Australia Qs Australia: International Policy

Australia Qs

Australia: International Policy Questions

Australia's independence is a strength which has allowed it to balance its partnerships and commitments to such partners as the United States with its interest in establishing itself as a leader of affairs in its own region. This independence appears to be at stake in the membership it has sought in the U.N. Security Council. The compromises which it appears likely Austrlalia will be forced to make suggests that the sacrifice of its relatively unique latitude may not be worth the role. So suggests Robb (2008), who observed that "the Bucharest meeting has been a major setback for Australia and doesn't bode well for the price Australia may pay under Rudd to secure a temporary UN position. The Federal Opposition will not guarantee support for a bid by Australia to gain a seat unless, and until, the Government provides satisfactory assurances and answers on a range of issues critical to Australia." (Robb, 1)

2.

Based on Rudd's clear dedication to the process of globalization as a core of its international policy, it seems apparent that Australia's dedication to and influence within the G20 has the potential to be greater than that which it currently possesses in the United Nations. This seems to be the philosophical implication couched in Rudd's own remarks in an appearance on July of 2009, where he reported to the gathered members that "further, cooperation in the G20 has helped the world resist beggar thy neighbour policies in trade and finance. In Washington G20 leaders committed to a tariff standstill. While the WTO has identified some slippage, overall it reports that the international community is holding to this, thereby saving the world from a repeat of the tit-for-tat protectionism that choked off recovery in the 1930s." (Rudd, 1)

3.

Australia's capacity to register as a positive influence in its region should be considered its greatest priority. It is only thus that Australia may hope to preserve its own security, achieve lasting piece and use its dedication to the force of globalization by helping to raise up those developing nations which are impacted by poverty, disease and tyranny within its own region. This emphasis on regional engagement will make it a better global citizen and a more able partner to allies such as the U.S.

4.

The latter of the choices offered seems best to characterize the United States, which uses its unmatched nuclear authority in order to flex its proverbial muscle at the world table. Most particularly, its emphasis on nuclear non-proliferation only where it benefits its alignments, such as with North Korea, and its relative disinterest in the policies or ambitions of India and Israel suggests an inconsistency. Likewise, its use of its nuclear authority to enter into Iraq, and its withholding with North Korea suggest a selectivity which casts doubt on its true motives.

5.

A world without nuclear weapons is improbable at best. The presence of such technology and the increasing accessibility of the so-called 'nuclear secrets' that the U.S. And Soviet Union once guarded so jealously denotes that there is no credible way to eliminate the opportunity for acquisition where there is a will. Only by diminishing the desire for acquisition can we realistically consider removing the influence of nuclear weapons on the world. This is to say that the current American policy of using nuclear authority to control stockpiling is counterintuitive.

6.

There is genuinely no situation conceivable in which it could be seen as reasonable to employ nuclear weapons. Destabilization which is met by the deployment of nuclear weaponry will only prompt a total-annihilation circumstance in which such rogue nations as North Korea would be removed of their one motive for withholding from use of nuclear arms.

7.

At present, it must be seen as justifiable to use nuclear strategies as a way of achieving political objectives. Indeed, this is the circumstance which the U.S. has prompted by engaging the global community on its own terms. Its own nuclear posturing and its dominant status in global affairs denote that other nations are both likely to and categorically entitled to demonstrate their own intentions according to available nuclear weaponry.

8.

Australia's policies suggest a less extreme approach to nuclear proliferation than the United States, with the extent of its involvement typically taking the form of non-proliferation advocacy but rarely even venturing into the type of language or posture demonstrated by its ally. This is why a focus on encouraging non-proliferation through leadership in peace throughout its region is its best chance at achieving balance.