Diplomatic history of Australia

The diplomatic history of Australia encompasses the historical events surrounding Australian foreign relations. Following the global change in the dynamics of international state of affairs in the 20th century, this saw a transition within Australia's diplomatic situation to broaden outside of exclusively commonwealth and western European nations. Its core relationship was with Great Britain until 1941, and with the United States and New Zealand since then as represented by ANZUS. In the 21st century trade has soared with China. However relations have cycled back and forth from friendly to strained. For recent relations see also Foreign relations of Australia.

YouTube Encyclopedic

1/5
Views:
3 305 543
23 038
548
355
411

Transcription

Episode 28: American Imperialism Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. History and today we’re gonna talk about a subject near and dear to my white, male heart: imperialism. So, here at CrashCourse we occasionally try to point out that the U.S., much as we hate to admit it, is actually part of a larger world. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, you mean like Alaska? No, Me from the Past, for reasons that you will understand after your trip there before your senior year of college, I do not acknowledge the existence of Canada’s tail. No, I’m referring to all of the Green Parts of Not-America and the period in the 19th century when we thought, “Maybe we could make all of those green parts like America, but, you know, without rights and stuff.” Intro So, the late 19th and early 20th centuries were a period of expansion and colonization in Asia and Africa, mostly by European powers. As you’ll know if you watched Crash Course World History, imperialism has a long, long history pretty much everywhere, so this round of empire building is sometimes called, rather confusingly, New Imperialism. Because the U.S. acquired territories beyond its continental boundaries in this period, it’s relatively easy to fit American history into this world history paradigm. But there’s also an argument that the United States has always been an empire. From very early on, the European settlers who became Americans were intent on pushing westward and conquering territory. The obvious victims of this expansion/imperialism were the Native Americans, but we can also include the Mexicans who lost their sovereignty after 1848. And if that doesn’t seem like an empire to you, allow me to draw your attention to the Russian Empire. Russians were taking control of territory in Central Asia and Siberia and either absorbing or displacing the native people who lived there, which was the exact same thing that we were doing. The empires of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were different because they were colonial in their own special way. Like, Europeans and Americans would rule other places but they wouldn’t settle them and more or less completely displace the native people there. (Well, except for you, Australia and New Zealand.) American historians used to try to excuse America’s acquisitions of a territorial empire as something of an embarrassing mistake, but that’s misleading because one of the primary causes of the phenomenon of American imperialism was economics. We needed places to sell our amazing new products. And at the time, China actually had all of the customers because apparently it was opposite day. It’s also not an accident that the U.S. began pursuing imperialism in earnest during the 1890s, as this was, in many ways, a decade of crisis in America. The influx of immigrants and the crowded cities added to anxiety and concern over America’s future. And then, to cap it all off, in 1893 a panic caused by the failure of a British bank led the U.S. into a horrible economic depression, a great depression, but not The Great Depression. It did however feature 15,000 business failures and 17% unemployment, so take that, 2008. According to American diplomatic historian George Herring, imperialism was just what the doctor ordered to help America get out of its Depression depression. Other historians, notably Kristin Hoganson, imply that America embarked on imperial adventures partly so that American men could prove to themselves how manly they were. You know, by joining the Navy and setting sail for distant waters. In 1890, Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan published “The Influence of Seapower upon History” and argued that, to be a great power like Great Britain, the U.S. needed to control the seas and dominate international commerce. Tied into this push to become a maritime power was the obsession with building a canal through Central America and eventually the U.S. decided that it should be built in Panama because you know how else are we gonna get malaria. In order to protect this canal we would need a man, a plan, a canal. Panama. Sorry, I just wanted to get the palindrome in there somewhere. No we would actually need much more than a man and a plan. We would need ships and in order to have a functioning two-ocean navy, we would need colonies. Why? Because the steamships at the time were powered by coal and in order to re-fuel they needed coal depots. I mean, I suppose we could have, like, rented harbor space, but why rent when you can conquer? Also, nationalism and the accompanying pride in one’s “country” was a worldwide phenomenon to which the U.S. was not immune. I mean, it’s no accident that the 1890s saw Americans begin to recite the pledge of allegiance and celebrate Flag Day, and what better way to instill national pride than by flying the stars and stripes over … Guam. So pre-Civil War attempts to expand beyond what we now know as the continental United States included our efforts to annex Canada, which were sadly unsuccessful, and also filibustering, which before it meant a senator talking until he or she had to stop to pee was a thing where we tried to take over Central America to spread slavery. But, the idea of taking Cuba persisted into the late 19th century because it is close and also beautiful. The Grant administration wanted to annex it and the Dominican Republic, but Congress demurred. But we did succeed in purchasing Canada’s tail. You can see how I feel about that. To be fair, discovery of gold in the Yukon made Seward’s icebox seem like less of a Seward’s folly and it did provide coaling stations in the Pacific. But we could have had rum and Caribbean beaches. Ugh, Stan, all this talk about how much I hate Alaska has me overheated, I gotta take off my shirt. Ughhh. Waste of my life. So hard to take off a shirt dramatically. I’m angry. Anyway, coal stations in the Pacific were important because in 1854 we “opened” Japan to American trade by sending a flotilla of threatening black ships under Matthew Perry. No Stan, not that Matthew Perry. You know better. By far, America’s best piece of imperial business before 1898 was Hawaii. Like, I like oil and gold as much as the next guy but Hawaii has pineapples and also had sugar, which was grown on American owned plantations by Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and native workers. Treaties between the U.S. and the Hawaiian governments exempted this sugar from tariffs, and America also had established a naval base at Pearl Harbor, which seemed like a really good idea...then. We eventually annexed Hawaii in 1898 and this meant that it could eventually become a state, which it did in 1959, two years before Barack Obama was born in Kenya. And this leads us nicely to the high tide of American imperialism, the Spanish-American-Cuban-Fillipino War. The war started out because native Cubans were revolting against Spain, which was holding on to Cuba for dear life as the remnant of a once-great empire. The Cubans’ fight for independence was brutal. 95,000 Cubans died from disease and malnutrition after Spanish general Valeriano Weyler herded Cubans into concentration camps. For this Weyler was called “Butcher” in the American yellow press, which sold a lot of newspapers on the backs of stories about his atrocities. And at last we come to President William McKinley who responded cautiously, with a demand that Spain get out of Cuba or face war. Now Spain knew that it couldn’t win a war with the U.S. but, as George Herring put it, they “preferred the honor of war to the ignominy of surrender.” Let that be a lesson to you. Always choose ignominy. