2.
3.
4.
1.
Historical Background – the Basic transition in AFP
Objectives of AFP (national interests)
Basic Bipartisanship
Some areas of tension within these objectives

Australian foreign policy objectives ; role of Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Trade,
Prime Minister, cabinet, the parliament, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, foreign aid, overseas delegations including embassies and consulates; differences between the making of domestic policy and foreign policy; impact on Australian foreign policy of Australia’s near neighbours, including relations with regional leaders; impact on Australian foreign policy of factors such as domestic politics, human rights, refugees, international opinion, international conflict, trade and economic blocs.

define and use key concepts relating to foreign policy; explain and synthesise foreign policy objectives; analyse and compare policy processes; evaluate challenges to foreign policy; access, interpret and draw conclusions from information gathered from print and electronic sources.

Key knowledge
• the historical background to AFP;
• the issue of security and alliance relationships;
• the economic dimension of foreign policy;
• the role of internationalism in AFP;
• the debate about national interest;
• regional relationships;
• recent changes in orientation & goals of AFP
Key skills
• analyse ideas and debates about national interest in AFP
• recognise tensions that have developed in AFP
• analyse the relative importance of factors that have contributed to the development of AFP;
• define key terms and use relevant concepts.

1.Threat mentality (note change from past exaggerated threat perception to a more rational threat perception)
2. Vulnerability assumptionsfeelings among A that we are at risk
3. Regional suspicion –we’re suspicious of the region; the region is suspicious of Australia.
4. Dependence assumptions – need for a strong and powerful alliance with a major western power

Traditional foreign policy
* Exaggerated threat mentality vulnerability
New foreign policy
* Rational threat mentality
No direct immediate threat
* regional fears & vulnerability
* Dependence
Policies
* strong ties to Europe
* US alliance
* isolation in Asia
* regional security through reliance on Western power
* forward defence
* economic ties with Europe
* Aust. can operate in the region by itself
* greater independence
Policies
* engagement with Asia
* defence self reliance
* regional independence assertion of power in Pacific
* US alliance more global
* regional trade
* human rights etc

Basic acceptance by both parties of its main elements: rational threat perception engagement in Asia still use for the US alliance
In effect
(i) general elite bipartisanship – both major parties share these modern views
(ii) some popular disensus – Hansonsism and One
Nation?
A small remnant of the population – tied to old atavistic foreign policy – we’re vulnerable

-
Basic elements mainland security; border protection; control of key strategic zones
-
-
-
-
-
Policies & aspects defence self reliance - adequate defence forces for detection, deterrence and direct mainland defence;
Strategic surveillance – Cocos and Christmas Islands – for Indian Ocean surveillance
Strong intelligence networks – advance knowledge of
‘threats’ maintain stability in key strategic zones –’Island Screen’ modern technological military equipment
Deterrence through collective security pacts – ANZUS
Strong regional diplomatic ties to detect or prevent
‘problems – terrorists, ‘asylum seekers’

-
-
-
-
Basic Elements
stability in SW Pacific; South East Asia; Asia generally
-
-
Policies and Aspects: military capability intervene without sacrificing direct defence – naval power projection - Fiji; Solomons etc
Strong influence (aid & diplomacy) on vulnerable micro states in SW Pacific, and PNG – significant aid to PNG; control of Pacific Forum;
Strong and positive regional ties with neighbours – Indonesia
SEA nations.
Sufficient force projection to deter, counter-attack any potential regional attack
‘ Howard Doctrine ’ – Australia to act to provide regional stability as ‘deputy’ to the US

Basic Elements : maintain peaceful core global relationships esp. with core allies
-
Policies & Aspects:
(i)
(ii)
US alliance A. tied to US global positions core socio-cultural assumptions – democracy etc. defence ties - equipment, intelligence, training
-
(iii) expectation of ANZUS - Aust. defence if required
‘Traditional’ support for US wars - Korea Vietnam wars; Gulf war 1 1990; Iraq; Afghanistan
Strengthened under Howard govt.: invocation of
ANZUS after Sept. 11; War on Terror
- anti- weapons of mass destruction – Nuclear non proliferation treaty (NNPT) ban on atmospheric testing etc: active in Chemical Weapons Treaty

1.
A’s wealth depends on exports and commodity prices
2.
Therefore reliance on
(i) exports - from Farm to Quarry.
- importance of export prices and access
(ii) energy sources – esp. oil directly & to trading partners
(iii) trade routes
2. Importance of neo-liberalist views (since early ’80s under
Hawke) – deregulation, and integration into global environment
(acceptance of Globalisation)
3. Preference for free marketsfew subsidies, tariffs and quotas
4. support for ‘Cairns group’ (1988), APEC, GATT (since 1947)
World Trade Organisation
- bilateral free trade agreements
5. Internal implications – internal economic policies should follow
– cut tariffs and subsidies – this has encouraged (i) unemployment (ii) de-industrialisation and (iii) movement of industry offshore (globalisation)

-
-
-
Basic Elements:
Being, and being seen to be, Good International Citizens
(Gareth Evans) with regard to terrorism; narcotics; international crime; AIDS; refugees, slavery; piracy, climate change,
UN human rights and democracy; WMD
Policies & Aspects: international agreements over – narcotics, AIDs, refugees, international crime, the environment, weapons of mass destruction; piracy, slavery etc
Support for the UN and other multilateral international organisations
Advocacy of democracy, individualism and human rights

Both major parties agree about the main national interests/objectives
But there are differences
(i) within each party
(ii) of emphasis between parties

Some exceptions to bipartisanship:
(a) left idealists – higher priority on
‘idealism’ – internationalism less emphasis on pragmatic realities
(b) right wing xenophobes – Hanson etc – emphasis is on preserving older national identity (1950s racism and xenophobia – anti-multiculturalism and pro White
Australia)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
US alliance – loss of sovereignty
US alliance – Nature of ANZUS and defence guarantee
Cost and benefits of the US alliance
US alliance conflict with regionalism?
US alliance and internationalism – loss of human rights in WOT

1.
Problem of defining the US alliance – is it just ANZUS?
Does ANZUS exist? (or is it ‘AUS’)
Or more than a simple treaty relationship
2. But differences:
ALP is more critical of aspects – loss of sovereignty; too locked into the US global security position; denies internationalist positions
Lib/National – believe in the totality of the whole alliance
– have to accept it all; can’t pick and choose

3. Difference is mainly one of priority
ALP – US alliance for direct defence; more reliance on independence and different regional positions
Lib/National – more inclined to threat perceptions and hence support alliance in total
4. US alliance is a delicate balance of cost – benefits (see accompanying notes)
5. Note the ‘ Howard Doctrine’ – a new form of A’s alignment with the US (see notes)

Is it slavish following of US policy as a puppet Reason?- get defence guarantee
(Does ANZUS guarantee A’s defence? No!)
OR
Similarity of viewpoints – coincidence of objectives?

Problem of Consistency between
(i) economic and security/alliance interests
US alliance and missile defence Pine Gap, containment of China, support for Taiwan, versus trade with China
(ii) Economic and human rights interests
(internationalism)
Trade with China and human rights (prodemocracy, capital punishment, Tibet, Uighers leader visit)

Extent of regionalism engagement to the point of engulfment?
(Howard’s criticism of Keating – obsession with region, to the detriment of broader issues) or simply limited pragmatic engagement for mutual problems – terrorism, Asylum seekers (Howard and Rudd/Gillard)