Our chosen national heroes are the young men who died fighting for King and Empire on the coast of the Ottoman Empire in 1915. When will our focus shift to the many thousands of indigenous men and women who died fighting for their kin, their customs and their country all over the continent for well over a hundred years?
The tumult of the moment has led to much discussion about the future of the American alliance. While there are many voices the scripts remain much the same, seemingly impervious to ambient uncertainty. There is, indeed, more incantation than inquiry. Two recent comments illustrate this observation. In the Guardian Kevin Rudd declared that,’ Australia must not-and will not walk away from the U.S. alliance that has been the bedrock of Australian foreign policy since the Second World War.’ What is more ANZUS ‘remains overwhelmingly in Australia’s national interest.’ Professor Simon Jackman from the Sydney University American Studies Centre agreed, remarking that ‘Australia’s alliance with the U.S. remains an inviolable element of foreign policy.’ The choice of words was telling. ‘Inviolable’ embodies intimations of sacred writ which must not be profaned or questioned.
The arguments in support of ANZUS are well known. It has kept us secure for seventy years and provided the conditions which have enabled Australia to flourish. There are ritual references to our access to advanced weaponry and to five eyes intelligence. But that doesn’t take us very far. What have we done with them? The overbearing reality is that they have enabled us to fight America’s enemies , to go to war in places chosen for us against people who could never have presented a threat to continental Australia. It is true that the alliance has probably made many Australians feel secure and official rhetoric has assiduously nurtured this sense of dependence and cosy conformity.
But the big questions are rarely asked and almost never answered. Feeling secure for seventy years is all very well but it has nurtured an atmosphere of intellectual inertness among the security and defence establishment. But whether the alliance has made us more secure than we would have been without it is never considered. It is still an open question.But one thing is certain. The alliance has not kept us out of wars. We have been involved in them for just over half the time since ANZUS was signed. We have been at war in the Middle East for the last 20 years. Just over 900 Australians have been killed and many more injured. We have spent billions of dollars in the process. Was the loss of life and treasure really justifiable? Or is there an instinctive reaction which implies that going to war overseas is what Australians do and they are good at it? What is never discussed is the death and destruction left behind by the Australians, those hundreds of devastated families which was the lasting legacy of our aggression.
Has any of this made us more secure? It seems doubtful but as there has never been a serious and publicly available cost/benefit analysis who can tell? But an even bigger question is what exactly has the Alliance protected us from? Which country in all those seventy years presented a threat to the homeland….the North Koreans, the Viet Cong, the Taliban, the Baarth Socialists in Iraq and Syria? Islamic extremists would in all likelihood have shown little interest in Australia if we hadn’t sent our soldiers, ships and aircraft into the maelstrom of the Middle East .We led with our chin.
It surely should be a necessary exercise to consider what would have been our fate if we hadn’t begged the Americans for a treaty in unnecessary fear about a resurgent and militaristic Japan? Presumably we might have kept out of all these war. Would anyone have threatened us even once in seventy years? Did we have any enemies with either the desire or the capacity to endanger us?
Once we follow this line of argument we arrive in a very different place. It is not our diplomacy that has made us secure it is our geography. It is not our proximity to great and powerful friends but our size and location. We have no land borders, no traditional enemies, no neighbours harbouring irredentist claims. An island continent we are far too big to invade and occupy. The so called empty north which worried generations of our politicians was clearly a great strategic asset. A great power might have had the capacity to launch the vast Armada which would be required to conquer Australia but what possible reason would they have to do so? And how could the continent be occupied and held down by a hostile enemy? The eventuality is so improbable that it is scarcely worth considering. That leaves us with the strange paradox of a country that is inherently, even uniquely secure, that finds it necessary to constantly engage in warfare and what is more to appear to be proud of our uncalled for belligerence. In fact the security of the homeland has been a necessary condition allowing Australia to persist since the start of the C20th with the tradition of the expeditionary force.
In the 1950’s the opportunity emerged for Australia to detach itself from the disintegrating British Empire and for the first time to strike out alone. That would have provided us with the occasion to develop plans for continental defence and to make as many of the weapons required ourselves. It would not have been more costly than our feckless overseas adventures. And of even greater importance was that while we might not be able to predict when a realistic threat to our security might emerge we would ,at least, know where we would be fighting. The American alliance means we can never be sure where our next war might be. We don’t get to choose which enemy we might next be asked to kill.