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I’m either right or I get shocked. Alright, let’s see what we’ve got today. With such a conflict waged for years in an island so near us and with which our people have such trade and business relations; when the lives and liberty of our citizens are in constant danger and their property destroyed and themselves ruined; where our trading vessels are liable to seizure and are seized at our very door by warships of a foreign nation, the expeditions of filibustering that we are powerless to prevent altogether -- all these and others that I need not mention, with the resulting strained relations, are a constant menace to our peace, and compel us to keep on a semiwar footing with a nation with which we are at peace. Thank you, Stan. This is obviously President William McKinley’s war message to Congress. You can tell it’s a war message because it includes the word “peace” more than the word “war.” By the way, it’s commonly thought that the President McKinley asked Congress for a declaration of war, he didn’t; he let Congress take the lead. That’s the only time that’s ever happened in all of American history, which would be more impressive if we had declared war more than 5 times. So, the document shows us that, at least according to McKinley, we officially went to war for American peace of mind and to end economic uncertainty. It was not to gain territory, at least not in Cuba. How do we know? Because Congress also passed the Teller Amendment, which forswore any U.S. annexation of Cuba, perhaps because representatives of the U.S. sugar industry like Colorado’s Senator Henry Teller feared competition from sugar produced in an American Cuba. Or maybe not. But probably so. Also not the cause of the war was the sinking of the USS Maine. The battleship which had been in Havana’s harbor to protect American interests sank after an explosion on February 15, 1898 killing 266 sailors. Now, most historians chalk up the sinking to an internal explosion and not to Spanish sabotage, but that didn’t stop Americans from blaming the Spanish with their memorable meme: “Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain.” Let’s go to the Thoughtbubble. The actual war was one of the most successful in U.S. history, especially if you measure success by brevity and relative paucity of deaths. Secretary of State John Hay called it a “splendid little war” and in many ways it was. Fighting lasted about 4 months and fewer than 400 Americans were killed in combat, although 5,000 died of, wait for it, disease. Stupid disease, always ruining everything. There weren’t a ton of battles but those that happened got an inordinate amount of press coverage, like the July attack on San Juan Hill at the Cuban city of Santiago, led by future president Theodore Roosevelt. While it was a successful battle, the real significance is that it furthered Roosevelt’s career. He returned a hero, promptly became Governor of New York and by 1900 was McKinley’s vice president. Which was a good job to have because McKinley would eventually be assassinated. A more important battle was that of Manila Bay in which commodore George Dewey destroyed a tiny Spanish fleet and took the Philippines. This battle took place in May of 1898, well before the attack on Cuba, which strongly suggests that a war that was supposedly about supporting Cuban independence was really about something else. And what was that something else? Oh right. A territorial empire. As a result of the war, the U.S. got a bunch of new territories, notably the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam. We also used the war as an opportunity to annex Hawaii to protect our ships that would be steaming toward the Philippines. We didn’t annex Cuba, but we didn’t let it become completely independent, either. The Platt Amendment in the Cuban Constitution authorized American military intervention whenever it saw fit and gave us a permanent lease for a naval base at Guantanamo Bay. Thanks Thoughtbubble. So, Cuba and Puerto Rico were gateways to Latin American markets. Puerto Rico was particularly useful as a naval station. Hawaii, Guam, and especially the Philippines opened up access to China. American presence in China was bolstered by our contribution of about 3,000 troops to the multinational force that helped put down the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. But in the Philippines, where Americans had initially been welcome, opinion soon changed after it became clear that Americans were there to stay and exercise control. Emiliano Aguinaldo, leader of the Filipino rebellion against Spain, quickly turned against the U.S. because his real goal was independence and it appeared the U.S. would not provide it. The resulting Philippine War lasted 4 years, from 1899-1903. And 4,200 Americans were killed as well as over 100,000 Filipinos. The Americans committed atrocities, including putting Filipinos in concentration camps, torturing prisoners, rape, and executing civilians. And much of this was racially motivated and news of these atrocities helped to spur anti-imperialist sentiment at home, with Mark Twain being one of the most outspoken critics. Now, there was some investment in modernization in the Philippines, in railroads, schools, and public health, but the interests of the local people were usually subordinated to those of the wealthy. So, American imperialism in short looked like most other imperialism. So Constitution nerds will remember that the U.S. Constitution has no provision for colonies, only territory that will eventually be incorporated as states. Congress attempted to deal with this issue by passing the Foraker Act in 1900. This law declared that Puerto Rico would be an insular territory; its inhabitants would be citizens of Puerto Rico, not the United States and there would be no path to statehood. But this wasn’t terribly constitutional. Congress did extend U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans in 1917. Now it’s a commonwealth with its own government that has no voice in U.S. Congress or presidential elections and no control over its own defense or environmental policy. The Philippines were treated similarly to Puerto Rico, in a series of cases between 1901 and 1904 collectively called the Insular Cases. But Hawaii was treated differently. Because it had a sizeable population of American settlers who happened to be white. Ergo, it became a traditional territory with a path to statehood because white people and also pineapples. Now let’s briefly talk about anti-imperialism. There were lots of people who objected to imperialism on racial grounds, arguing that it might lead to, like, diversity. But there were also non-racist anti-imperialists who argued that empire itself with its political domination of conquered people was incompatible with democracy, which, to be fair, it is. The Democratic Party, which had supported intervention in Cuba, in 1900 opposed the Philippine War in its platform. Some Progressives opposed imperialism too because they believed that America should focus on its domestic problems. Yet those who supported imperialism were just as forceful. Among the most vocal was Indiana Senator Albert Beveridge who argued that imperialism was benevolent and would bring “a new day of freedom.” But, make no mistake, underneath it all, imperialism was all about trade. According to Beveridge, America’s commerce “must be with Asia. The Pacific is our ocean … Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer.” In the end, imperialism was really driven by economic necessity. In 1902, Brooks Adams predicted in his book The New Empire that the U.S. would soon “outweigh any single empire, if not all empires combined.” Within 20 years America would be the world’s leading economic power. We didn’t have the most overseas territory, but ultimately that didn’t matter. Now, the reasons for imperialism, above all the quest for markets for American goods, would persist long after imperialism became recognized as antithetical to freedom and democracy. And we would continue to struggle to reconcile our imperialistic urges with our ideals about democracy until...now. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Rojas, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Every week there’s a new caption for the libertage. You can suggest captions in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome. This is the part where Stan gets nervous, like, is he gonna go this way or this way or this way? I’m going this way. Imperialism -

