Außereuropäische Geschichte

  / aventinus / Varia / Außereuropäische Geschichte

aventinus varia Nr. 37 [19.12.2012] 

 

Stefanie Land-Hilbert 

Realism and Idealism in Post-Cold War Australian Foreign Policy, 1989-2001

 

1. Introduction 

The end of the Cold War marked a period of change in Australian foreign policy. As the bipolar world order collapsed, an era of marked stability in international power relations came to an end. In the new world order, Australia had yet to define what role it should take in the international sphere. Along with the redefinition of Australia’s role in the world, Australian foreign policy makers were facing the question of what actions Australia should pursue and what strategies it should adopt to best serve the ‘national interest.’ 

Previously, approaches to foreign policy by both foreign policy decision makers and scholars of international relations had been dominated by realism. From a realist point of view, a state’s overriding concerns are security and power. Determined by these concerns, a state’s preferences are seen as fixed. In the age of Cold War rivalry, in which super- as well as middle-powers were constantly afraid for their own power position, and security, realism appeared as an adequate model for explaining the rationale of foreign policy decision-making. 

However, with a new global political climate emerging, realism lost much of its absoluteness. Idealism and at a theoretical level Constructivism became realism’s major challengers. Idealism emphasises the normative character of state actions. From an idealist perspective, a country’s foreign policy must not only focus on strategic alignment, but also take moral concerns into consideration.  

As former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, who served the governments under Prime Ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating in the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in the 1990s (from 1988 to 1991 and 1991 to 1996, respectively), pointed out, “Being the size and weight that we are, it is in Australia’s national interest that the world should be governed by principles of justice, equality, talent, and achievement, rather than status and power.” [1] Australia, he continues, “should make no apology for raising human rights and related issues, and expecting others to acknowledge the integrity of our values, such as freedom of the media.” [2] Evans’s statement in arguing for a value-oriented foreign policy draws attention to the different possible interpretations of what is in Australia’s national interest.

This paper deals with how diverging interpretations of Australia’s national interest were derived from realist and idealist perspectives that shaped the country’s foreign policy between 1989 and 2001. It argues that one can detect a tendency in the two Labor governments to emphasise the importance of norms and values in foreign policy decision-making, whereas the Liberal-National Coalition government unequivocally viewed pragmatic self-interest as the foremost foreign policy priority. Yet it would be oversimplified to equate the Labor Party’s approach to foreign policy with idealism and that of the Liberal and National parties with realism. Despite the fact that idealist objections tended to prevail more often under Hawke and Keating than under the leadership of Prime Minister John Howard, idealist as well as realist viewpoints played a role in the decision-making processes of both governments when approaching foreign policy issues. 

As idealist and realist imperatives for foreign policy decisions often conflict, foreign policy makers must ultimately decide which of Australia’s interests should be given priority. Hence, a tension derives from the attempt to include idealist and realist agendas. In order to demonstrate how this tension has significantly shaped Australian foreign policy of the 1990s, I shall first very briefly introduce the theories of Realism and Constructivism, as applied in International Relations (IR). These theoretical approaches aid our understanding of the concepts of realism and idealism as outlooks for political practice: they show how the worldviews underlying each of these theories give rise to particular prioritisation in the decision-making of policy makers. Further, I will clarify the idea of the ‘national interest’, which is essential for understanding the possible conflicts that arise from viewing state priorities from idealist and realist perspectives.

The main part of this paper focuses on the Hawke and Keating governments’ foreign policy agendas and explores how they favoured either idealism or realism. I will contrast these agendas with the Howard government agenda between 1996 and 2001. Debates emerging from conflict arising between value-based and pragmatic Australian interests, such as acting as a ‘good international citizen’ and strengthening Australia’s foreign trade, will be given particular attention.

2. Definition of Terms 

2.1. Realism and Constructivism as International Relations Theories 

The purpose of IR theories is to conceptualise the international system in order to grasp why states and other actors behave in certain ways. IR theories help to explain what influences foreign policy, and thus they not only allow scholars to make predictions about future foreign policy decisions and transformations of the international system but also provide tools for analysing foreign policy decisions of the past. [3]

2.1.1. Realism  

As the oldest of IR theories, its origins dating back to ancient history, Realism has been defined, shaped, and reformulated by different scholars over millennia, which makes it particularly difficult to give a common definition. [4] What unifies Realist theories, however, is their focus on the contentious rivalry of “geographically-based groups” [5] (mostly states since at least the seventeenth century) over power and security. [6] States are generally viewed as the central actors of the international system and are defined as sovereign and functionally identical units. Realism assumes that due to the absence of a superior power that sanctions state behaviour, or of a hierarchical order of the international system, states constantly fear for their own power position and security. Within this anarchical international system, states are forced to help and defend themselves. Realism is based upon the logic of rational choice: states make their decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis of possible actions and are constantly trying to maximise their benefit. In conclusion, Realism views the state as a unitary actor, a ‘black box’ with fixed preferences whose actions are primarily shaped by the ‘global political climate.’