But we are dealing here with older and deeper currents of thought. Australia took a wrong turn on the eve of federation when it chose to cleave to Empire rather than to Nation. The country had all the attributes necessary for successful, independent nationhood, more abundantly than many of the then existing sovereign states. It was able to defend itself from any foreseeable threats to its security. But the choice was made in favour of the Empire and the Crown over loyalty based on place and an overriding commitment to the continent itself. Over sixty thousand young men died between 1914 and 1918 on overseas battlegrounds as a result. And that pattern of behaviour has remained with us. Rather than developing a patriotism rooted in the soil we have continued to identify with larger collectives. It was the British Empire and all the King’s men , the White Race then the’ Free World’ and ‘the West’ and now America’s informal, entangling Empire.
Perhaps this was an inevitable outcome for an immigrant society where loyalty to the old world was more compelling than deep commitment to the adopted homeland. The soft power of the great Empires has been hard to resist. But our reluctance to cut our ties with the British monarchy or even fly a flag of our own is symptomatic of our inability to finally put the colonial past behind us. So too is the whole pattern of our relationship with the First Nations. Our chosen national heroes are the young men who died fighting for King and Empire on the coast of the Ottoman Empire in 1915. When will our focus shift to the many thousands of indigenous men and women who died fighting for their kin, their customs and their country all over the continent for well over a hundred years? Only then will we have national heroes who were patriots in the precise meaning of that word, men and women whose exclusive loyalty was to the land on which they stood.
Henry Reynolds is an eminent Australian historian.
Comments
20 responses to “The American Alliance: More incantation than inquiry.”
Nice one Henry.
Even now, in some responses to your article, the desire to remain in the pocket of the USA, a moribund and failing state, is overwhelming.
The Centre for American Studies, headed by Professor Jackman, is funded, at least in part, by the Australian Government, Northrop Grumman and Thales, none of whom are known for altruistic motives.
Self interest rule,OK.
For thousands of years the Indigenous peoples, most likely who came to the Australian continent during the last major Glacial Period which lowered sea levels to our north. They lived in a landscape much wetter and cooler than today. Protected by the vastness of the land and the increasing harshness of its geography as the climate dried out and became hotter, they adapted to their environment . People from present day Indonesia and P.N.G.traded with the northern clans and that trade may have extended further southwards.The fact that these traders did not invade the continent would indicate they saw no reason to do so. Compared to their homelands, Australia was a very hostile environment. The early European explorers like Hartog, Dampier and others, came saw and reported back to their masters that there was nothing of economic value. James Cook explored the wetter East Coast, but unlike Banks, was not convinced it merited further attention. It was Joseph Banks who responded positively to the problem posed when the American colonies revolted against being a dumping ground for the ‘lower classes’ of English society and the Irish rebels. Answer? Invade Australia!
Since 1788 no one has thought of invading Australia, even the Japanese realized how impracticable such a campaign would be .
Our problem is that we are a white nation in a sea of Asian cultures and ancient civilizations.We have never felt safe or comfortable here and always seek assurances from our former white colonial master or now; “our great and powerful friends”. It is time we cut the ties and asserted our own maturity as a Nation.
“Has any of this made us more secure? It seems doubtful but as there has never been a serious and publicly available cost/benefit analysis who can tell? ”
The need for a serious cost/benefit analysis is made absolutely clear by Mr Reynolds.
An opportunity for making such an analysis is presented by the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network’s proposed “People’s Inquiry” – indeed, this is the inquiry’s precise intention. See https://ipan.org.au/the-ipan-inquiry/
“A great power might have had the capacity to launch the vast Armada which would be required to conquer Australia but what possible reason would they have to do so? And how could the continent be occupied and held down by a hostile enemy? The eventuality is so improbable that it is scarcely worth considering.”
A great power has already shown that it can launch a small Armada to conquer a continent. It did do so in 1788 with a mere 2 naval ships and 9 others. The absurd reason was to send its felons to a place where they would be out of sight, out of mind and to see if they could expand its empire. They had technology and ideology that was beyond the comprehension of the indigenous locals. It took less than 100 years for the hostile enemy to conquer a land that had been settled for 60,000 years by a people who were content with their way of life but which the hostile overseas enemy saw as slothful and not sufficiently exploitative of the land. The 1,000,000 indigenous locals were outnumbered 13-1 by the foreign islanders who felt that this new continent was terra nullius. A ratio much less than the ratio of the current Australian population and the populations to our near north.
The notion of a truly independent Australia is a great idea, but one part of his argument is perhaps somewhat flawed.
“Feeling secure for seventy years is all very well but it has nurtured an atmosphere of intellectual inertness among the security and defence establishment.”
In my experience there is a considerable truth in this statement. But reluctant as I am to suggest that Henry is being a touch anachronistic, it is not right to impose today’s strategic situation into the past.
When Menzies and Spender entered ANZUS there was an overwhelming and rational perception that communism was a real and encroaching threat. It was a good strategic move.
Now however the world has changed, and that change has become increasingly clear since the fall of the Soviet Union. An assertive China represents an entirely different challenge and the US is a declining, directionless hegemon unable to deal with the new circumstances.