1930s: Appeasement

During the 1930s, Australian foreign policy was centralised around the fear of war and an eagerness to appease Germany, Japan and Italy. The Australian government gave considerable support to the appeasement policies of the Chamberlain government in London regarding Germany. However, as a consequence of supporting Chamberlain, many Australians experienced fear due to Japan's strong military and aggressive foreign policy^[1] whereas Australia was still an evolving nation to wield any independent force in world affairs in the 1930s.^[2]

Shift in dependence from Britain to United States

At the beginning of World War II, Australia was part of the commonwealth of the British Empire, and depended on Britain for its security against Japan.^[3] On 3 September 1939, Prime Minister Robert Menzies announced, "Great Britain has declared war on Germany, and as a result, Australia is also at war... There can be no doubt that where Great Britain stands, there stand the people of the entire British world".^[4] Australia was the first nation to come to Great Britain's aid, sending its combat divisions to fight in the Middle East and North Africa.^[5]

The unprecedented Japanese attack on an American naval base at Pearl Harbour, Hawaii, on 7 December 1941, led to the formal entry of the United States into the war.^[6] Japanese attacks continued through Burma, Borneo, the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and Malaya. The island of Singapore was strategically crucial for the British defence plan, however it was poorly defended and surrendered to the Japanese on 15 February 1942, with thousands of Australians as prisoners of war.^[7] British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had given priority to the European war and was unable to assist the Australians. Australia Prime Minister John Curtin appealed to the US instead, "Australia looks to America free of any pangs as to our traditional links of kinship with Great Britain."^[8] This speech announced the shift of reliance from Great Britain to the United States.

Relations with the United States

In March 1942 after the Japanese attacks on Darwin, U.S. President Roosevelt ordered General Douglas MacArthur to move the American base from the Philippines to Brisbane, Australia.^[9] By September 1943, more than 120,000 American soldiers were in Australia. The Americans were warmly welcomed at first but tensions grew evident.^[10] MacArthur worked very closely with the Australian government and took command of its combat operations. Fighting continued throughout Southeast Asia for the next two years. When the European war was declared over, Australia and the US still had a war to win against Japan. MacArthur promoted a policy of "island hopping" for his American troops while he suggested that the Australian troops should continue clearing and rounding up the Japanese from New Guinea, New Britain, Borneo and Bougainville.^[11]

Immigration

Australian society changed greatly between 1945 and 1972, undoing the monoracial immigration policies of White Australia^[12] whereby immigration of distinct ethnicities acted as a catalyst. After the war, the Immigration Minister, Arthur Calwell, introduced an assisted immigration scheme with the slogan "populate or perish".^[13] The government was still trying to increase Australia's population, especially with people who have skills in the secondary industry sector. As the world was transforming into a more industrial and technological world, Australia needed to keep up.