2.1.2. Constructivism 

After the Cold War, Constructivism emerged as a “major challenger of [rationalism].” [7] It is questionable whether Constructivism can be classified as a theory, given that it evolved as a meta-theoretical concept. [8] As such, it cannot provide concrete predictions about a state’s foreign policy. However, the insights it offers are particularly valuable because Constructivism can explain ‘irrational’ state behaviour. [9] Influenced by developments in the disciplines of Sociology and Cultural Studies, [10] constructivists, according to Ole E. Holsti, “seek to expand rather than undermine the purview of other theoretical perspectives” [11] and draw attention to the fact that the environment in which states act is “both material and social.” [12]

In contrast to Realism, Constructivism is not based on the logic of rationality, but on the logic of adequacy: [13] It regards national interests as socially constructed and alterable, [14] and sees foreign policy as norm-driven. In Constructivism, norms are defined as expectations of behaviour which are “intersubjectively shared, value-based”, [15] and internalised by socialisation. Thus, norms not only regulate an actor’s behaviour but also have a constitutive function, shaping self-conception in relation to others and thereby allowing social interaction. [16]

Norms that shape a state’s foreign policy exist both at the societal level and in the international sphere. Whereas ‘societal constructivism’ regards norms within a society to be most significant, ‘transnational constructivism’ stresses the importance of international norms. [17] Among the parameters of important societal norms are the constitution of a state, its legal order and legal system, as well as parliamentary debates and party programmes. [18] On the international level, norms manifest in international law, international treaties, and human rights. [19]

2.2. What is Australia’s ‘National Interest’? 

The question of where Australia’s national interest lies is not easy to answer. Although some politicians have argued that the ‘national interest’ is permanent, and thus “does not change with a change of government,” [20] the debates both among Australian policy makers and in the scientific community reveal that the concept is in fact far from being undisputed. [21]

In general, ‘national interest’ can be said to stand for the “common good of a society […] to which all foreign policy must ultimately be oriented.” [22] However, what is seen as a society’s common good and which foreign policy should thus be carried out to serve it is highly subjective. [23] The interpretation of Australia’s ‘national interest’, therefore, is political in itself. [24]

The very claim that the national interest does not change with a change of government, as proclaimed by the authors of the 1997 Foreign Policy White Paper, suggests a particular interpretation of the nature of state priorities: viewing ‘national interest’ as fixed reveals a realist assumption of a state’s natural interest that derives from its geopolitical position – its location, military power, size, etc. [25] However, contrasting interpretations are possible. This becomes clear when looking at how realism and idealism have influenced the making of Australian foreign policy in the 1990s.

2.3. The Concepts of Realism and Idealism in Australian Foreign Policy Making  

Similar to how theorists have long interpreted Australia’s foreign policy within a realist framework, decision makers have viewed Australia’s foreign policy objectives primarily through a realist lens. [26] In practical foreign policy making, realism stands for a policy approach that is based around a state’s pragmatic self-interest. This includes a state’s national security, its power position, and its economic well-being.

Particularly in the period after the Cold War, however, other national objectives gained prominence. These objectives can best be explained using Constructivist theory and as a practical policy approach are comprised under the term ‘idealism.’ Idealist foreign policy takes ethical considerations: it is value-oriented and aims to promote ideals. Among these ideals are cooperation, peace, environmental sustainability, equal opportunity, and human rights. According to idealist principles, Australia should strive to act as a ‘good international citizen.’ [27]

3. Idealism and Realism in the Labor Government’s Foreign Policy Agendas 1989–1996  

Under the Prime Ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Gareth Evans, Australia’s ‘national interest’ rested on three pillars: (1) global and regional security, (2) economic prosperity, and (3) “being, and being seen to be, a good international citizen.” [28]

