Academics within the Social Sciences and Humanities departments have put forward a broad range of views on the Twenty First century affliction that is global terrorism. While the United States has taken upon itself the prime responsibility of waging “war on terror”, the rest of the world is not so sure about its intentions. There are exceptions, of course, and there is no surprise in the fact that Britain and Australia have continued their long standing position as junior partners to American initiatives – diplomatic or military. This is a tradition that has its origins in the common Anglo-Saxon roots of the respective nations’ elite. While joining the American led ‘Coalition of the Willing’ might help boost the Australian economy, there is more to the issue than just prosperity. In the course of the essay I will be arguing that the status quo lacks prudence and how a neutral stand on the war on terrorism will augur well for Australia’s long term future (Lee, 2007, p.601).
The foremost argument against Australian participation in the war on terror is a simple one – that terror breeds more terror. The two nations targeted for terrorists or their perceived threats are Afghanistan and Iraq. Both the nations are now in dismal social and economic condition. Its civilians are drenched in conditions of poverty and a state of misery and despair. For people surviving in refugee camps the idea of being agents of terrorism is very appealing. It is understandable: rather than dying of starvation after being humiliated and dispossessed, it is far nobler to give up one’s life voluntarily (Bendle, 2004, p.115). There is pride in martyrdom for the surviving Afghans and Iraqis (although there is no evidence of Iraqi hand in any of the terrorist acts of the last few years). So, the Australian mission of curbing terrorism by bombing innocent civilians will only lead to escalating terrorist acts. This self-defeating logic employed by the Australian government is bound to back-fire sooner than later. Rather, the Australian policy makers will be better advised to wage wars on poverty eradication, for environmental protection, etc, which are more pressing necessities that the one in discussion (De Castro, 2004, p.193).
Moreover, the benign façade of the “free market” has been exposed in case after case. The Australian foreign policy of trying to spread “democracy” and “free market capitalism” to the third world does not hold much merit, in that, what is good for trans-national corporations like Halliburton and Chevron is not necessarily good for a majority of people. To the contrary, “free markets”, as defined by the WTO, have only increased economic disparities across the world. In the context of the impoverished people of Afghanistan and Iraq, they would choose the religious solace provided by “jehadist” martyrdom than wait for “extravagant promises of earthly riches” that free-market capitalism proposes to offer but seldom delivers on the promise (Pilger, 2003, p.19).
The Australian government should also keep in mind that the electorate is increasingly gaining a broader awareness of geo-political situations. It can no longer hope that conventional policy frameworks (that were essentially based on imperialist lines) will get electoral approval. A good example of discerning electorate can be found in Spain. In spite of the Aznar government’s official propaganda, its citizens threw Aznar and his cohorts out of power, in light of the Madrid bombings. This suggests that the Spanish populace is aware of the connection between Spain’s involvement in the war on terror and the Madrid bombings; they also knew if they had distanced themselves from the masters in Washington they could have avoided this tragedy. I personally feel that the Australian government should learn from the Spanish example. This sentiment is also expressed by John Lee, a respected political commentator, thus:
“The idea that geopolitical strategies should be polluted by a crude popular fear of attack, and that gangs of outlaws should influence democracies, may be abhorrent. But the grisly truth is that poor people in Iraq and Afghanistan have achieved a kind of equality with rich westerners. Both now know fear. Our lives may soon prove as cheap as theirs. That is the progress made so far in the war on terror.” (Lee, 2007, p.602)
The policy makers in Canberra should also remind themselves of the Bali bombings and its causes. The Establishment press, most of it owned or controlled by Rupert Murdoch and keen on promoting its own interests had presented a blanket view in its Bali reports. For example, the Australian mainstream media wants its citizens to believe that the terror attack in the Indonesian island was a sequel to the campaign of hatred against western way of life that was kick-started with September 11 attacks. But this view-point is not accurate. If only the Australian press will see the attacks as an act of retaliation against Australia for its alliance with the United States, its citizens can have more peaceful holidays (Razack, 2006, p.12).
