Australia and the Concept of Middle Power - Coursework Example

Name: University/ College: Lecturer: Course: Date: Introduction In this discourse, the concept of Middle Power is discussed at length with specific reference to Australia’s relations in the global affairs. The discourse definitively tackles the manner in which state of Australia asserts its stance in the matters of international concern in bid to examine whether it assumes a neutral role or otherwise. This essay attempts as well to assess the foreign policy of the country and positions it assumes in the most defining moments in international relations. In the contemporary period, scholars have raged debate in an effort to determine whether Australia is a middle power. With specific reference to Australian foreign policy especially on ‘The War On Terror’ and her membership in the ‘ANZUS’ alliance and its relations with the East Asian Nations, this paper seeks to establish the country’s position on the same. Further, the essay will examine the involvement of Australia in global politics and diplomacy. Concept of Middle Power and Middle Power Diplomacy Although the concept of the middle power is short of definitions, it more or less refers to the categorization of nations that are neither super powers nor peripheral but command significant influence in the world affairs. Immanuel Wallenstein of the world systems theory refers to these countries as semi peripheral since their political, social or economic prowess surpass that of the countries in the periphery yet they fall short of the categorization as core countries. Countries demonstrating the capacity and will to intervene in the international sphere are usually termed as middle power a state implying that, it is through their behavior that such a title is conferred on them. The diplomacy of these countries is guided by efforts to embrace good international citizenship. Besides, these countries are guided by moral power and multilateralism during international disputes1. The notion that the middle power should hold a neutral position in the event of two extreme positions in the international arena shows that their primary role is to act as mediators2. In many instances, middle power is a concept applicable to any country regardless of its geographical size commits itself in international affairs to bring about harmonious coexistence among countries and improving international cooperation. Further, in the hierarchical approach to middle power, the great countries are capable of asserting their influence regardless of the opposition while the small states are incapable influencing other states. A middle power country is capable influencing great and small nations. Thus, the middle power countries are usually in the middle of extreme ideological spectrum. In this regard, Australia political influence and foreign policy in the Asia Pacific region and the world at large substantially crops up the debate whether it is still in the middle power category in the international policy. Under the presidency of John Howard, the strive to a more proactive role in the world affairs saw the country making radical decisions and substantial loyalty to the US but a paradigm shift has remarked in the manner that the new government has tried to overturn the policy under the incumbent resident – Kevin Rudd. The ANZUS alliance Australia is a member of ANZUS treaty that cordially binds New Zealand, USA and itself in 1951. The objective was to enhance military capacity of its members and promote peace in addition to enhancing military preparedness in time of attacks. However, New Zealand withdrew from the treaty separately with USA in 1984 citing the presence nuclear weapons emanating from the USA. The Australian government, nonetheless, retained the ties and as such military programs that include among others testing long range missiles are usually conducted in the country. Nuclear arms proliferation and arms disarmament are some of the objectives of the UN. Despite belonging to the Proliferation Security Committee, the Australian government has failed to influence the US in adopting an anti nuclear law that is effective. Being a middle power country, it is imperative to hold a neutral position that are geared towards promotion of international peace and order. The question that begs, therefore, is whether Australia still holds the middle position in relation to the nuclear programs that are still present in the USA despite the call from the UN to abolish nuclear programs after the Second World War. More to the point, the USA under the auspices of Ronald Reagan’s administration, expressed a lot of aggression towards the USSR yet Australia remained bound to the ANZUS treaty instead of showing ‘middlepowermanship’ and mediate the situation. The above contradicts the position that the middle power countries ought to assume during international crisis as ‘go betweens’. It is imperative to for middle powers to assert themselves in the international order as custodians of peace and order holding significant position during conflict resolution and peace keeping initiatives. Essentially, a middle power country is morally obliged to adopt novel foreign policy that enshrines human dignity besides its protective nature of human race. Australia, in the ANZUS treaty has bound itself to a super power that disregards some of the very fundamental obligations of protecting the environment as threatening its existence. USA refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and consequently withdrew from it in 2001. Australia under the regime of John Howard was marked by the laxity in signing the protocol as well. Thus, the neutrality of Australia is questioned in reference to its cordial relations with the USA despite such hard line position. However, do we judge the country for its peer’s failures? In 2008, The Australian president Kevin Rudd asserted that he would assume middle power diplomacy to persuade international decision makers in adoption of environmentally friendly policies inter alia Shanahan D.3 The ANZUS alliance strives to sustain regional stability and peace. This is in the line of the international peace and enhanced cooperation. Before his election as the president Kevin Rudd, unequivocally stated that maintenance of the alliance with the USA is in the best interest of the country and the world therefore the country in his presidency