Re: Oz foreign policy

[Philip L Ferguson <PLF13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gary writes:
>There is a full scale debate underway in Parliament and in the media at
>present about Australian foreign policy.  Obviously it is based around the
>East Timor intervention but it has much wider implications.  If it is ok
>with Lou I will post a fairly lengthy piece on the debate.  I am as anxious
>as anyone to avoid sterile debates but as I said in my last post the
>situation is quite volatile at present.

Gary, you're right that this debate has implication far beyond East Timor,
so I think it is a fruitful avenue to explore in further posts.


>There simply has not been a full scale debate among the elites around
>foreign policy since the Vietnam War, so for an Australian Marxist this is
>a very vital time.  My take on this is that the legacy of the anti-Vietnam
>War mobilizations has been frittered away and the Australian state has now
>much more freedom with regard to military interventions in this region. As
>the DSP made clear in an August copy of Green Left Weekly it is such
>freedom that the Australian Government has been seeking. A shame the DSP's
>Central Committee could not have gone over some back issues before they
>called for troops in East Timor.

Yes, the DSP and liberal interventionists have opened up a whole can of
worms on this one.  It has allowed the NZ and Australian ruling class to
clear away any last vestiges of the old 'Vietnam Syndrome'.  Each
intervention has made a future intervention more easy.

One of NZ's top diplomats was here on Tuesday, speaking to a honours class
in the history department.  A friend of mine was there and said thgat this
guy (who was ambassador to the UN, then China, so he's one of the top layer
of NZ diplomats) actually described the intervention in East Timor as
imperialist and seemed quite pleased that imperialism is becoming
respectable again.  When the mate of mine took this up, the diplomat kind
of backed off on the imperialist angle a bit.

It seems to me that there is now very little in the way of domestic
political constraints blocking Enz and Oz intervention in the Asia-Pacific
region.  There is bipartisan agreement in both countries on a more
'forward' and 'proactive' foreign policy; in fact in NZ, it is the liberals
who are basically providing the ideological and moral justification for a
more active role for NZ imperilaism in the region.


>
>BTW I noticed that the Irish Govt has pushed ahead with closer links with
>NATO despite this being unconstitutional.  They specified 'humanitarian'
>concerns.  Where have I heard that before?

Yes, and no doubt having the odious Mary Robinson as UN human rights
commissioner will speed up the process.

It's interesting how 'humanitarian' concerns can be used in this way.  When
the colonialists come with gunboats to enforce the Opium trade or the
imperilaists drop napalm on Vietnamese villages, the left can recognise
that stuff for what it is and oppose it; when imperialism comes in a
'humanitarian' guise, suddenly the left doesn't recognise it.

It reminds me of that Tarzan joke.  What did Tarzan say when he saw the
elephants coming?  Here come the elephants.  What did Tarzan say when he
saw the elephants coming in sunglasses?  Nothing, he didn't recognise them.

Cheers,
Phil