroad. In the same way the Doc Evatt's efforts at international liberalism fell afoul of the bipolar detente policies of the Cold War. I have no doubt Barack Obama will be the next US President. The US Republican Party is literally broken as a brand and repugnant democratically through the bad governance of the Bush, Hastert and Delay years. I prefer the policies of international liberalism to the intrusive and nationalistic nature of neo-conservatism. I wish Obama luck in achieving the ideals expressed in his Berlin speech.
One of the claims of the 'Great and powerful friends' doctrine [GAPF] of foreign policy is that it brings economic benefits to the smaller partner from the powerful friend. This stems back to Billy Hughes in 1919 being concerned that if Australia was seen as disloyal to Britain, then Canada would get privileged access to the British wheat markets. Which was a false assumption to base a foreign policy upon. Today the Free Trade Agreement [FTA] is being touted as an example of the GAPF working to Australia's benefit. It is worth reflecting if this is true. (more)
Great and Powerful Friends doctrine, International liberalism and the Engagement doctrine. (more)
adam : Engagement: I suspect Engagement is not so much a disruptive technology as an older technique used for creating a peaceful and prosperous neighbourhood amongst peer states. A student of European diplomacy before the 20th century might be able to come up with better examples than I.
cam : You could probably argue that the fraternal: european monarchy conducted diplomacy through engagement. They inter-married, were multi-lingual (as they grew up in Germany, France, or Spain before being married off to English or Austrian royals), they did diplomacy with a handshake and a hug, etc. They also used to have family get togethers outside of diplomacy meetings where all the great royal houses would just socialise.
Parliaments were powerful enough by 1914 that great \'house\' diplomacy could not stop the engines of war.
cam
Indonesia is slowly becoming an active member of the international community in a more international liberalist manner after the expansionist and isolationist years of Sukarno and Suharto. Indonesia has contributed to United Nation deployments in Congo, Cambodia and Senegal amongst others. Yudhoyono earned much of his public profile by commanding Indonesia's forces in Bosnia. A deployment to Lebanon poses many messy political issues for Indonesia but which will probably not deter the new Indonesian internationalist outlook.
(more)
I normally only read The Economist when I am waiting at the airport. I got to read it front-to-back tonight; United Airlines lost my wife's luggage. There were two articles [behind paywall] on the laziness of trade talks in Doha. I think both articles misjudged neo-conservatism and the national conservatism that is being practiced in world trade now.
(more)
Guy : Indeed: It\'s a big worry. I\'m not too sure what the way forward is given the pressures coming to bear.
cam : bilateralism isn\'t necessarily incompatible: with free trade, ideally a free trade agreement would be a tiny document, but it seems bilateral trade agreements are complex and overly-advantageous to the more powerful country.
The Economist wants Bush to take the lead and get Doha back on track, but in this they have totally misjudged the political philosophy of the Bush Administration and Neo-conservatism. Bush won\'t lift a finger.
Most other nations have moved sufficiently from international liberalism, including Australia, that they don\'t care anymore about the WTO either. Why should Australia, it has bilateral agreements, or is working towards ones, now with its bigger trading partners.
Doha is a holiday for trade reps now and they are acting accordingly.
cam
The problem of establishing a perfect civil constitution depends upon the problem of law-governed external relations among nations and cannot be solved until the latter is.(more)
Australia was reliant upon the British Foreign Office for its foreign policy until the Department of External Affairs grew in cabinet importance in the 1940s. Previously the department had not been focused on foreign policy at all. Central to the department's new importance in foreign affairs was the changing circumstance of the Cold War, the decolonisation of former European Empires and the loss of power and prestige of Britain. Another reason, was the vibrant energy of Herbert Vere "Doc" Evatt.
The path to an independent foreign affairs department was not simple, other cabinet heavyweights such as defence, trade, immigration and even the Prime Minister were keen to protect their bureaucratic turf and existing power. There was also the question of competing philosophies on foreign policy - the advent of the United Nations and Soviet aggression was to bring those philosophies into sharp focus. (more)
siento : The US alliance: Nice article, it\'s interesting to think about the short history of Australia\'s foreign service and independent foreign relations.
The question is what does Australia get out of the US alliance and is this enough? Arguably we get security, but that requires believing that someone is actually out to get us in the first place. We do also get things like free trade agreements which are hopefully of use.
Also, Australia culturally is part of the Anglo-sphere, and unless we all start reading other languages our ideas and policy are going to be influenced strongly from other English speaking countries.
Really, Australia is highly unlikely to be doing things any other way.
The other thing to consider was that during the Cold War there was a genuinely menacing enemy (as opposed to the current imagined one) in charge of a country that was expansionist and that had an ideaology that was, quite literally, deadly.
The Cold War only ended 15 years ago. Since the Cold War there has been only occasion on which Australia has been asked to participate in which the world on the whole opposed. And we participated quite cleverly, admittedly over the wishes of a majority of the population, in only sending a few troops.
