Australian Government's Bellicose Foreign Policy

by Peter Symon

The advent of the Howard Government has not significantly changed the 
direction of Australia's long-term foreign policy objectives. Circumstances 
and issues have changed considerably since Federation in 1901 but the main 
strategic considerations have remained substantially the same, irrespective 
of whether a Liberal or Labor Government is in power.

In the early 1900s, the British Empire reigned supreme around the world. 
Britain administered vast colonial possessions — India, Malaya, 
concessions in China, South Africa, Sri Lanka (then called Ceylon) and many 
other territories. Other European colonial powers also held a share — the 
French in Indo-China and the South Pacific (where French colonialism still 
persists), the Dutch in Indonesia (then called the Dutch East Indies), the 
Portuguese in Africa, Macau (part of China) and, of course, East Timor.

Australian Governments looked to Britain for protection in what was seen as 
a potentially hostile Asia. The objective of the British and Australian 
rulers was to maintain Australia as a white, Anglo-Saxon imperialist base 
in the Asia-Pacific region. This objective was clearly stated when in 1901, 
Senator Staniford, in parliamentary debates on White Australia, said: 
"Speaking from the imperial point of view, nothing could tend to solidify 
and strengthen the Empire so much as that we should build up in these 
southern lands a British race."

In a pamphlet called Immigration and the White Australia Policy, R 
Dixon, Assistant Secretary of the Australian Communist Party (as it was 
called at the time), wrote: "From the standpoint of British imperialism, it 
was of decisive importance that Australia should be built up and 
strengthened as a bastion of Empire, as a "white" outpost of British 
imperialism in the Pacific."

The White Australia policy had nothing to do with defending the jobs or 
living standards of Australian workers although it was always justified on 
those grounds. This false assertion was resurrected by Pauline Hanson only 
last year. It was also justified on cultural grounds. The fact is that 
then, as now, employers attempted to reduce the wages and jobs of workers 
at every opportunity.

The first White Australia legislation was specifically directed against 
Chinese. This was thought to be too offensive and was then changed to 
"Asiatics". This too was thought to be too offensive by Britain which, at 
the time, was administering a number of Asian colonies. The legislation was 
then changed to provide for a dictation test in a foreign language as the 
device to keep out those who for racial reasons were considered to be 
undesirable.

After the Russian socialist revolution of 1917 the element of class 
struggle against socialism became a major consideration in the foreign 
policies of all western governments. The destruction of socialism in the 
Soviet Union and action to prevent socialist revolutions from occurring 
elsewhere in the world became the top agenda item.

So, when in the period immediately prior to World War II, Robert Menzies 
travelled to Nazi Germany and came back praising Hitler and also supported 
the policies of the Japanese militarists in their aggression against China 
and the Soviet Union in the East, it was because of these anti-socialist 
policies. Menzies fully supported the appeasement policies of the British 
Government before World War II. 

Menzies went so far in his appeasement policies that he was prepared to 
give away the northern part of Australia (the Brisbane line) to the 
Japanese when they were sweeping south in the early stages of the war in 
the Pacific. Fortunately, Menzies was thrown out as Prime Minister at this 
time.

The defeat of the Nazis and the Japanese militarists and the huge boost 
given to the prestige of the Soviet Union and socialism as a result of its 
main contribution in World War II led to very significant changes. 
Revolutions took place in a number of other European and Asian countries.

The Chinese revolution was victorious and established the People's Republic 
of China in 1949. The Vietnamese took up arms against French colonialism, 
Indonesia threw out the Dutch, the British were forced to concede 
independence to India. In the post-war period the former colonial world all 
but collapsed.

As a result of the threat to Australia from the Japanese and the inability 
of the British to protect Australia, the Australian Government and ruling 
class turned to the United States and in the post-war period the ANZUS 
treaty was entered into.

But Australian Governments would have nothing to do with the national 
liberation movements and joined with the other imperialist powers in their 
attempts to turn back the clock when Australian military forces were sent 
to fight wars in Malaysia, Korea and Vietnam.

Australia was also a member of the ill-fated South East Asia Treaty 
Organisation (SEATO) which was nothing more than an attempt by the US and 
other imperialist powers to shore up the collapsing colonial regimes.

The US had become the most powerful imperialist power having profited by 
World War II while the power of Britain, the Dutch and Portuguese declined 
markedly.

The US was able to maintain a toehold by occupying South Korea — the only 
part of the Asian land mass where American troops are still to be found. 
They also succeeded in preventing Taiwan from rejoining the Chinese 
mainland and set up a string of military bases in Japan and other islands 
of the Pacific Ocean. Australia plays a part in this network of American 
bases.