On the one hand, this understanding of the national interest shows that idealism played a key role for the two Labor governments. The Hawke and Keating governments worked to institutionalise norms through multilateral institutions and treaties in various foreign policy areas. [29] Evans kept with H.V. Evatt’s tradition in aiming to reform the UN and make it a less power-oriented institution, calling instead for an improvement of peacekeeping and peace-making strategies. [30] Between 1989 and 1996, Australia was involved in approximately twenty peacekeeping missions worldwide, with Australian personnel supporting UN missions in Iran and Iraq, the Western Sahara, Cambodia, Somalia, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and Bougainville. [31]

Environmental issues such as global warming were also tackled in the form of multilateral treaty obligations. [32] In 1989, the Hawke government ratified the Declaration of The Hague that called for a convention on climate change, and three years later, Keating signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) that aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [33] In a coalition with France, Australia advocated against the exploitation of mineral resources in the Antarctic. [34] These examples demonstrate that living up to the role as a ‘good international citizen’ was an important objective for both Labor governments.

On the other hand, however, Evans’s statement, in emphasising the importance of Australia’s security and economic prosperity, also demonstrates that Labor’s foreign policy approach was far from driven by idealism alone. Evans points out that there need not be a conflict between realist and idealist objectives: “An international reputation as a good citizen,” Evans says, “tends to enhance any country’s overall standing in the world and will at times prove helpful in pursuing other international interests, including commercial ones.” [35] In this way, idealism can, in Evans’s view, ultimately serve realist ends.

However, what becomes clear when looking at the set of foreign policies that the Hawke and Keating governments are probably best remembered for, namely their focus on establishing closer ties with Australia’s Asian neighbours and further economic cooperation in the region, [36] is that idealist and realist imperatives will sometimes sharply contradict one another. A conflict arose around the attempt to implement human right policies while entertaining good relations with regional partners.

As Lorraine Elliott outlines, Labor rhetoric for recognition of universal human rights was strong. Evans not only called for the anchoring of human rights in an international human rights court, but also claimed that Australia was among the most active countries to address human rights issues in bilateral representation. [37] However, the Labor governments did not always live up to their idealist vision. [38]

In the case of Bougainville, for example, Labor governments lent military support to the government of Papua New Guinean so it could continue imposing colonial rule over the territory, [39] and they were slow to react to human rights abuses in the area. [40] Labor governments also long overlooked Indonesia’s colonialism and killing in East Timor. [41] Trade relations with China, despite considerable human rights violations in the country, were upheld; yet one must take into account that Evans addressed these violations in bilateral dialogue. [42] In all these cases, governments generally favoured realpolitik over idealism, policy objectives of security and economy over ‘good international citizenship.’

When Labor governments had to rank the goals of living up to the role of a ‘good international citizen’ and promote human rights over economic prosperity and national security, they have, despite the ALP’s idealist rhetoric, often decided in favour of the latter. [43] Prime Minister Keating outlined in his book Engagement in 2000 that, “however unattractive or dissembling it seems to the human rights absolutists, relations between governments involve other interests and often require messy, complex, and incomplete trade-offs.” [44] The approach both Labor governments adopted between 1989 and 1996 could thus be best described as ‘idealist pragmatism.’ [45] They did take ethical questions under consideration, yet balanced them against economic and security interests.

4. Idealism and Realism under the Howard Government, 1996–2001 

After Labor was swept from office by a coalition of the Liberal and the National Parties in 1996, the foreign policy agenda under Prime Minister John Howard and Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer was markedly different from that of their predecessors. Labor’s multilateral approach was replaced by Liberal-National’s bilateralism and Keating’s ‘big picture’ by Howard’s narrower look at Australia’s national self-interest. A foreign policy agenda in which idealism played a key role was contrasted with a proclaimed realist agenda in which idealist objectives became far less important.

The Howard government’s approach was spelled out in the 1997 White Paper titled In the National Interest. [46] In it, the government rejected an idealist outlook for Australia’s foreign affairs, stating that “preparing for the future is not a matter of grand constructs.” [47] Instead, it was conceived to be “about the hard-headed pursuit of the interests which lie at the core of foreign and trade policy.” [48] Similar rhetoric was used in the coalition election manifesto, which stated, “We do not subscribe to unrealistic notions of global idealism. Foreign policy must be pursued with a realistic perspective on how to advance Australia’s security and economic interests,” [49] and, in a 2000 speech, Downer proclaimed that “Australian foreign policy must be based not on dreamy idealism, but on a clear-headed understanding of the power structures of the Asia-Pacific region.” [50]

