Reflections on an Australian Foreign Policy Decision
Revelations of parliamentarians holding dual citizenship have recently been spewing forth like a torrential rain which shows no sign of easing. This may be an amusing diversion for the public, and a time for joyful ridicule amongst senators, but are there not more important matters to be considered beyond this laziness and petulance?
We now have Barnaby Joyce in the spotlight as his case is being decided by the high court, leaving the government in a very delicate position with their precarious majority of 1.
One cannot help but feel a slight schadenfreude at these happenings, especially considering the haughtiness and condescension that was unleashed from the liberal mouthpieces towards Green senators, Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters. But this feeling of karmic redress can only loiter for so long, as it is distracting for both our parliamentarians and the public. Recently, there have been both frivolous and unnerving decisions undertaken by our Government; the creation of a Super-Industry headed by Peter Dutton; and possibly the worst foreign policy decision made to date by an Australian leader, the decision to authorise a blank check to America in the event of a conflict with North Korea.
Surely these arrangements deserve far more public attention than the comedic flailings of our parliamentarians’ citizenship woes. Rather than elaborate on Dutton’s new plaything let me attempt to show why Turnbull’s recent dedication to the ANZUS treaty is entirely antithetical to our foreign policy goals and objectives.
This decision to endorse America in their campaign of ‘fire and fury’ manages not only to be one of the most willfully damaging foreign policy decisions made by Australia but simultaneously lowers our standing within the global sphere; once again we are seen as nothing more than America’s lapdog, even when it is not in our best interests as a nation. It is understandable though, how one can be swayed by the arguments in favour: America being the strongest nation in the world both economically and militarily, it naturally follows that we would desire to promote this relationship. This line of reasoning, though seemingly proper, is reductionist and simplistic. One must also consider when traversing this topic, that regional cohesion and peace is a goal to be desired even urged.
Therefore, this decision to indiscriminately follow America’s lead, may further fracture peace and stability in the region. Has it made our position within the world stronger and more respectable? Has it, in the simplest of ways, made our nation safer? No, say I, to all the above. Rather, after over 70 years of peace and no threats being posed to us by another nation, we now have threats of attack directed at us from North Korea which is not because we are a democratic country and they despise our values, rather it’s because we are interjecting ourselves into an altercation, and antagonising an already rather erratic nation.
So once again one must ask, are we fulfilling our foreign policy goals with this decision, or just toeing the line with America? Some will argue we should be doing everything we can within our power as a nation to align ourselves with America, considering their place in the world. Although I agree to a point, this does not logically extend to supporting their aggressive, silly, petulant, bombastic decisions. With all this in mind, ask yourself dear reader: are we giving America this blank check because it is entirely within our national interest? Or rather, are we doing it to stay ‘pals’ with the white house and their blustering, blathering, ranting President.