Australia looked first to Britain for migrants. In the beginning, the assisted immigration scheme was popular among young married couples and single people. It was inexpensive, an adventure and an opportunity. After only a year, there was a shortage of ships and immigrant numbers dropped. The immigration targets were not being met. For the first time in a revolutionary step for both Australian society and international relations, Australia reluctantly looked outside Britain for migrants.^[14] In 1947, Arthur Calwell agreed to bring 12,000 people every year from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Many of these people were refugees who were being cared for by the International Refugee Organisation (IRO). They were accepted on humanitarian grounds with the condition that they would remain in Australia for two years and work in government selected jobs.

Over the next twenty years, patterns of immigration continued to change. The government encouraged more people to come to Australia and many more assisted agreements were made with countries. In the late 1950s, more immigrants began to be accepted from the Middle East. In 1958, under the Migration Act, the dictation test was removed and a new scheme of entry permits was introduced.^[15] This allowed many non-Europeans to emigrate. Their entry was now based on what they could contribute to Australia and if it could be shown that they could integrate into Australian society. This attracted many highly qualified people who added to Australia's relatively small tertiary industry.^[16]

Changing global opinions in the late 20th century resulted in particular hostility to the White Australia policy, which was still in effect. This was eventually disbanded, and since then Australia has received a steady increase in migrants from Asia and around the world through its controversial policy of 'multiculturalism'.^[17]

Communism and the Cold War era

Although the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the United States co-operated during World War II, the tensions between the two superpowers over economics (Communism versus capitalism), political authority (totalitarianism versus liberalism) and the fate of Europe (East versus West) escalated into the Cold War by 1947.^[18] Australia unequivocally stood by the American side and the Cold War became the preponderant influence on Australian foreign policy.^[19]

As the international community polarised into opposing alliances led by the respective superpowers, Australia too moved to strengthen its alliance with the United States. Along with the United Kingdom and France, Australia was a main ally of the US in the Asia-Pacific region.^[20] China (after 1949), North Vietnam (after 1954) and the USSR were all in one camp. Australians were once again reminded that the initiation of this cold war was similar to that of WWII, thus reinforcing the fear and need for security, from Asia. After the Chinese Communist Revolution and the North Korean infiltration of South Korea in 1950, Australia's foreign policy was influenced by growing concern over communist aggression.^[21] Australia increasingly looked to the US, as its new "great and powerful friend" for help to contain and fight communism.^[22] The Menzies government made a great effort of linking Australia to US foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region. Two major alliance agreements were made between members of the Western Bloc in the 1950s: ANZUS, an agreement for aid in the event of an attack between Australia, New Zealand and the US and SEATO, an agreement guaranteeing defensive action in the event of an attack against the US, Australia, Great Britain, France, New Zealand, Thailand, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea, and South Vietnam.^[23]

Vietnam War

When communist North Vietnam infiltrated South Vietnam, the Western Bloc viewed it as a fundamental step in what could result in the communist subjugation of the democratic world. In a country gripped by this fear, the government's defence policy was dominated by the idea of "forward defence", in which Australia would seek to prevent the Communist "thrust into South-East Asia". The committal of troops to the Vietnam War was viewed as an attempt by the Menzies Government to strengthen the alliance with the USA following Great Britain's withdrawal "east of Suez".^[24]

With his arrival in October 1966, Lyndon Baines Johnson became the first US President to visit Australia. The visit came in the light of increasing international criticism over the war in Vietnam.^[25] The majority of Australians seemed to support the war, obvious from the return of the Liberal/Country Party in late 1966. Many Australians were however protesting against the war. They wondered why we had followed the United States into a war that they thought had nothing to do with them and were concerned at our apt readiness to fall in line with American foreign policy.^[26] The slogan used by Harold Holt - "All the way with L.B.J." - directly demonstrates this partnership which perhaps could be considered rather inequitable and profitable for the US.^[27] They were tired of military solutions and "power politics", and as one Labor politician said, "tired of anti-communism as a substitute for common sense." By 1970, the anti-war sentiment in the society had exploded into huge rallies, church services and candlelight processions. The moratorium movement represented a great range of people's opinions, from young political radicals to people who would not normally challenge government decisions and from mothers of conscripted men to prominent politicians, writers, academics, artists and church leaders.^[28]

The intensity of conflict in Australia over this issue contributed to the 1972 election of the first Labor government in 23 years. The new Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam immediately abolished conscription and withdrew troops from Vietnam. The US Signed a peace treaty for Vietnam in 1973, after withdrawing all of its troops in 1972. South Vietnam, however, was invaded and overwhelmed by North Vietnam in 1975.^[29]