There is widespread perception in the third world that “the Australian military is an extension of the Pentagon”. In support of this, we see how the Australian and American navies exchange know-how and technology; they were also involved in joint operations in the Gulf in order to implement sanctions against Iraq. In this context one can understand the grievances of the Islamic terrorists when more than half a million innocent Iraqi children died as a result of this international embargo, in which Australia played an important role. Hence, I would argue, that a position of neutrality in the war on terror and adopting a foreign policy framework that is independent of the United States is the right course in the future (Pilger, 2002, p.8).
The other glaring flaw in Australian diplomacy is its double standards, especially in its relations with its neighbouring countries. For nearly forty years since 1965, the Australian government supported the atrocities carried out by General Suharto in neighbouring Indonesia. John Pilger, an internationally respected journalist draws out this case of hypocrisy in an emphatic style thus,
“During the long years of Suharto’s dictatorship, which was shored up by western capital, governments and the World Bank, state terrorism on a breathtaking scale was ignored. Australian prime ministers were far too busy lauding the “investment partnership” in resource-rich Indonesia. Suharto’s annexation of East Timor, which cost the lives of a third of the population, was described by the foreign minister Gareth Evans as “irreversible”. As Evans succinctly put it, there were “zillions” of dollars to be made from the oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea”. (Pilger, 2002, p.7)
The other criticism of Australian foreign policy is relating to its illegal immigrant controls. The rationale given for long detainments of illegal immigrants in inhospitable conditions is very flimsy. The four thousand odd poor migrants, who land on the shores of the Australian continent hoping for better economic opportunities, will not destabilize the economic system. Yet, most of these desperate people (who are mostly Asian Muslims) are locked up in detainment centres with no opportunities for a reprieve. The officials claim that this is not based on racial lines and that such measures are imperative in the post 911 world. But this argument does not hold much weight, for the international community perceives this as a continuation of the notorious “White Australia” policy of the decades gone by, which flaunted white supremacist tendencies. The only reasonable way in which Australia can reclaim the trust of its Asian neighbours is by adopting a more welcoming stance with regard to destitute migrants, which will act as a symbolic severance from its blatantly racist “White Australia” past. It will also mean that the consequences of America’s war on terror will be mitigated in Australian soil (Shuja, 2006, p.445).
The mainstream media in Australia, which is a near monopoly, can present only one sided views to the general public – a view that is in favour of vested interests. So it is difficult to gauge the direction and effectiveness of Australian foreign policy from the accounts of this source of information (misinformation?). Hence, heeding to the opinions of intellectuals from elsewhere in the world, where there is greater freedom of press and a thriving culture of dissent, is essential. For this reason, I had perused the research conducted by Edward Herman and Gerry O’Sullivan in support of my thesis. The authors infer that the killing of a few thousand people by organizations such as Al-Qaeda is blown out of proportion while state-sponsored terrorist acts during the “South African apartheid regime, the Suharto regime in Indonesia, the “Contras” in Nicaragua, etc”, where Australia had been involved (militarily or diplomatically), account for more than 2.5 million deaths (Snyder, 2006, p.336). Surely, when compared to this huge figure, the victims of terrorist acts by non-state entities seem miniscule. Hence, it is high-time that Australia abandons its “follow America” approach to foreign policy and adopts a more pragmatic policy framework that would help it regain lost goodwill within the international community. I personally believe that a closer association with rising Asian powers such as China, India and Indonesia to go with severance of military ties with the United States will comprise this new direction (Shuja, 2006, p.447).
Australia’s role in the ongoing war on terror and its legacy of getting involved in U.S. led military ventures have come at a cost of numerous of its citizens and also a loss of international goodwill. This pattern can be traced back to the years of the Boer war and the Boxer Rebellion. As many as six hundred Australian soldiers (under British command) lost their lives in the Boer initiative, not for democracy or liberty but for natural riches of South Africa in the form of gold and diamond mines. The subsequent Boxer Rebellion at the turn of the century was founded on protecting the interests of Christian missionaries, so much for the separation of Church and State. The continent-nation was also the prime aggressor in the Maori wars which nearly wiped out the community of native New Zealanders. Later, Australian participation in war against Sudan led to several deaths on both sides.
