From Britain Colony to American Satellite - Essay Example

From Britain Colony to American Satellite Australian dependence has elicited mixed reactions in the analyses of the association between Australia and the United States. Given the similarities in power, wealth and influence, this is not off the mark. In recent days, most analysts have pointed out that after regaining their independence from Britain Australia became an American satellite. This depiction has been pointed out with increased fervor since September 11 2001, and mostly after 2003 when the Howard government pledged its support to the infamous invasion of Iraq. Some modern historians have often equated Australia’s actions with supplication and sycophancy (McLean, 2006). This paper examines the actions taken by Australia after the break up of the British federation with a view to prove that Australia has indeed acted as an American satellite. The proof that Australia carried on with the Britain culture of servitude can be seen from the massive Americanization of international culture after World War II. After the Vietnam War, a large number of American scholars embarked on a careful analysis of the intricate relationship between their country and the United Nations. This web is considered to be complex mainly because it had far reaching effects on both the culture and the Australian politics. Over the years, there have been numerous studies that have tried to examine the issue of Australia’s dependency on the prevailing power of capitalist America. Although most of the studies have dwelt on the nation’s economics and political economy, there are other studies that have sought to examine the culture, media and beliefs. Ideally, the concept of dependence in Australia’s foreign relations though most obvious in the political and military association with the United States, has also had a central economic and cultural angle. Although there are still those who disagree with this opinion, there is no denying that America’s values, organizations and policies reign not only in Australia’s external behavior but its economic and political sphere (McLean, 2006). While some analysts were reluctant to view America as imperialist or Australia as a satellite, most of the liberal minds agreed that these two terms defined the bilateral relationship of these two nations after the Vietnam War. This has been examined especially in the light of how Australia’s sovereignty and national identity have been infiltrated by the United States supremacy and influence. From the mid 1980’s, Australia has bettered its relations with other Asian nations and has found it even harder to break the constitutional ties with Britain. This development has lessened the scholarly claims to this fact but the popular imagination still lingers (Paul, 2006). In essence, from the Australian mass media, the country is viewed as a ‘satellite community’ of the cosmopolitan United States. On the other hand, there are those that have depicted the nation as an ‘American satellite’ or simply an American client state. Whether these terms are acceptable or not, the fact is that there is a heavy American presence in Australia in nearly every sphere of the society. This presence is so pointed to a point where some people claim that if one wants to know Australia’s future, then one only has to look at America’s present. Australia, many people believe, is a part of the United States informal kingdom, or even worse a small nation that has got no development agenda of its own but one that is following the American path towards modernity. Not all the literature on Australia’s conversion from Britain colony to American satellite claims that this was the original intent of the United States. Instead, it is constantly pointed out that regional insecurity coupled with cultural deference pushed Australia to surrender its independence to American interests and strategies. According to some insiders, Australia is not just a willing satellite for strategic reasons but is acting so because it has no an alternative (Kelton, 2008). Cultural Processes Cultural processes are closely interlinked with the practice of power globally. However, the efforts by historians to expose the function of cultural workings on associations between nations are hampered by the eternal intricacy of culture and the challenges of explaining the type of cross-cultural networking. Cultural effects or presumptions are challenging to explain. For this reason, in the area of global relations, power has greatly been comprehended in traditional economic terms and as an expression of solid state interests. Regardless of this, as the victory of the so-termed American Century has coalesced in to discussions about globalization, the element of culture has come out as an analytical tool in global relations. This can be seen from the fact that majority of the contemporary scholarship on US foreign relations dwells on a large part on cultural dimensions (McLean, 2001). According to experts, there is overwhelming evidence to prove that the United States massive cultural influence and technological muscles helps in guaranteeing its ever-present strength overseas. However, this does not in any way prove that the past US cultural exports influenced culturally its western friends, including Australia, and set in motion the economic condition in which later-war US foreign policy grew unhindered. Regardless of this, given the US’s massive military strength in the after war nation and the never ending existence of American culture overseas, it is not shocking that diplomatic historians did not discover culture earlier on. A realization of British and Australian cultural