The strength of the national liberation movements in Asia and the economic 
growth in a number of Asian countries made it difficult for Australian 
Governments to maintain the White Australia policy. It was finally 
abandoned in the late 1950s even though racist sentiments were far from 
eliminated even at top government level.

The anti-socialism of Australia's foreign policy remains its basic element 
and as a junior partner of the US, Australian governments are hard at work 
to assist the United States achieve its objective of world domination and 
the re-imposition of colonial status for all the countries of Asia.

To some extent the changed circumstances have called for a change in 
tactics. Whereas in the past, the imperialist powers simply sent in the 
armed forces to put down liberation movements and maintain their grip, this 
is no longer so easy.

While military force remains an option to be used if possible and when 
necessary, it is no longer possible to just "send in the marines". However, 
preparations for military interventions in other countries are going on 
apace.

The recent Tandem Thrust military and naval exercises in north Queensland 
practiced the landing of invading forces on other countries' beaches. The 
exercises were not about protecting Australian beaches from an invading 
force for the very good reason that no country threatens Australia.

However, it cannot be said that Australia and the US do not threaten other 
countries. The press statement about the Tandem Thrust exercises issued by 
the Australian Government said they were "to provide training in crisis 
action planning and execution for contingency response operations in the 
Pacific area."

Other indications of the priority being given to military preparations 
include the Prime Minister's declaration that the military will be 
quarantined from any financial cuts. Education, health services, 
universities, scientific research, the ABC, child care centres and many 
other services are being slashed by the razor gang, but not the military.

Kim Beazley said of Howard's recent visit to New Zealand that it could only 
be considered a success if Howard succeeded in selling two more ANZAC 
frigates to the New Zealand Government.

The United States, as the band-master of the imperialist powers in the 
Pacific, has knocked together a political and military network intended to 
contain the increasing economic might of the Asian countries taken 
collectively and also, they hope, to overthrow the socialist governments of 
China, Vietnam and North Korea.

This network takes the form of the US-Japan Security Treaty and the US-
Australia Security Treaty adopted in 1996 and the Australia-Indonesia 
Security agreement which is described as an "overlapping bilateral security 
arrangement", indicating that it too is a part of the network.

Indonesian leader Suharto came to power on an murderous anti-communist 
rampage which led to the massacre of at least half a million people. This 
is not a reason for condemning Suharto but for recruitimg him as an ally in 
their anti-communist crusade. Neither the Australian Labor Government nor 
the Liberal Government have any qualms about such a relationship.

Japan has been openly declared to be the northern anchor of the American 
military and naval arrangements in the Pacific while Australia is declared 
to be the southern anchor.

As an obvious consequence of these new "security" treaties, it has recently 
been announced that Japan is being given spy secrets collected by the US 
Nurrungar base in South Australia. There is a charade in place whereby an 
Australian staff officer is located at Nurrungar but the reality is that 
the Americans decided who will receive spy information.

The only worry which disturbs the Australian Government seems to be whether 
or not the provision of spy information to Japan will upset relations with 
other Asian countries and whether they will see such an arrangement with 
Japan as a future threat. 

They would be right in considering such a set-up a potential threat. The 
security treaties, the build-up of military and naval forces and the 
intense propaganda war which is being launched by Voice of America 
and Radio Free Asia are aimed specifically at upsetting the economic 
development of Asia as a whole and overthrowing the socialist governments 
in the region. 

There are innumerable statements by various politicians and government 
advisers which substantiate this evaluation of Australia's foreign policy.

Professor Paul Dibb who is the head of the Strategic and Defence Studies at 
the Australian National University is quoted in the The Australian 
(4/10/94) as saying:

"The remarkable economic growth of most Asian countries has brought great 
stability and interdependence to the region. But it is also allowing Asian 
countries to acquire highly capable military forces, even though there are 
no palpable military threats...

"We need a rejuvenated US alliance system in the region. It would link 
together the maritime middle powers and Japan, so that we can counter any 
expansion of ambitious continental-based powers such as China, Russia and 
India...

"There is an important role for Australia, as the US's closest ally in the 
region — and as the middle power in Asia with the most constructive and 
imaginative regional security ideas...", says Paul Dibb.

In September 1994, a so-called "leaders" conference was held between 
American and Australia representatives. Among the Australians attending 
were Kim Beazley and Phil Scanlon who was on the board of Coca-Cola Amatil 
and other companies and a founder of the "Australian-American Leadership 
Dialogue".

