My summary and notes from reading the following article:

Wild Colonial Ploys? Currents of Thought in Australian Foreign Policy. Wesley, M., & Warren, T. (2000). Australian Journal of Political Science, 35(1), 9–26.

Foreign policy debates often use rhetoric and generalised labels such as “realist or neoliberal, protectionist or free-trader, hawk or dove” which do not fully capture the differences between Australian and predominantly US foreign policy.

Currents of Thought in Foreign Policy

Franz Schurmann’s work Logic of World Power (1974) identified three main schools of thought in US foreign policy—imperialist, universalist, and nationalist. Specifically to analyse US foreign policy during the Cold War and the Vietnam War.

According to Schurmann, foreign policy is motivated by three matters in society:
1. the material interests of people (particularly work and jobs);
2. their sense of order, security and justice;
3. and the social and physical quality of their life and that of the people with whom and among whom they live.

These opinions are also shaped from the populations impressions of security and national power, i.e., where the state sits in the broader system, how threatening that system may be, and the influence of nationalism, identity, tradition, animosities or sympathies between people-groups, and economic positions.

People thus develop politically significant attitudes about the rest of the world as it impacts on their standard of living, way of life, sense of security, and self-identification as Australians.

Traditionalism

Traditionalism refers to both: its close identification with the oldest way of thinking about international relations and its resulting imperative of retaining the closest possible relationship with Australia’s oldest allies.

• Realist tendency to see the world as inherently anarchic and dangerous as the absence of certainty around other states’ intentions means one must secure their own safety.
• Stronger Liberal tendency as they hold the belief that we can trust those who are similar to us. Since WW2, Aus security has been paramount, and Traditionalists believe that alliances with Western powers is most important to maintaining that.

Origins of Traditionalism lie in Aus history as a British colony and destination for convicts and settlers → the isolation and weakness precluded Australia playing the role of an independent balancer in its own region of the world (especially for colonial/bigger powers).

Traditionalist fear that one day Aus will be left undefended, hence building up ‘stocks of goodwill’ through alliances (ANZUS in 1951, SEATO in 1954, the FPDA in 1971), entering wars as a partner to other powers (Korea, Malaya, Vietnam), welcoming bases and interdependence with other militaries, and making Australian territory available for nuclear tests.
– physical (military) security is key → no excuse to allow this to fall into disrepair. Thus, American alliance = strategically significant.

Seclusionism

Hold a positive view of Australia’s isolation (which Traditionalists fear). The distance from US and Europe is a blessing.

“Australian society is unique: British-derived but, because of its convict origins, also British-rejected.”

“It is a new society, an experiment, separated from all others by geographic distance, societal dissimilarities, and an egalitarian ethos. Australia is a continent, sharing no land borders, and containing abundant wealth, which should benefit all Australians. It should not be idly conceded to foreigners owing to feelings either of inferiority (Seclusionists’ view of Traditionalism) or misguided obligation (Seclusionists’ view of Internationalism).” (p16)

Seclusionists believe that Aus has almost no threats, as it is surrounded by previously colonised nations who are more interested in markets than territory.

Central concern of Trads— is security, for Secs— it is material wealth. Belief that the wealth of Aus should be shared equally amongst the people. They also dislike global hegemony, and don’t like disparities within the state either.

Origins of Seclusionism in Australian convict origins: especially in the overlaying rivalries between the English and the Irish—soldier/settler vs convict, Protestant vs Catholic, British migrant vs native-born ‘currency’. Seclusionism was a reaction to the Traditionalists’ close identification with England.

Sec— thinking became dominated by negative images of the European societies they had left, and the superiority of the new society they had created. Should not be fighting foreign wars, only fighting if/when Aus is threatened.

The Seclusionist foreign policy priorities were independence, introspection, racial purity, economic autarky (independence), and the construction of a Fortress Australia whose links with the outside world were attenuated and restricted to limited trade, appropriate migrant flows and sporting tours. Total autonomy.

Seclusionism thus places checks and balances on the other two (traditionalism and internationalism) by prioritising Australia, and exposes when there are unequal obligations or treatments.

Internationalism

Views foreign policy as significant and positive. Australia viewed as a “unique and vigorous society” with many influences from foreign investment and a multiracial and multicultural population.

Australia is (1) unintimidating and (2) an ‘ideas entrepreneur’ which allows Aus to play a “creative, multilaterally based role, secure its interests, give it influence disproportionate to its size, and bring collective benefits to all”.

“Unlike Traditionalists, who view the international system as able to threaten Australia’s physical security at any time, Internationalists see the international system as evolving, growing steadily less anarchic and more into a society.” (18)

• heavily influenced by Neoliberal Institutionalism ⇒ belief that IR is about cooperating to reap absolute gains collectively.
• regimes thus protect or promote free trade, environmental protection, and nuclear non-proliferation, which they value

“As Japan advanced into New Guinea in 1942 while the United Kingdom and United States were concentrating on Europe, a sense of danger and abandonment shook both the Traditionalists—the attention of the great and powerful friends was elsewhere—and the Seclusionists—Australia was not as remote and self-reliant as had been thought.”

Internationalism has established a dominance over trade, aid, and human rights, areas where an activist foreign policy is best able to value-add to the quality of life of the Australian community.

The Operation and Interaction of the Currents of Thought

They interact and act upon different areas at different times and to varying levels of success or influence.

The influence of the Dibb Report saw Australia’s defence strategy change from one of forward engagement to continental ‘layer’ defence.

However, they are not always able to coincide or produce positive outcomes together:

• Seclusionist principles applied to defence policy might result in the deterioration of treaties.
• Internationalist principles in defence policy might result in big alliances like US-Aus being downgraded in favour of regional or global multilateral groups like ASEAN
• Traditionalist principles in trade might result in more US trade agreements, to the detriment of other agreements.
• Seclusionist principles in trade might result in the reimposition of tariffs, or opting out of the World Trade Organisation or APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation)

Other key terms or information:

The Colombo Plan – The primary focus of its work is on the development of human resources in the south and southeast regions of Asia. Focus on training and education programmes.

• Criticism: “Some Asians see in it only the hand of British imperialism, especially as it is not aimed at developing national self-sufficiency. It offers an almost exclusively economic solution for problems which are also political and social. Dangerous issues such as landlordism and the organisation of labour, which invite Communist exploitation, are barely touched on, doubtless because it seemed politically inexpedient to raise such questions.”

The Bretton Woods System – monetary management system of the world since the 1944 agreement.

• The Bretton Woods system required countries to guarantee convertibility of their currencies into U.S. dollars to within 1% of fixed parity rates, with the dollar convertible to gold bullion for foreign governments and central banks at US$35 per troy ounce of fine gold
• Envisioned greater cooperation among countries in order to prevent future competitive devaluations, and thus established the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to monitor exchange rates and lend reserve currencies to countries with balance of payments deficits.