would remain loyal to the treaty. To maintain middle power status whilst in the treaty is a tall order for the country as the loyalty owed to the west is momentous. The War on Terror Australia has lost its position as a middle power nation as a result to active involvement in the war against terror. The war on terror as used in this context refers to the US’s retaliation to threats by Middle Eastern terrorist extremists. More significantly, it refers to the reprisal by George W. Bush towards the September 11 2001 Twin Towers incidence orchestrated by Osama bin Laden. In reaction to this, many countries contributed to this worthy cause by initiating the counter terrorism mechanisms. However, a vast portion of the international system – the Holy Sea, international organizations and the media disputed the basis of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by the US. In this regard, the international community was characterized by a dilemma- to support the US or to remain neutral? Australian government resulted to paying loyalty to her ally amid the global tension that prevailed. This was not an act of ‘middlepowerhood’ but rather a superpower4. After September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the then Australian president, Howard offered to support the US government on their mission dubbed ‘Operation Enduring Freedom.’ The government provided military units and equipment during the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan. The Australian foreign mission is seen to have contradicted the principles of middle power status and in line with the same on the other hand in the following ways, first the government failed to advance the need for international cooperation by supporting one side without trying to mediate either for Iraq or the Afghanistan. On the contrary, the terrorist’ attack threatened international peace and order which the middle power countries purport to protect. It was therefore in the best interest of the international community to take up their moral obligation and respond helping track down terrorists. To some extent the war on terror is seen as a ‘just’ war while other schools of thought refer it as the greatest humanitarian crisis of modern time which Australia had a hand in. Australia has, for a long time, been a proxy in advancing US global agenda in the Asian pacific region. Paying allegiance to the west has in turn significantly dented the image of the country from a middle power to a potential super power. Nonetheless, there has been significant progress in withdrawal of troops by the government of Rudd. Although this is interpreted as to as an effort to regain her status and remain relevant in the in the global scene5 The indirect participation of Australia in the war against terror especially in Iraq and Afghanistan during the presidency of John Howard put Australia in a compromised situation that undermines the basic elements of a middle power country. Hence, the rhetoric of ‘creative middle power” that has marked much of the president’s speech will remain a rhetoric if the foreign policy will not change substantially. The involvement of the Australia in the Pacific region clearly contravened the neutrality of Australia in its foreign policy. In the pretext of war on terror the government perceived the politically unstable pacific nations as safe havens for terrorists. This is clearly understood as an effort to advance the west ideology since it was assumed that the security of the USA was not Australia’s. The result was the strained relationship between the states. Australia’s in the regional matters cannot to be overlooked. In the contemporary world the relationship with East Asia has been significant. The government in its foreign policy has shown leadership as a middle power state in the manner that it intends to relate with its neighbors. The new regime seeks to attain political stability amid widespread instability. Rudd sees the democracy that entails good governance and economic progress as important and as a consequence there has bee an introduction of Pacific Partners for Development (PPD)6. The Australian government has taken the initiative to use its capacity to intervene by helping the pacific countries most of which have failed to achieve their millennium development goals. Conclusion In the contemporary world the so called middle power countries play roles that contradict their characteristics. The foreign policies of the middle power ought to be objective without getting blurred by the subjectivity of paying allegiance to their allies. Moreover, they should be geared towards promotion of international peace and order as well as environmental custodianship through initiatives such as the UN and agreements as Kyoto protocol respectively. The engagement with the US and the west has made Australia to be viewed by many anti- US states as biased in influencing international decision making and giving in to pressure posed by the US in fear of cutting close ties that has been in existence for long. A new era has dawned in the foreign policy of Australia under the presidency of Kevin Rudd. The will to remain as creative middle power country is immeasurable among the Australian public and the president has risen to occasion and numerously recited this call. The foreign policy adopted in 2008, will make Australia a middle power if implemented. Thus, asserting that the country has already attained a middle power status is a little premature. References Glazebrook, G. P. (1947). “The Middle Powers in the United Nations System” in International Organization 1:2 Cooper, Andrew F. (1993). “Niche Diplomacy: A Conceptual Overview,” in Andrew F. Cooper, Richard A. Higgott and Kim Richard Nossal Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order (Vancouver: UBC Press). Lorraine Elliott, Greg Fry William T. Tow and John Ravenhill Australian foreign policy futures: Making middle-power leadership work? Canberra : Dept. of International Relations, College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University, 2008. J. Ravenhill, ‘Cycles of Middle Power Activism: Constraint and Choice in Australian and Canadian Foreign Policies’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 52(300, November 1998.           Andrew Fenton Cooper, Richard A. Higgott and Kim Richard Nossal Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order UBC Press, 1993 Read More