Détente with communism

The Whitlam government, a new type of Labor government, developed a general opposition to the US and especially President Nixon who they viewed as especially conservative and paranoid.^[30] Whitlam announced that Australia was not automatically going to follow US defence policy any more and this annoyed the United States Government. In late 1972, when Nixon bombed North Vietnam, the controversial Tom Uren and two other left-wing politicians publicly attacked Nixon, resulting in an immediate halt in Australian/American cooperation. Instead Whitlam reached out to our geographically nearer neighbours, Asia. He eliminated the last remaining remnants of the White Australia Policy and introduced a new quota/permit system. With race no longer a barrier, substantial immigration from Asia began, especially from Vietnam.^[31] This immigration provided impetuous for the swing in Australia's foreign policy from the US to Asia and increased Australia's trade relations with Asia. In 1973, the People's Republic of China was officially recognised as the "real" China and it was realised that the move towards a more open political and trading relationship with China was a priority. Dr Stephen Fitzgerald was appointed as the first Australian ambassador to the People's Republic of China and Australian understanding and appreciation of China's history and culture was encouraged. The Whitlam government was leaving behind the racist "yellow peril" past and was poised for the move towards a multicultural Australia.^[32]

Foreign Policy under Bob Hawke, 1983–1991

APEC

One of the most significant foreign policy achievement of the Government took place in 1989, after Hawke proposed a south-east Asian region-wide forum for leaders and economic ministers to discuss issues of common concern. After winning the support of key countries in the region, this led to the creation of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).^[33]^[34] The first APEC meeting duly took place in Canberra in November 1989; the economic ministers of Australia, Brunei, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and the United States all attended. APEC would subsequently grow to become one of the most pre-eminent high-level international forums in the world, particularly after the later inclusions of China and Russia, and the Keating government's later establishment of the APEC Leaders' Forum.^[33]^[34]

Cambodia

Elsewhere in Asia, the Hawke government played a significant role in the build-up to the United Nations peace process for Cambodia, culminating in the Transitional Authority; Hawke's Foreign Minister Gareth Evans was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in negotiations.^[35] Hawke also took a major public stand in the aftermath of the Tiananmen square massacre in 1989; despite having spent years trying to get closer relations with China, Hawke gave a tearful address on national television describing the massacre in graphic detail, and unilaterally offered asylum to over 42,000 Chinese students who were living in Australia at the time, many of whom had publicly supported the Tiananmen protesters. Hawke did so without even consulting his Cabinet, stating later that he felt he simply had to act.^[36]

United States

The Hawke government pursued a close relationship with the United States, assisted by Hawke's close friendship with US Secretary of State George Shultz; this led to a degree of controversy when the Government supported the US's plans to test ballistic missiles off the coast of Tasmania in 1985, as well as seeking to overturn Australia's long-standing ban on uranium exports. Although the US ultimately withdrew the plans to test the missiles, the furore led to a fall in Hawke's approval ratings.^[37] Shortly after the 1990 election, Hawke would lead Australia into its first overseas military campaign since the Vietnam War, forming a close alliance with US President George H. W. Bush to join the coalition in the Gulf War. The Australian Navy contributed several destroyers and frigates to the war effort, which successfully concluded in February 1991, with the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The success of the campaign, and the lack of any Australian casualties, led to a brief increase in the popularity of the Government.^{[citation needed]}

Commonwealth boycott of South Africa

Through his role on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Hawke played a leading role in ensuring the Commonwealth initiated an international boycott on foreign investment into South Africa, building on work undertaken by his predecessor Malcolm Fraser, and in the process clashing publicly with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who initially favoured a more cautious approach. The resulting boycott, led by the Commonwealth, was widely credited with helping bring about the collapse of apartheid, and resulted in a high-profile visit by Nelson Mandela in October 1990, months after the latter's release from a 27-year stint in prison. During the visit, Mandela publicly thanked the Hawke government for the role it played in the boycott.^[38]

Foreign policy under Paul Keating, 1991 to 1996

Indonesia

Throughout his time as Prime Minister, Keating took a number of steps to strengthen and develop bilateral links with Australia's closest neighbours; he frequently said that there was no country in the world that was more important to Australia than Indonesia, and undertook his first overseas visit to the country, becoming the first Australian Prime Minister to do so.^[39] Keating made a conscious effort to develop a personal relationship with Indonesian President Suharto, and to include Indonesia in multilateral forums attended by Australia. Keating's friendship with Suharto was criticised by human rights activists supportive of East Timorese independence, and by Nobel Peace Prize winner José Ramos-Horta. The Keating government's cooperation with the Indonesian military, and the signing of the Timor Gap Treaty, were also strongly criticised by these same groups. It was alleged by some that Keating was overlooking alleged human rights abuses by the Indonesian government as part of his effort to dramatically increase Australia's cultural, diplomatic and economic ties with Asia.^[40]