In many policy areas, the Howard government’s approach demonstrated that being a ‘good international citizen’ was not one of its primary concerns. For instance, with the Kyoto Conference on climate change approaching, the White Paper stated that “International environment negotiations are an example of the importance of ensuring that Australia’s objectives are closely aligned to its national interests. […] Australia will […] have to be prepared for tough negotiations and the possibility that the government may need to stand aside from an international agreement if it does not adequately protect Australia’s national interests.” [51]

Australia’s national interests, in the White Paper, are defined as involving “the security of the Australian nation and the jobs and the standard of living of the Australian people.” [52] As one way of ensuring a high standard of living through economic strength, the Howard government emphasised the pragmatic character of relations with its Asian trading partners. Downer made clear that, because of its different heritage and dissimilar value systems, Australia did not share a cultural or emotional regionalism, but did value its close economic (and security) ties with the nations of Asia. [53]

The Tampa incident of 2011 became symbolic of the Howard government’s tendency to prioritise “a narrow, domestically influenced construction of what the national interest might be” [54] concerning human rights and international treaty obligations. [55] When, during the run-up to the federal election and shortly before the attacks of  9/11, a ship bound for Australia with more than 400 asylum seekers on board was distressed at sea and rescued by the Norwegian freighter Tampa, Australia denied the freighter permission to disembark the asylum seekers on Australian territory. Instead, Australian Special Forces (SAS) boarded the ship when it entered Australian waters, and the Australian government sealed a million-dollar deal with the Pacific island of Nauru to place the asylum seekers in detention centres there while their claims for refugee status were considered – thus preventing them from making their claims onshore in Australia. Whereas the so-called Pacific Solution was met with international criticism on the grounds of violations of human rights and international law, it had many supporters domestically.  Katharine Gelber notes that polls indicate that the majority of Australians supported the decision to refuse these asylum seekers entry to Australia [56] – a decision that was accompanied by Prime Minister Howard’s now-famous statement that “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.” [57] The Liberal-National Coalition won the subsequent federal election of November 2001, heralding Howard’s third term as Prime Minister.

One must note, however, that norms and values for the Howard government were not unimportant. This crystallised, for example, in Australia’s military intervention in East Timor under UN mandate in 1999. After years of Australia’s refraining from acting against Indonesia’s violent colonial regime, the Howard government from 1999 onwards supported East Timor’s bid for independence. [58] The White Paper also acknowledges that “national interests cannot be pursued without regard to the values of the Australian community, including the support for fundamental human rights.” [59]

Thus, ‘good international citizenship’ did play a role in the Howard government’s foreign policy making, albeit a significantly less crucial one than in the Labor government’s foreign relations policies. It was pursued mainly in instances that would, in the long run, serve Australia’s realist ‘national interest,’ as a poor international reputation would weaken respect for Australia and consequently, its power position within the international system, and eventually harm its national economy.  

5. Conclusion 

Dealing with the question of the extent to which the tension between realism and idealism has shaped Australian foreign policy during the period between 1989 and 2001, this paper argues that at the core of the realism/idealism tension lie different interpretations of the ‘national interest.’  

An analysis of the Hawke and Keating governments’ foreign policy agendas revealed that acting as a ‘good international citizen’ was a key factor of the ‘national interest.’ Yet, as we saw, foreign policy decisions under both Labor governments were not primarily driven by idealism. A look at Australia’s engagement with Asia in particular showed that the Labor governments made many pragmatic compromises in favour of foreign trade and national security.

The foreign policy agenda of the Howard government was even more focused on economy and security than that of its predecessors, demonstrating the government’s realist understanding of the ‘national interest.’ Yet, being a ‘good international citizen’ is an objective that also played a role under Howard and Downer, albeit a less significant one than under Hawke, Keating, and Evans. Since realist and idealist outlooks played a role for foreign policy makers of both the Labor and the Coalition governments, Australian policy makers in the 1990s were constantly facing policy choices that demanded prioritising imperatives deriving from realist and idealist assumptions. 

Bibliography 

(1) Primary Sources 

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In the National Interest: Australian Foreign and Trade Policy White Paper. Canberra, 1997.

Downer, Alexander. “‘Neither Isolated nor Isolationist’: The Legacy of Australia’s Close Engagement with Asia.” Speech by the Hon. Alexander Downer, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, to the Murdoch University Asia Research Centre, Perth, August 9, 2000.