Australia has also has arguably had some foreign policy success in engaging with Asia, which has been done quietly by successive governments. There has also been some success in the area, putting peace keeping troops into the islands and so on.
cam : Threats: The only nation that can project their military power in such a way to threaten us at the moment is the US. And as you said, we have a strong relationship with them that goes back to when the American merchant ships used to hide Irish convicts and take them back to the US.
Australia and America both have McDonalds, so war, or even open conflict is unlikely.
The other issue is, our main trading partners are Asia. Unfortunately our economy remains dominated by commodities. Only the wine industry has created a powerful value-added export market around our primary production. Most of the stuff we ship off to China and Japan is raw materials.
We are not alone there, Asia is America\'s factories, as well as Australia\'s. But consequently it makes sense for us to align more strongly with where our wealth is coming from. The US just isnt that important there, IIRC in 1990, 63% of our exports went to Asia. I think the US only accounted for about 11%.
The Au-US FTA was a bit of a poisoned pill in copyright/DMCA, and our going to Iraq did not stop the sugar lobby and other agricultural lobbies from have quotas in the \"free\" trade agreement. The US does play power politics, and we are not big enough or nasty enough to have that much notice taken of us. Basically we get shafted if the US decides it wants to shaft us.
All our governments have fallen under the sway of the \"great and powerful friends\" doctrine. Which is based on power politics. Basically Australia is nothing unless it has a big friend that it can try and work concessions out of. But none of the Australian governments, despite their belief in power politics, has done anything to make us a power.
I find that odd. Especially as since we were poised to jump that level at the end of World War II with the residual size of our forces, and the amount of immigration we were accepting.
We have the fifteenth largest economy on the planet, though it is small compared to the US, Japanese and Chinese economies. But our military is known as being small and not independant. Indonesia laughed at us when Howard and Downer tried to play populist power politics by saying we should attack any country that harbours terrorists.
We could destroy Indonesia\'s military capability and communications infrastructure in short order. But maintain any sort of presence? We just dont have that kind of tail in our military. We rely on the US for that kind of projection.
Worse, since Howard is so keen on power politics, he is actually lessening Australian projection, despite the defence white papers claiming that projection over Australia\'s main vulnerabilities (ie the air-sea gap) is the ADF\'s and the government\'s prime concern.
Air Warfare Destroyers arent going to help that. Abrams tanks arent going to help that. The LHDs arent going to help that. Retiring the F111 early means we lose a deterrent that projects across that gap. Replacing them with 400km cruise missiles is a loss of projection.
So Howard, despite trading in power politics, is trading away our hard power, for a closer alliance with the US when it appears we should be going the other direction. Building up our hard power (there is an arms race in Asia atm anyway) and distancing outrselves from the US so we can act more independantly regionally.
There are a lot of contradictions. I always thought Howard\'s strong support for the US was reflexive, and not necessarily thought out from a philosophical point of view. I also believed that the Howard government does not understand defence. They understand the domestic political ramifications of it, which as you mentioned, was to only put enough troops over in Iraq so it didnt become a domestic issue that threatened his popularity, but in terms of establishing a military that is a coherent deterrent capable of projecting hard power - they have no idea.
cam
cam : Ministers, Mandarins and Diplomats: is
an excellent book
which covers the early history of the department of foreign affairs.
I got it in the National Library\'s bookshop a few years ago when I was searching for the original draft constitution that Inglis-Clark wrote. Apparently it had a Bill of Rights in it that Samuel Griffiths struck out. Inglis-Clark was a romanticist for the American constitution too, so it would be interesting to see what he wrote.
The national library didnt have it, and didnt know what I was talking about.
cam
siento : Lack of power: The point that our trade with Asia is really big is a really strong. We need to strengthen our value adding and add more depth to our exports. This is where the current Liberal government has been poor. In the long run it looks like Australia will become a real Asian country. Hopefully we can get the best of both worlds.
The FTA with the US may be a good thing. The DMCA thing may not be that great. Enforcing the DMCA in Australia might be very difficult. We\'ll have to wait a while to see what happens and even then it will be hard to work it out. Even 10 years after NAFTA there is still a lot of debate about it\'s effects.
What point is there these days in having a military capable of occupation against real hostility? The US - with an approximately half trillion dollar defense budget is being humbled by tens of thousands of guys with explosives, AK-47s and RPGs.
We have sufficient projection, as you say, to cause anyone within a reasonable range pain. That\'s enough. It also makes them feel safe. If we have a carier fleet and marines the Indonesians may feel threatened, and with reason.
Australia can carry out heavy-policing duties as shown by the East Timor stabilisation.
We are certainly pandering to the US. But we are also trying to maintain good relations with everyone else as much as possible.
That\'s fine most of the time. It only really comes to a head when there are things like the current business with China\'s diplomats defecting and in the Middle East where US policy is significantly different to the rest of the world.