I strongly believe Australia should detach itself from the US security teat and find the strategic autonomy that will enable it to navigate the coming complexity. But there was a time when the US alliance helped Australians sleep more soundly.
Australia has toadied to every US finger-snap (excluding South America) since Korea. Every US finger-snap legitimises US foreign policy regardless of Australian interests and almost all, have no exit strategy meaning war without end until they tire of the continued losses and, like Vietnam, bug-out.
Good old Henry; always enjoy your softly, softly persuasive argument. Thanks
“But the big questions are rarely asked and almost never answered. Feeling secure for seventy years is all very well but it has nurtured an atmosphere of intellectual inertness among the security and defence establishment. But whether the alliance has made us more secure than we would have been without it is never considered. It is still an open question.But one thing is certain. The alliance has not kept us out of wars. We have been involved in them for just over half the time since ANZUS was signed. We have been at war in the Middle East for the last 20 years. Just over 900 Australians have been killed and many more injured. We have spent billions of dollars in the process. Was the loss of life and treasure really justifiable? Or is there an instinctive reaction which implies that going to war overseas is what Australians do and they are good at it? What is never discussed is the death and destruction left behind by the Australians, those hundreds of devastated families which was the lasting legacy of our aggression.”
And those millions of souls who died from the wars overseas are still seeking justice in heaven and earth from us too.
This question should be answered by many Australians of non British migrant backgrounds as well, the Asians, the Europeans, migrants from over 200 different nations apart from UK and USA, and with our indigenous populations all of which would add up to probably more than 50% of our population? If not now it will be soon.
It is time to call for an independent republic again while Paul Keating’s spirit is still around. His unfinished job awaiting us to finish with him and those of Whitlam, Fraser, Bob Hawke, Rudd, Gillard and Turnbull. We have the brains to do it. We just have to find a suitable model for it. I have one on the table. Cut tie with British Empire. Instead of selecting our Governor General and Governors as usual but we turn them into Federal Head of Australia and Lieutenant Heads of States. It is a peaceful transaction for our Federal and State Parliaments to work on and with the help from our think tanks from our community leaders in all walks of life.
I am confident that it is not an impossible task. Modern Australia has the best and most successful social multicultural policies that bind us solidly together. With some goodwill and determination of good old Aussie fair-go spirit like many of our brilliant writers here have advocated, we can and we will do it together one day. All Aussies will be smiling when the day arrives.
I’m sorry Doc, but I’m starting to seriously believe your day job is as a journalist with the Global Times.
Walking away from the US into a Chinese embrace is not a solution for us, going from one very conflicted relationship to another.
I’m somewhat perplexed how this site is more than willing to hold the US to account for its behaviour, will ignoring China’s.
You are most welcome to list what’s wrong with relationship with China for a proper independent debate like many brainier writers in P&I. have done so. Their argument may be even sharper than me for you.
Don’t be personal. I am as Aussie as you wish to be and no Global Times bit.
I was on the National ARM Committee for few years, mate.
I am currently sitting on the National Council of Medical Association for Prevention of War. That is where I am coming from too.
Hope you learn something.
Regards
Doc,
For starters, 80% tariffs on barley, banning of beef exporters, threats made re students and tourists, wine and other exports, an exceedingly disrespectful Chinese ambassador making public remarks about his host country, which if they were made by an Australian ambassador would result in their being carpeted, hostile propaganda from the CCP mouth piece (GT). The list goes on.
Threats made from serving Generals re Taiwan, behaviour towards India while supposedly in the process of deescalating border tensions, behaviour in the SCS towards its neighbours, the treatment of China’s own small ethnic groups, Tibet. The list goes on.
I’m sorry, but you come across as a propagandist for China. I have no love of following the US into every goddam war they get into, but the idea that China is sweet innocence just doesn’t stand up.
If you are interested in how someone will treat you, just watch how they treat others.
Dennis
I am not here to defend China and you can have your opinion. We can argue to the cow comes home on the issues you have raised on China. The issues you have raised have been discussed by many wise writers before me in P&I.
I am here to promote mutual understandings between the two peoples and governments. Obviously you are only thinking of all the bad things about Chinese Government and all the right things about Australian Government. I can’t blame you for that.
But please don’t point your finger at me as propagandist for China unless you are so ignorant of debating rules. The next you may imagine I am your enemy or spy for China.
The facts are both sides have made mistakes and there seems to be a breakdown in communications for various reasons which we won’t debate here.
Please read my reply to Ambassador Dennis Argall below as well and you will realise I am being constructive and try to mend the current poor Australia and China Relations.
I think plenty of media are already “holding China to account”.