link and mutual histories is critical to the comprehension of Anglo-Australian associations. And it is not far-fetched to claim that cultural forces have contributed critical roles in defining or symbiotically exposing Australia’s transforming relationship with its other big and powerful ally, America (Kelly, 2009). The reorientation of the Australian state relations specifically after World War II, incorporating its official key alliances was established in wide processes of cultural transformation that came from modernization and globalization. Ideally, all these processes were in themselves American both in form and content. Regardless of this, the Australian unique history after independence without a doubt cannot be lowered to one which states that a smaller community merely, if hesitatingly, substituted one imperial relationship for a different one. In addition to this, while culture plays is a fundamental dimension of associations within and between countries, as well as between social groups and individual people, it is rare if at all simply forced from overseas or from a bigger power to a subject that is considered powerless. This fact makes it hard to explain the role played by the American culture in the transformation of the Australian nation. In recent days, historians have gone beyond generalizations which explain the far-reaching links between Australia and the US. For a long time, people only examined the aspects of shared language, heritage, culture and beliefs but this has changed dramatically in the last few years. This is because it has been impractical to hold the image of a post-colonial Australia that is highly receptive and docile in the face of American cultural forces. In addition to this, US cultural interests in Australia were grounded in transformations in the nineteenth and the early years of the twentieth century although they grew exponentially in the mid twentieth century. Widely, the American influences brought together local cultural formations as well as discursive workings that were founded on incessant geopolitical insecurities and honed by waging war against Japan, obtaining of independence as well as Britain’s piecemeal withdrawal from the tumultuous area. The seeking of national interests and not foreign power stimulated Australia’s strategic reorientation immediately after the lapse of World War II. In addition to this, everything Australian persisted in the nation’s strategic realignment thus explaining why no one questioned this apparent realignment (Dillion, Froning, & O’Driscoll, 2001). More than 100 years before Curtin appealed to the United States for help most high-ranking Australian personalities had reached to the Pacific for political direction, cultural stimulus and strategic support. Australia, a tinier colonial section as compared to its North American counterparts was highly influenced by not only Britain but by the United States. To Australia, the United States was a clear example of how a colony could establish an autonomous and liberal nation. It is clear that even before the formation of the federation, ideas, goods, as well as people flowed freely amongst the two nations. The US political influences were mostly based on immigration restriction and women suffrage ideas that were appealing to the young nation. The ‘emerging America’ was greatly looked upon as other colonies kept looking up to the new nation. In the years after the Federation, Australia kept on presenting itself as a ‘white nation’ situated hazardously on the periphery of Asia. Against this milieu, Australian leaders spoke kindly of their ‘brethren in America’ and called for the establishment of common bonds of race, language, traditions and the formation of bodies that naturally made the two nations great allies. Although the Australian leaders knew that the close relationship was not good for them, they upheld it since they considered themselves to be closer to the Americans in both blood and social ties (Dillion, Froning & O’Driscoll, 2001). Immediately after its liberation, the newly freed nation held on politically, economically, and militarily to Britain while promoting its new status as a free republic. However, after only ten years of Federation, Australia had to deal with external realities which threatened its existence in a potentially antagonistic geopolitical climate. The prevailing straps to Britain were no longer ideal to cover up for regional segregation and helplessness. Its efforts to foster new relationships in the Pacific through a figurative visit by the American Navy, and an effort to petition Washington for security aid became a pattern that would go only unabated through the twentieth century. However, America did not respond immediately and for some years the dominion remained hooked up to Britain. Even before World War I, Australian leaders were however not content by the existing associations. As the boundaries to British interests in the Far East become progressively more pointed, the republic cast its eyes further into the Pacific in search of its survival (Curran & Ward, 2010). As early as 1908, Australia was glad to welcome the Great While American Fleet, which marked the amalgamation of racial ideas and regional susceptibility in the outlook of many individuals in the new state. The availability of this fleet gave the new nation the security boost that they needed for its borders. The Australians needed America’s protection especially from the constant threat of the Japanese Navy on its waters. In the entire region, the entry of America was viewed and perceived as the main line of defense against Asia. Within this period, Prime Minister Alfred Deakin