By citing some key statistics pertaining to Australia’s previous military operations, I hope to strengthen my case for a neutral foreign policy position. Coming to the twentieth century, the very fact that Australia had participated in more wars in this period than the United States and Britain quite telling. This suggests us something about the militaristic tendency of the Australian governments in the past and which continues in the present. During the First World War, 60,000 Australian soldiers lost their lives, for what is essentially an European conflict. Time and again this ethnic connection between the Europeans and the Australian settlers has proved stronger than other diplomatic considerations, especially with regard to neighbouring nations. As many as 60,000 Australian soldiers lost their lives and several more were wounded or taken prisoner in this war. The Second World War could be excepted for Hitler’s ambitions were a real threat for all free peoples. This pattern of siding with its colonial masters, first British and then the Americans had resulted in damaging economic conditions at home and the nation’s image abroad, to go with the thousands of human casualties (New Statesman, 2004, p.6). This is particularly true with respect to the Korean and Vietnam wars. The latest episode of this pattern is Australia’s participation in the War on Terror. Unlike previous cases, the Bali bombings were targeted at Australian civilians, which is unprecedented in Australian history. To quote, “The largest group among the killed was from Australia, leading to the day often being called Australia’s September 11. It was a shocking and unexpected event for most Australians and raised many questions about Australia’s international and domestic security policies” (Snyder, 2006, p.336).
Hence, I will conclude this essay by stating that the Australian foreign policy framework needs a rethinking. Maintaining strategic military associations with American and European nations is no longer beneficial for the nation. As the War on Terror and its ongoing aftermath proves, any unjustified or hypocritical aggression on part of Australian government will only lead to terrorist retaliation, as the Bali bombings indicate. Improving relations with Asian neighbours such as India and China, which are touted to be the next economic superpowers, makes better sense. Australia also has a responsibility toward South East Asian nations and it needs to recompense for its earlier mistakes such as the Korean and Vietnam wars. Australia had also tacitly supported Indonesian atrocities in East Timor; so it has a role to play in the healthy development of both these countries. Thus, a policy of neutrality that would break away from imperialist and colonial hangovers is the correct choice going forward. This is applicable to the ongoing War on Terror and beyond.
Works Cited
Bendle, Mervyn F., 2005, Geopolitics, Culture Clash and Gender after September 11; Social Justice, Vol. 32, 115+
Carroll, Toby and Shahar Hameiri. 2007. Good Governance and Security: The Limits of Australia’s New Aid Programme. Journal of Contemporary Asia 37, no. 4: 410+.
De Castro, Renato Cruz. 2004. Addressing International Terrorism in Southeast Asia: A Matter of Strategic or Functional Approach?. Contemporary Southeast Asia 26, no. 2: 193+.
Lee, John. 2007. Issues in Australian Foreign Policy January to June 2007. The Australian Journal of Politics and History 53, no. 4: 600+.
Pilger, John. 2002. For 40 Years, Australian Governments Have Colluded with State Terrorism in Indonesia. Now the Bali Outrage Allows John Howard to Distract Attention from His Hypocrisy., New Statesman, October 21, 11+. .
Pilger, John. 2003. George Bush’s Other Poodle: John Howard, Australia’s PM, Is the Mouse That Roars for America, Whipping His Country into War Fever and Paranoia about Terrorism within., John Pilger Reports from Sydney. New Statesman, January 20, 18+. .
Razack, Sherene, 2006, Existential Terrorism: Civil Society and Its Enemies; The Australian Journal of Politics and History, Vol. 52, 11+
Shuja, Sharif. 2006. Terrorism in Southeast Asia: Australia’s Security Threat and Response. Contemporary Review, Winter, 445+. .
Snyder, Craig A. 2006., Southeast Asian Perceptions of Australia’s Foreign Policy. Contemporary Southeast Asia 28, no. 2: 322+. .
Terror, the Great Leveller,, 2004. New Statesman, March 22, 6+..