Evans, Gareth. “Australian Foreign Policy: Priorities in a Changing World.” Australian Outlook 43.2 (1989): 115.

———. Cooperating for Peace: The Global Agenda for the 1990s and Beyond. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 1993.

———. “The Labor Tradition: A View from the 1990s.” In Evatt to Evans: The Labor Tradition in Australian Foreign Policy, edited by David Lee and Christopher Waters, 1121. St. Leonard: Allen & Unwin, 1997.

Evans, Gareth and Bruce Grant. Australia’s Foreign Relations in the World of the 1990s. Carlton, Vic: Melbourne University Press, 1995.

Howard, John. “Election Campaign Policy Launch Speech”. Speech by Prime Minister John Howard. October 28, 2001.

Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The Australian Aid Program: Report on Proceedings of a Seminar 31 July 1996. Report No. 70. Canberra, 38th Parliament of Australia, 1996.

———. Sharpening the Focus: Report on a Seminar on the Simons Committee Report, 11 July 1997. Report No 79. Canberra, 38th Parliament of Australia, 1997.

———. Improving But...: Australia’s Regional Dialogue on Human Rights. Report No. 86. Canberra, 38th Parliament of Australia, 1998.

———. Bougainville: The Peace Process and Beyond. Report No. 90. Canberra, 39th Parliament of Australia, 1999.

———. A Visit to East Timor, 2 December 1999. Report No. 93. Canberra, 39th Parliament of Australia, 1999.

———. Australia’s Role in United Nations Reform. Report No. 101. Canberra, 39th Parliament of Australia, 2001.

———. The Link between Aid and Human Rights. Report No. 103. Canberra, 39th Parliament of Australia, 2001.

(2) Secondary Literature 

AusAID. “East Timor.” Australian Government, Overseas Aid. 2007. 

Australian National War Memorial Museum. “Timeline of Australian Peacekeeping Operations.” Keeping the Peace: Stories of Australian Peacekeepers. Exhibition. Canberra, 2008.

Baumann, Rainer, Volker Rittberger, and Wolfgang Wagner. “Neorealist Foreign Policy Theory.” In German Foreign Policy Since Unification: Theories and Case Studies, edited by Volker Rittberger, 37–67. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001.

Bell, Coral, ed. Agenda for the Nineties: Studies of the Context for Australia’s Choices in Foreign and Defence Policy. Melbourne: Longman, 1991.

Benner, Thorsten, Udo Hagedorn, and Christian Krell. “Außenpolitik Australiens.” [“Foreign Policy of Australia.”] Global Public Policy Institute, Berlin, 2001. http://www.gppi.net/fileadmin/gppi/AustralienBennerHagedorn.pdf (accessed December 13, 2012).

Booth, Ken. “Human Wrongs and International Relations.” International Affairs 71. 1 (1995): 103126.

Boekle, Henning, Volker Rittberger, and Wolfgang Wagner. “Constructivist Foreign Policy Theory.” In German Foreign Policy Since Unification: Theories and Case Studies, edited by Volker Rittberger,105–137. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001.

Börzel, Tanja. “Einführung in die Internationalen Beziehungen.” [“Introduction to International Relations.”] Lecture at the University of Heidelberg, October 21, 2004 – February 10, 2005.

Camilleri, Joseph A. “A Leap into the Past – in the Name of the National Interest.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 57. 3 (2003): 431–454.

———.“The Emerging Human Rights Agenda: Australia’s Response.” Interdisciplinary Peace Research 1 (1989), 86–116. 

———.“The Howard Years: Cultural Ambivalence and Political Dogma.” Borderlands Electronic Journal 3.3 (2004).

Carter, April. “Nationalism and Global Citizenship.” The Australian Journal of Politics and History 43.1 (1997): 6781.

Cotton, James, and John Ravenhill. The National Interest in a Global Era: Australia in World Affairs 1996-2000. Melbourne: Oxford University Press in assoc. with the Australian Institute of International Affairs, 2001.

Curran, James. “HSTY 2676: Australia and the World.” Lectures at the University of Sydney, 1 March – 16 June, 2008. 

———. The Power of Speech: Australian Prime Ministers Defining the National Image. Carlton, VIC: University of Melbourne Press, 2004.

———, ed. “HSTY 2676: Australia and the World.” Course Reader. University of Sydney, Semester 1, 2008.

Dalrymple, Rawdon. “Looking for Theory in Australian Foreign Policy.” Australian Review of Public Affairs, Symposium ‘Advancing the National Interest?’, 28 April 2003. http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2003/04/dalrymple.html (accessed December 13, 2012).