APEC

Following the creation of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Economic Forum by Bob Hawke, Keating developed the idea further, winning the support in 1993 of recently-elected US President Bill Clinton and Chinese Premier Li Peng to expand APEC to a full Leaders' Meeting. This led to APEC becoming one of the most significant high-level international summits, and at the 1994 APEC Leaders' Meeting, hosted by Indonesia, members agreed to the Keating government's proposals for what became known as the Bogor Declaration, which set targets for a significant increase in free trade and investment between industrialised APEC countries by 2010 and between developing APEC countries by 2020.^[34] In December 1993, Keating became involved in a diplomatic incident with Malaysia when he described Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad as "recalcitrant". The incident occurred after Mahathir refused to attend the 1993 APEC summit. Keating said, "APEC is bigger than all of us – Australia, the U.S. and Malaysia, and Dr. Mahathir and any other recalcitrants." The translation of the word "recalcitrant" into Malaysian rendered the word a more egregious insult, and Mahathir demanded an apology from Keating, threatening to reduce diplomatic ties and trade drastically with Australia, which became an enormous concern to Australian exporters. Some Malaysian officials talked of launching a "Buy Australian Last" campaign; Keating subsequently apologised to Mahathir over the remark.^[41]

Foreign policy under John Howard, 1996 to 2007

East Timor

Although new Indonesian President B.J. Habibie had some months earlier agreed to grant special autonomy to Indonesian-occupied East Timor, his subsequent snap decision for a referendum on the territory's independence triggered a Howard and Downer orchestrated shift in Australian policy. In September 1999, Howard organised an Australian-led international peace-keeping force to East Timor (INTERFET), after pro-Indonesia militia launched a violent "scorched-earth" campaign in retaliation to the referendum's overwhelming vote in favour of independence. The successful mission was widely supported by Australian voters, but the government was criticised^[who?] for "foreign policy failure" following the violence and collapse of diplomatic relations with Indonesia. By Howard's fourth term, relations with Indonesia had recovered to include counter-terrorism cooperation and Australia's $1bn Boxing Day Tsunami relief efforts, and were assisted by good relations between Howard and Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.^[42]

War in Afghanistan

Howard had first met US President George W. Bush in the days before the 11 September terrorist attacks and was in Washington the morning of the attacks.^[43] In response to the attacks, Howard invoked the ANZUS Treaty. In October 2001, he committed Australian military personnel to the War in Afghanistan despite widespread opposition. Howard developed a strong personal relationship with the President,^[44] and they shared often similar ideological positions – including on the role of the United States in world affairs and their approach to the "War on Terror". In May 2003, Howard made an overnight stay at Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch in Texas, after which Bush said that Howard "...is not only a man of steel, he's showed the world he's a man of heart."^[45]

In April 2002, Howard was the first Australian prime minister to attend a royal funeral, that of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. In October Howard responded to the 2002 Bali bombing with calls for solidarity.^[46] Howard re-dedicated his government to the "War on Terror".

War in Iraq

In March 2003, Australia joined the US-led "Multinational force in Iraq" in sending 2,000 troops and naval units to support in the invasion of Iraq. In response to the Australian participation in the invasion, there were large protests in Australian cities during March 2003, and Prime Minister Howard was heckled from the public gallery of Parliament House.^[47] While opinion polls showed that opposition to the war without UN backing was between 48 and 92 per cent,^[48] Howard remained preferred prime-minister over the Leader of the Opposition, Simon Crean, although his approval ratings were lower compared to before the war.^[49]^[50]

Multiculturalism and the end of ‘white Australia’

This focus of multiculturalism and a focus on Asia in Australia foreign policy was not lost because of the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975; contact and understanding continued to grow during the following decade.^[51] Australia’s imports of major weapons increased 65 per cent between 2005–2009 and 2010–14, making it the sixth largest importer in the world according to SIPRI.^[52]

China

Relationships with China continued to improve until the Chinese government massacred thousands of students in the Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989. Along with many other nations, Australia ceased diplomatic and trade relations with China for the next two years.^[53]

Relations between the two countries began to deteriorate in 2018 due to growing Australian concerns regarding Chinese political influence in various sectors of Australian society including Chinese students and residents, the national and state governments, universities and the media.^[54]^[55] There is sharp criticism regarding China's human rights policies regarding the treatment of Hong Kong and the Uyghur minority. Furthermore Canberra has been troubled by China's aggressive stance on the South China Sea dispute. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated tensions after Australia called for an international, independent inquiry into the origins of the disease. The subsequent restrictions that China made to its trade policies have been attacked as political retaliation and economic coercion against Australia. In 2021 Canberra disallowed the effort by the state of Victoria to join China's vast Belt and Road Initiative as a potential threat to Australia's security.^[56]

Indonesia

Australia had a developing relationship was Indonesia. Whitlam did not object to the invasion of Portuguese Timor by Indonesian troops in 1975 because maintaining good diplomatic relations with Indonesia was considered the highest priority at the time.^[57] The government could only express regret for the Timorese people as they were not prepared to go to war. Hawke and especially Keating also supported Indonesia despite their continuing maltreatment of the East Timorese people. When John Howard was elected in 1996, he saw the opportunity to distinguish himself from the previous Labor approach to the East Timor conflict.^[58] Immediately he sent peacekeeping forces into East Timor and advocated Australia's support for their independence. The role of this support of an essentially Christian country against a Muslim nation was detrimental to Australia's reputation with other Muslim countries.^[59]