Another was Dick Woolcott who is an extreme right-wing member of the 
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and was a former Australian 
ambassador to Indonesia. He advised Australian Governments to establish 
cosy relations with the Indonesian dictatorship.

A summary of remarks made at the "leaders" meeting was carried in The 
Australian (3-4/9/94).

The paper says Kim Beazley, who was then Finance Minister in the Keating 
Government, rejected the notion that economic strength had become more 
important than military strength in the post-Cold War world, arguing that 
America's greatest influence in the region came from its forward military 
deployment.

Beazley is quoted as saying: "It's critical to Australia's needs that we 
emphasise to the US that geo-strategic goals do not depend on what they 
would regard as desirable economic objectives ... "

[The] "rising GDPs in Asia and a reluctance to adjust the percentage of GDP 
spent on defence in most of the Asian region nations, will create a 
situation where the level of arms capabilities will focus American 
attention at some point during the course of this decade. If that doesn't 
focus American attention, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 
and ballistic weapons will."

Phil Scanlon said at the conference: "The aim of the Australian-American 
Leadership Dialogue is to move thinking in the US to a higher plane about 
Australia.... We've been talking about security questions and the trade 
dimension. Strategic engagement transcends those facets, important as they 
are...

"Australia represents a strategically focused window to the Asia-Pacific 
for organisations domiciled outside the region, including those in the 
US...

"There is no future in us becoming in five or ten years' time relegated to 
the local administrative centre of the South Pacific. There's no future in 
that for Australia."

One could hardly imagine more abject nor more bellicose public statements 
than these. They underline the priority given in Australia's leading 
government and business circles to the military option in relations with 
Asia.

There is no thought of an alternative foreign policy based on peace, all-
round disarmament, mutual benefit in trade relations, friendly exchanges 
between Australia and Asian countries.

Despite the military defeats in Korea and Vietnam, the Australian ruling 
class is still thinking about and preparing landings on the beaches of 
other countries together with its powerful ally.

It is a policy of hostility and will inevitably fail. It is already 
failing.

The Asian region has become the world's fastest growing economic region. 
Within about 15 to 20 years China's economy will exceed that of the US. 
Asia has already become the largest economic region in the world and will 
not be pushed around. Its military strength will also be built up unless 
threats against Asian countries are abandoned.

Independent economic and political structures of Asian countries are 
growing stronger. For example, the number of countries being included in 
the ASEAN bloc is increasing.

This year Hong Kong and Macau will be re-unified with the Chinese mainland 
— a most important development, representing the final elimination of 
imperialism from the Chinese mainland.

Australia's failure to win a seat on the UN Security Council is both a 
setback for Australia and a defeat for the US which strongly promoted 
Australia for this seat. It shows that the US is not able to get its way on 
many questions.

Asian nations have held two top level meetings with the European countries 
on mainly trade questions but Australia was excluded. This has much to do 
with how Australia is seen among at least some Asian countries and that, in 
turn, is a spin-off from its alliance relations with the US.

There are rising popular struggles in Indonesia and South Korea — two 
countries with reactionary, semi-fascist governments that the reactionaries 
in Australia and the US are counting on. They are becoming unstable.

The death of Deng Xiaoping has been made the occasion for ferocious attacks 
on China in the hope that its communist-led government can be destabilised.

The fact that if such a destabilisation did occur it would have devastating 
consequences in terms of economic collapse, famine, unemployment and the 
likelihood of a massive refugee problem does not seem to worry the leaders 
of Australia or the US whose policies are as short sighted as they are 
criminal.

However, the name of the game is world domination for the US (with 
Australia playing a lackey role) and the preservation of capitalism in a 
world where economic and political storms are growing rapidly in many 
countries.

Australia needs an entirely different foreign policy. In the first place, 
it should be a policy which looks after the interests of the Australian 
people, recognising that we are an Asian-Pacific nation.

To be independent means to terminate the Australia-US Security agreement, 
to remove the American bases from Australian territory and to end offensive 
military and naval manoeuvres directed against Asian-Pacific countries.

Rather than "security" treaties with Japan, the US and Indonesia it would 
be better to have non-aggression pacts between all Asia-Pacific countries 
which would guarantee peaceful relations with all countries into the 
future.

Relations must be based on equality, mutual benefit, non-interference in 
the internal affairs of other countries and acceptance of the right of all 
countries to adopt their chosen social system. 

This will require a substantial shift away from the under-pinnings of the 
foreign policy pursued by successive Australian governments since the 
beginning of this century. If, however, this change is not implemented soon 
Australia may well have a rocky road in its relations with many of its 
Asia-Pacific neighbours.