The Five Power Defence Arrangements and the reappraisal of the British and Australian policy interests in Southeast Asia, 1970–75 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Cold War Studies, 2010
This article draws on previously classified Australian and British archival material to reevaluate Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam's foreign policy. The article focuses on the Whitlam government's decision in 1973 to withdraw Australian forces from Malaysia and Singapore—a decision that constitutes a neglected but defining episode in the evolution of Australian postwar diplomacy. An analysis of this decision reveals the limits of Whitlam's attempt to redefine the conduct of Australian foreign policy from 1972 to 1975, a policy he saw as too heavily influenced by the Cold War. Focusing on Whitlam's approach to the Five Power Defence Arrangement, this article contends that far from being an adroit and skillful architect of Australian engagement with Asia, Whitlam irritated Australia's regional allies and complicated Australia's relations with its immediate neighbors. Australia's subsequent adjustment to its neighborhood was not the success story imp...
Down Under and In Between: Australian Security Perspectives in the ‘Asian Century’
Doing More and Expecting Less: The Future of US Alliances in the Asia Pacific. Issues and Insights , 2013
This chapter provides an overview of Australian perspectives on the US alliance in light of ongoing and emerging challenges in the Asia-Pacific region. After a brief discussion of the motivations behind the signing of the ANZUS treaty, the first part of the chapter examines the historical context of the alliance, with a particular focus on the long-standing and ongoing tussle in Australia between independence in foreign policy making vis-à-vis broader structural constraints. While this debate has been a constant feature of the political scene in Australia, it has come into particular focus since the US withdrawal from Vietnam, which marked a turning point in Australian perspectives with regard to its own role in Asia. The collision of ideas surrounding Australian identity and Australian national interest has been reflected in policy approaches as successive governments have sought to strike a balance between the two exigencies and thus, most optimally ensure Australia’s strategic future. The chapter concludes by examining current perspectives through the lens of an ongoing debate taking place in Australian academic circles about what the rise of China means for Australia and its commitment to the US alliance, and considers options for caucus-style cooperation with fellow US allies beyond the hub-and-spokes model.
'Foreign and Defence Policy on Australia's Political Agenda', 1962-2012, AJPA 2013
Australian Journal of Public Administration
This paper explores the content of the Australian foreign and defence policy agenda over the past 50 years, finding evidence of both continuity and change. Australian political leaders have generally committed to cooperation with international institutions, wealth creation through engagement with Asian economies in particular, and security through the American alliance. In this period, changes in foreign policy approach either concerned marginal issues or were driven significantly by exogenous factors: by changes in the international environment or by global events that propelled a reconsideration of Australian foreign and defence policy interests. However, periods of policy change and significant public attention in – particular around the Vietnam and Iraq wars – illustrate the continued relevance of political choices and agency. Both conflicts and debates around them ushered in changing foreign and defence policy considerations, and both raised fundamental questions about Australian security and independence in the context of the American alliance.
The limits of Empire: Australia, eastern appeasement and the drift to war in the Pacific, 1937–41
2018
Despite Australia’s regional security interests being intimately involved in the Pacific War, scholarship often portrays the nation as uninvolved in preparations for the imminent regional conflict. Rather, Australia ‘suffered from a chronic lack of self-reliance’, looking instinctively to the British Empire and the security it afforded. This article proposes that in the years 1937–41, the Australian government – first under Joseph Lyons and then Robert Menzies – recognised both the immediacy of the Japanese threat and the limitations of imperial defence plans and accordingly responded with a concerted policy for the coming regional conflict. The principal focus of this article is Australia’s position towards Japan and the implied pragmatic appraisal by Australia of the strategic value of diplomacy in maintaining regional stability. In the context of this growing assertiveness, this article also considers broader tensions in the Australian–British relationship, tensions centred on each nation’s respective and divergent position towards Japan. In this way, this article is more than just an examination of strategic appraisals, rearmament and diplomacy. It seeks to comment on Australian geopolitics, its relations with great powers, and the challenge of balancing national interests.
A ustralia's geostrategic advantage is increasingly compromised by its need to catch the fast-sailing Asian economic ships. Comprehensive ties with nations in the Asia-Pacific are also reshaping its national identity , as well as its perceptions of what constitutes the national interest. How to handle the military rise of China that will inevitably alter the security order of the region, while its economy is so tied up with the rising giant, poses a serious and inescapable challenge. This chapter examines Australia's current defence posture and strategic traditions in the context of China's growing power projection, the Asian pivot of the US, and the role of Japan and the rise of multiple Asian middle powers, in order to shed light on some 'middle-of-the-road' options for Australia. The first section examines how Australia approaches its national interest; special attention is paid to the role of national identity in shaping the perception of the national interest and the resulting strategic tradition. The second section outlines the changing strategic environment in the Asia-Pacific and examines how well Australia's strategic tradition serves its changing national interest. It also diagnoses the resulting 'bipolar dis-order' from which Australia is suffering as its political (security) interests and economic interests are pulling the nation in different directions. The final section weighs up the options available to Australia and recommends a new role and a new identity for Australia in the Asia-Pacific region.
Despite Australia's national interests being directly involved in the Pacific War, existing scholarly portrayals range from a nation pitifully underprepared and entirely dependent upon Britain for protection and policy direction, to a "Great Betrayal" of Australia by Britain. This paper will challenge such perceptions, examining Britain's inadequate strategic planning for the Pacific and the manner in which this growing insecurity encouraged Australia to pursue greater assertiveness in policy making. Developments between 1937-41 are examined with a particular reference to the strategic and diplomatic measures adopted by Australia in a bid to better position its interests and prepare for an imminent regional conflict. Namely, these measures were a balancing of rearmament and a conciliatory position towards an increasingly belligerent Japan. This paper speaks to the theme of Entangled Histories through its examination of Australia's position as an Anglocentric nation and member of the British Empire, whose immediate strategic interests lay in the Asia-Pacific region. This paper will consider the challenges implicit in attempts to maintain national interests when these interests exist in two vastly different geopolitical spheres. In this way, this paper contributes to a broader understanding of the factors shaping the practice of Australian foreign policy.