requested for America’s help in what was famously called the US Monroe Doctrine. Deakin believed that the entry of the US was critical for the young nation but insisted that this did not weaken its imperial ties. Although this new found relationship between America and Australia did not dent the existing relationship with Britain, it nonetheless lessened the existing relationship of the colonization days. Ideally, many Australians felt that depending largely on America would make them lose their traditional values and as such the entrance of America into the Australian scene was received warily by the new state (Curran & Ward, 2010). Regardless of the prevailing tension between America and Australia, something happened in the last years of the 1930’s that irrevocably changed the relationship between the two nations. This period was marked by Japan’s invasion of China and created new tensions in the Asian region that compelled Prime Minister Joseph Lyons to seek for a pact that was identical to the one that had been sought Deakin nearly three decades earlier. The constant appeals to Washington softened Australia’s stand towards the United States especially on the insecurities and disillusion towards the colonial defenses (Curran & Ward, 2010). For both the Americans and the Australians, the war with Japan brought about a permanent ‘special relationship’ between the two countries. This new found relationship was evident from the increased military association as well as cultural dealings during the Cold War. Although finally successful, the bilateral wartime coalition was marked by considerable conflict as well as association. Even before the Japanese threat elapsed in 1943, the relationship between the two nations was always shaky. In later years, some analysts pointed out that the relationship was successful because it was founded on the mutual agreement between two identical Pacific communities, and that it brought together two important elements of sentiment and self-interest, and this has grown to become a part of the Australia mythology. Perhaps the proof that Australia could no longer function without America is evident from the fact that Prime Minister John Curtin publicly sought the United State’s aid after Pearl Harbor. In short, the ever unending war was the knife that separated the continual bond between Britain and Australia. This severance gave birth to a new relationship between the United States and Australia. For America, the need for permanent protection overrode any other need and this explains why the relationship between the two nations survived long after the Japanese were vanquished (Camilleri, 2005). From this account, it is apparent that culture played a very minimal role in bringing the two nations together. However, this new found ally has been instrumental in ensuring that Australia protects all its national interests well before World War II. Perhaps this explains why historians are not keen on questioning the existing relationship between the two nations. However, the truth is that this Pacific nation came directly from the British wings and was immediately taken in under the care of the United States. Although some historians claim that the relationship between these two nations has been mutual, the truth is that America has benefited very little from this symbiotic relationship. In deed, this has been well articulated by some analysts who point out that the relationship between Australia and the United States is similar to the one between Australia and the Great Britain. Perhaps the indication that Australia has been America’s willing servant can be seen by how the nation has ratified each of America’s strategies without any complains (Camilleri, 2005). After the collapse of the Pearl Harbor and with the collapse of Singapore in sight, Australia again turned to America for help. In his appeal, Curtin noted that all the nations were key to Australia’s survival but then pointed out clearly that America was a special ally that would play the role of protector, a responsibility that had been accorded to the Great Britain. Perhaps the fact that Curtin’s appeal came right in the middle of Australia’s darkest moment is an indication that Australia was more than ready to break its traditional networks. The clear indication that Australia had permanently severed its links with Britain is seen from their refusal to sent troops to help their former colonizers in their greatest hour of need. While the refusal to send the troops was not an outright indication that Australia was cutting its links with the Great Britain, it was a clear indication that they were seen as incapable of protecting the Nation. This called for the establishment of a greater nation to act as Australia’s protector and this came in the form of the United States (Broinowski, 2007). Following the infamous Curtin’s appeal, many analysts came up to criticize this decision. However, Curtin had no apologies for his actions and maintained that his decision was irreversible. After Curtin, numerous conservative governments tried as much as possible to balance the relationship between the two nations but none of them succeeded in erasing the great dependence of Australia on America. Perhaps this was because none of the governments demonstrated any serious willingness to achieve this objective but it might also be that the relationship had gone beyond a point of no return. The other reason why it has been hard to break this special relationship is because many Australians believe that the two nations were instrumental in attaining victory during the Pacific War (Broinowski, 2007). However, the narratives of cultural convergence are nothing