Vietnam

Since the 1970s (when Vietnamese boat people started coming), wave after wave of refugees from distressed countries in Asia and elsewhere have sought haven in Australia.^[60] Many have died making the hazardous journey. How to deal with them has been a highly contentious political issue.^[61]

Notes

^ Eric Montgomery Andrews, Isolationism and appeasement in Australia: reactions to the European crises, 1935-1939 (Australian National University Press, 1970)
^ David Samuel Bird, J. A. Lyons, the Tame Tasmanian: Appeasement and Rearmament in Australia, 1932-39 (Australian Scholarly Publishing, 2008)
^ "BBC - WW2 People's War - Timeline". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2 November 2020.
^ "Menzies Speech: Declaration of War". australianscreen. Retrieved 2 November 2020.
^ David Day. Menzies and Churchill at War (1993) pp 1-21
^ Goldstein, Donald M.; Dillon, Katherine V. (October 1999). The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans. Potomac Books, Incorporated. ISBN 978-1-57488-222-3.
^ "How the fall of Singapore changed Australia". www.abc.net.au. 14 February 2017. Retrieved 2 November 2020.
^ Francis Gordon Clarke (2002). The History of Australia. Greenwood. p. 136. ISBN 9780313314988.
^ "GENERAL MACARTHUR TAKES COMMAND OF AUSTRALIA'S DEFENCE". www.pacificwar.org.au. Retrieved 2 November 2020.
^ kanopiadmin (10 April 2014). "War and Time Preference: The American Army in Australia". Mises Institute. Retrieved 2 November 2020.
^ Peter Dean (2013). Australia 1943: The Liberation of New Guinea. Cambridge UP. pp. 26–43. ISBN 9781107470880.
^ corporateName=National Museum of Australia; address=Lawson Crescent, Acton Peninsula. "National Museum of Australia - End of the White Australia policy". www.nma.gov.au. Retrieved 28 October 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ "Populate or Perish? | Newgeography.com". www.newgeography.com. Retrieved 28 October 2020.
^ "Post World War II British Migration to Australia". Museums Victoria Collections. Retrieved 2 November 2020.
^ "The Immigration Restriction Act and the White Australia policy". National Archives of Australia.
^ corporateName=Commonwealth Parliament; address=Parliament House, Canberra. "Australia's Migration Program". www.aph.gov.au. Retrieved 2 November 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ corporateName=Commonwealth Parliament; address=Parliament House, Canberra. "Multiculturalism: a review of Australian policy statements and recent debates in Australia and overseas". www.aph.gov.au. Retrieved 2 November 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ David McLean, "From British colony to American satellite? Australia and the USA during the cold war." Australian Journal of Politics & History (2006) 52#1 pp: 64-79.
^ Peter Geoffrey Edwards and Gregory Pemberton, Crises and Commitments: The Politics and Diplomacy of Australia's Involvement in Southeast Asian Conflicts 1948-1965 (Allen & Unwin in association with the Australian War Memorial, 1992)
^ Ritchie Ovendale, The English-Speaking Alliance: Britain, the United States, the Dominions and the Cold War 1945-1951 (Routledge, 1985).
^ "US Enters the Korean Conflict". National Archives. 15 August 2016. Retrieved 2 November 2020.
^ corporateName=Commonwealth Parliament; address=Parliament House, Canberra. "ANZUS After Fifty Years". www.aph.gov.au. Retrieved 2 November 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ McLean, David (2001). "Australia in the Cold War: A Historiographical Review". The International History Review. 23 (2): 299–321. doi:10.1080/07075332.2001.9640932. ISSN 0707-5332. JSTOR 40108675. S2CID 153670534.
^ Benvenuti, Andrea (1 December 2006). "A Parting of the Ways: the British Military Withdrawal from Southeast Asia and its Critical Impact on Anglo-Australian Relations, 1965–68". Contemporary British History. 20 (4): 575–605. doi:10.1080/13619460600612941. ISSN 1361-9462. S2CID 144582369.
^ James Curran, "Beyond the Euphoria: Lyndon Johnson in Australia and the Politics of the Cold War Alliance." Journal of Cold War Studies (2015).
^ Piccini, Jon. "Issues that swung elections: Labor's anti-war message falls flat in landslide loss in 1966". The Conversation. Retrieved 2 November 2020.
^ corporateName=Department of Veterans' Affairs; address=21 Genge St, Civic/Canberra City. "All the way with LBJ | Anzac Portal". anzacportal.dva.gov.au. Retrieved 2 November 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Peter Geoffrey Edwards, A Nation at War: Australian Politics, society and diplomacy during the Vietnam War 1965-1975 (Allen & Unwin, 1997)
^ Department Of State. The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs. "Ending the Vietnam War, 1973-1975". 2001-2009.state.gov. Retrieved 2 November 2020.
^ R. Catley, "Australia and the great powers 1933–83." Australian Journal of International Affairs 37.3 (1983): 143-149.
^ "Fact check: Did former prime minister Harold Holt abolish the White Australia policy?". Retrieved 2 November 2020.