Perhaps P&I could instead usefully explore how Australia can engage with both the US and China to create a world order which: (i) benefits all nations, not just Western; (ii) addresses climate change and the threat to biodiversity; and (iii) end the international refugee crisis.
Kien,
I don’t agree with your reasoning about the lack of holding China to account here. That a large majority of the media coverage of China is overly distorted is not an excuse to ignore China’s short comings, to do so diminishes what is published here as the site appears to be biased.
‘Unthinking custom and practice’ (https://ethics.org.au/the-role-of-the-ethical-leader-in-an-accelerating-world/) is one of the most dangerous threats to a society. Our alliance with the US is one of these unthinking customs and practices that our leadership holds dear.
The alliance with the US may have kept us safe since WWII (noting as Henry does that the alliance has kept us safe from a realistically non-existent threat). However the accelerating decline of a deluded superpower (https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2020/06/07/the-deluded-superpower/) increasingly suggests that we will be on the wrong side of history as the ascendancy of global power transitions from west to east. Australia risks being sucked into the vortex of the United States’ demise and all that this will entail; a largely avoidable situation if we had an independent foreign policy.
The fact that prominent people are having to defend the alliance is actually a very good thing. It means that the alliance is being questioned which is a prerequisite for a much needed change in foreign policy.
Surely there was something inherently racist in the ANZUS treaty to begin with. In 1951 the white Australia policy was still in force, and the US Civil Rights movement was still in the future. I suspect it was seen in Australia as uniting us with other “white” countries against the “coloureds”.
In any case, against whom does ANZUS protect us? If, for example, Indonesia had ever tried to invade Australia, do we seriously think that the Americans would have declared war on Indonesia because of ANZUS and because they love us so much?
We demanded ANZUS as price for signing the peace treaty with Japan. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0955580032000124790
Further back, Australia successfully opposed a clause in the covenant establishing the League of Nations providing for racial equality, proposed by Japan. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20028469?seq=1
The White Australia Policy was a major factor in federation of the Australian colonies.
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=histpubs
This is an account of the difficult history of Chinese in Australia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chinese_Australians
In 1984, setting out for China as ambassador, I called on Chinese community leaders in Sydney and Melbourne. They said I was the first ambassador to do so. In presenting credentials to President Li Xiannian in Beijing I offered the view that the future of the relationship depended on connection and goodwill between our peoples.
With my background of Chinese history and frequent visits to China, last thirty years of opening exchanges with the West and the world , I believe current Chinese leaders have realised that they have made so much mistakes and their people have suffered lots with their early experimentation with “communism”. I was in China last October and everywhere I went in Beijing there were slogans preaching to their people about the values of democracy; equality; justice and rules of laws and all the good virtue of humanity etc. No different from what we are preaching here anymore. However we cannot expect them to change overnight. They are still in the process of experimenting various governance issues as much as I know from my contact and successfully otherwise they would not have achieved so much in such a short time in human history.
Ambassador Dennis Argall was wise to build a productive relationship depended on connection and goodwill between our two peoples. Until recently, Australia has one of the best, successful, productive, mutually respectable China Relationship among the world nations.
I sincerely hope that we can amend it asap and maintain our flourishing trade with China as part of our national economic security i.e. preserving jobs and prosperity for Australian people. Best wishes.
I have written a number of essays on the need for us to make fundamental changes in our strategic perspective.
https://publish.pearlsandirritations.com/?s=argall
…arguing not least that a useful security policy needs to based on building a country worth securing. This is no longer a deckchair and zinc cream task.
A number of others have emphasised the climate issue.
But before all other things, Black Lives Matter. It’s not a side issue, it’s an obstacle to moving forward.
Professor Reynolds has laid out politely. I am of the view that mentally we can’t turn a corner to independent thought until we stop walling off things unpleasant, until we accept that like every other place we have some disgraceful history.
As a first symbolic step, the Australian War Memorial needs directive to cover domestic wars. Some may say they were not wars. Thus hides bigotry and ritual and hero obsession, and truth. The Boer War was a police action; there was much muddle during the Vietnam War because the Australian defence definitions described limited war in a certain way and so the Vietnam War was officially labelled “conditions short of limited war”. I label the Afghanistan as “folly persistent with policy stolen by war machine” and Iraq and subsequent things as “illegal invasion and accessory to illegal killing”.
We have to stop the bad things we habitually do and admit to them, and make them part of our history… as of course we have to end the somewhat creationist nonsense that Australian history began in 1770.
I agree Henry and Denis, this is surely the time to have the Australian War Memorial pay a fitting tribute to the patriots – great choice of word Henry – who died on Australian soil, fighting for their land.
I respectfully suggest there is zero chance of the present Federal Government amending the Memorial’s governing legislation to achieve anything like “…a fitting tribute to the patriots…”, much as I would like to see this done.