but rationalizations that neither America nor Australia can prove. These narratives are ideal for Australia in that they have succeeded in shielding the narratives of military inadequacies during the war. This myth has succeeded in hiding the fact that Australia turned to the United States as a post war reaction to decolonization. However, any keen analysts willing to see beyond the façade can establish that Australia has been nothing but a lesser nation keen on looking for the protection of a bigger nation. This kind of relationship means that Australia is not in a position to make any of its own independent decisions without looking to the US for approval. However, this has also been a good thing for Australia in that it has portrayed them as a strong nation that should be consulted before any major decision on world affairs is made. This fact can be seen by how fast Australia was willing to ratify the Vietnam and the Iraq wars before stopping to question America’s motives (Bell, 2008). Although some people have constantly insisted that it is wrong to present Australia’s support for the Iraq war as a direct historical analogy of the Vietnam conflict, the truth is that the similarities between the manner that Australia entered the war betrays their intentions. To begin with, Australia agreed to join the wars immediately after America had declared their intention to do so. While the Australia might have joined the war to protect its interests in Vietnam, the truth is that there were no any interests to protect in Iraq. For long, analysts have pointed out that Australia could snot take any act that would be seen to go against the US policies. In addition to this, the war presented a perfect opportunity for the nation to augment its ‘special relationship’ with America. By supporting the war, Australia had made it clear that they were not prepared to tolerate anything that threatened America’s interests both at home and abroad (Goot, 2004). Another indication that proves that Australia was not willing to enter into both the Vietnam and the Iraq wars but that they were forced to do so only as an unwilling ally is evident in the way of public opinion. According to historians, Australia entered into the Vietnam War despite of low public support from the war (Edwards, 2007). This scenario was repeated in 2001 during the Iraq war where support for the war was again minimal. While the Australians believed that they had nothing to lose from the war, the support for America overrode any other reason and this saw the nation joining the war. Perhaps the proof that Australians were not willing to take part in a meaningless war can be seen through the numerous anti-war demonstrations that were conducted in 2002-2003. According to analysts, Howard’s apparent eagerness to support the war despite public disapproval points out to servility in the midst of pressure from a true and powerful ally. Given that Australia’s leaders had a choice to not support the war given the flimsy dynamics that had been used to front the war is a clear indication that they were more than willing to satisfy the wishes of the Bush government. The insistence that the war was a priority for Australia is nothing but a façade to conceal the fact that Australia does indeed not have a voice when it comes to deciding key matters but only acts as America’s toy (Goot, 2004). This in itself justifies the claim that Australia is indeed an American satellite. Conclusion The relationship between America and Australia has fascinated historians for a long time. While Australia’s break from Britain’s colonization has been seen as a commendable act, there are those who point out that the nation has not been free indeed. In the recent past, there have been claims that Australia emerged from being a Britain Colony to an American satellite. Over the years, this claim has been disapproved by Australian leaders who point out that Australia is indeed a free nation that acts on its own accord. Despite this claim, there is enough evidence to prove that Australia has been nothing but a small nation that cannot make any individual decision without relying on their ‘special’ ally for approval. References Bell, C. (2008). Dependent Ally: A Study in Australian Foreign Policy. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Broinowski, A. (2007). Allied and Addicted. Carlton North: Scribe Publications. Camilleri, J. (2005). Australian–American Relations: The Web of Dependence. South Melbourne:Macmillan. Curran, J., & Ward, S. (2010). The Unknown Nation. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Dillion, D., Froning, D., & O’Driscoll, G. (2001). Time to Strengthen US–Australian Relations in Trade and Defense. The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder 1450, 1–8. Edwards, P. (2007). A Nation at War: Australian Politics, Society and Diplomacy during the Vietnam War. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Goot, M. (2004). Introduction: World Opinion Surveys and the War in Iraq. International Journal of Public Opinion 16, 239–68. Kelly, P. (2009). The March of the Patriots: The Struggle for Modern Australia. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Kelton, M. (2008). More than an Ally’? Contemporary Australia–US Relations. Aldershot: Ashgate. McLean, D. (2001). Australia in the Cold War: A Historiographical Review. International History Review 23: 299–321. McLean, D. (2006). From British Colony to American Satellite? Australia and the USA during the Cold War. Australian Journal of Politics and History 52: 64–79. Paul, E. (2006). Little America: Australia, the 51st State. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press. Read More