^ Basosi, Duccio (2011–2012). Looking Forward: Australia's Relations with the People's Republic of China in the Twentieth Century. Università Ca' Foscari. pp. 30–31.
^ ^a ^b "History". apec.org. The idea of APEC was firstly publicly broached by former Prime Minister of Australia Bob Hawke during a speech in Seoul, Korea, on 30 January 1969. Ten months later, 12 Asia-Pacific economies met in Canberra, Australia, to establish APEC.
^ ^a ^b ^c "Back to Canberra: Founding APEC".
^ See Ken Berry, Cambodia From Red to Blue: Australia's Initiative for Peace (Allen & Unwin, 1997)
^ Fang, Jason; Weedon, Alan (8 June 2020). "More than 40,000 Chinese were offered asylum in Australia exactly 31 years ago. Here are their stories". www.abc.net.au.
^ "US rocket plan became Hawke's first setback". The Sydney Morning Herald. 1 January 2013. Retrieved 19 June 2021.
^ Lennon, Troy (18 July 2019). "Australia campaigned for Mandela's freedom". The Daily Telegraph.
^ Sheriden, Greg (28 January 2008). "Farewell to Jakarta's Man of Steel". The Australian. Archived from the original on 22 March 2016. Retrieved 30 December 2008.
^ "The World Today – 5/10/99: Howard hits back at Keating over criticism". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 5 October 1999. Retrieved 31 July 2012.
^ Shenon, Philip (9 December 1993). "Malaysia Premier Demands Apology". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 June 2008.
^ 'Indonesia – Australian Relations: East Timor, Bali Bombing, Tsunami and Beyond' by Ambassador Imron Cotan, Kbri-canberra.org.au, archived from the original on 7 January 2010, retrieved 25 April 2010
^ Howard accepts Presidential Medal of Freedom, AM program transcript, ABC Radio, Australia: ABC, 14 January 2009, archived from the original on 27 March 2010, retrieved 25 April 2010
^ Johnston, Tim (25 November 2007), "Ally of Bush Is Defeated in Australia", The New York Times, p. 8, archived from the original on 28 March 2019, retrieved 6 May 2008
^ "Bush lauds Howard as 'man of steel'", The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 May 2003, archived from the original on 7 February 2008, retrieved 6 May 2008
^ John Howard's Bali memorial speech – TVNZ Smartphone, tvnz.co.nz, 18 October 2002, archived from the original on 11 May 2011, retrieved 25 April 2010
^ "Malaysian PM condemns Iraq war". BBC News. 24 March 2003.
^ Riley, Mark (1 April 2003), "Support for the fight growing", Sydney Morning Herald, archived from the original on 25 September 2008, retrieved 22 August 2008
^ When it was reported that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, 70% of Australians believed Howard misled them with most believing he did so unintentionally.
^ Riley, Mark (24 September 2003), "Poll: majority of Australians 'feel misled' by Howard", Sydney Morning Herald, archived from the original on 25 September 2008, retrieved 22 August 2008
^ Neville Meaney, "The end of ‘white Australia’ and Australia's changing perceptions of Asia, 1945–1990." Australian Journal of International Affairs (1995) 49#2 pp: 171-189.
^ "Trends in International Arms Transfer, 2014". www.sipri.org. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Retrieved 18 March 2015.
^ Kaushik Kapisthalam, "Australia and Asia's rise." Australian Journal of International Affairs (2006) 60#3 pp: 369-375.
^ Navdeep Suri, “Australia-China Relations: The Great Unravelling,” (ORF Issue Brief No. 366, June 2020) online
^ Hamilton, Clive (2018). Silent Invasion: China's influence in Australia. Melbourne: Hardie Grant Books. p. 376. ISBN 978-1743794807.
^ Mike Cherney, "Australia Cancels China Infrastructure Deal, Citing National Interest: Decision deepens diplomatic dispute; Beijing says Australian government has no sincerity to improve ties" Wall Street Journal
^ Clinton Fernandes, Reluctant saviour: Australia, Indonesia, and the independence of East Timor (Scribe Publications, 2004).
^ James Cotton, East Timor, Australia and regional order: intervention and its aftermath in Southeast Asia (Routledge, 2004)
^ Gareth J. Evans, and Bruce Grant, Australia's foreign relations: in the world of the 1990s (Melbourne University Press, 1991)
^ Katrina Stats, "Welcome to Australia? A reappraisal of the Fraser government's approach to refugees, 1975–83." Australian Journal of International Affairs (2015) 69#1 pp: 69-87.
^ John Vrachnas; et al. (2011). Migration and Refugee Law: Principles and Practice in Australia. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781139505635.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

YouTube Encyclopedic

Transcription

1930s: Appeasement

Shift in dependence from Britain to United States

Relations with the United States

Immigration

Communism and the Cold War era

Vietnam War

Détente with communism

Foreign Policy under Bob Hawke, 1983–1991

APEC

Cambodia

United States

Commonwealth boycott of South Africa

Foreign policy under Paul Keating, 1991 to 1996

Indonesia

APEC

Foreign policy under John Howard, 1996 to 2007

East Timor

War in Afghanistan

War in Iraq

Multiculturalism and the end of ‘white Australia’

China

Indonesia

Vietnam

Notes

Further reading

Primary sources

See also