Devetak, Richard, Anthony Burke, and Jim George, eds. An Introduction to International Relations: Australian Perspectives. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Dunne, Timothy. Review of Ethics and Foreign Policy, edited by Paul Kean. International Affairs 70.2 (1994): 324–324.

Edwards, Peter, and David Goldsworthy. Facing North: A Century of Australian Engagement with Asia. Vol. 2: 1970s to 2000. Carlton, Vic: Melbourne University Press, 2003.

Firth, Steward. Australia in International Politics: An Introduction to Australian Foreign Policy. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2005.

Flitton, Daniel. “Issues in Australian Foreign Policy: July to December 2003.” The Australian Journal of Politics and History 50.2 (2004): 229246.

Gelber, Katharine. “Australia as an International Human Rights Citizen: Understanding ‘National Interest.’” In Who’s Australia? – Whose Australia? Contemporary Politics, Society and Culture in Australia, edited by Russell West-Pavlov, 11–29. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 2005.

Gyngell, Allan. “The ‘vision thing.’” Response to “American Grand Strategy: The Imperial Logic of Bush’s Liberal Agenda“ by Edward Rhodes. (Both articles printed in Policy, Summer 2003-2004.)

Gyngell, Allan, and Michaeal Wesley. Making Australian Foreign Policy. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Hanson, Marianne, and William T. Tow, eds. International Relations in the New Century: An Australian Perspective. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Harnisch, Sebastian. “Außenpolitiktheorie nach dem Ost-West-Konflikt: Stand und Perspektiven der Forschung.“ [“Foreign Policy Theories after the East-West-Conflict: Current State and Perspectives of Research.”] Trierer Arbeitspapiere zur Internationalen Politik, No.7, Sept. 2002.

Hellmann, Gunther, Rainer Baumann, and Wolfgang Wagner. Deutsche Außenpolitik: Eine Einführung [German Foreign Policy: An Introduction]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2006.

Holsti, Ole E. “Theories of International Relations.” In Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations, edited by Michael J. Hogan and Thomas G. Paterson, 51–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

“International Citizenship and Global Citizenship.” Open Learning Australia: Discovering Democracy. Commonwealth of Australia, 1999. 

Kay, Paul. “Australia and Greenhouse Policy: A Chronology.” Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Group, Background Paper 4, 1997-99. Commonwealth of Australia, 1997 (Updated 2000). 

Keal, Paul, ed. Ethics and Foreign Policy. St. Leonard, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 1992.

Kelly, Paul. The End of Certainty: The Story of the 1980s. St. Leonard, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 1992.

———. Howard’s Decade: An Australian Foreign Policy Reappraisal. Sydney: Lowy Institute, 2006.

Krell, Gert. Weltbilder und Weltordnung: Einführung in die Theorie der Internationalen Beziehungen. [World Views and World Order: Introduction to International Relations Theory.] Baden-Baden [Germany]: Nomos, 2004.

Leaver, Richard, and Dave Cox, eds. Middling, Meddling, Muddling: Issues in Australian Foreign Policy. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 1997.

Lee, David. Australia and the World in the Twentieth Century. Beaconsfield, Vic: Circa, 2006.

Lee, David, and Christopher Waters, eds. Evatt to Evans: The Labor Tradition in Australian Foreign Policy. St. Leonard: Allen & Unwin, 1997.

Lego, Jeffrey, and Andrew Moravsik. “Is Anybody Still a Realist?“ International Security 24.2 (1999): 5–55. http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/anybody.pdf (accessed December 13, 2012).

Lowe, David. “Introduction.” The Australian Journal of Politics and History 51.3 (2005): 327331.

Lowe, David, and Gary Smith. “Howard, Downer and the Liberals’ Realist Tradition.” The Australian Journal of Politics and History 51.3 (2005): 459472.

Makinda, Samuel M. Review of Reinventing Realism: Australia’s Foreign and Defence Policy at the Millennium, by David M. Jones and Mike L. Smith. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 1 (2001): 312–320.

———. The Howard Government and the United Nations.” Australian Review of Public Affairs, Symposium ‘Advancing the National Interest?’, 28 April 2003. http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2003/04/makinda.html (accessed December 13, 2012).

McDougall, Derek. Australian Foreign Relations: Contemporary Perspectives. Melbourne: Longman, 1998.

McPhail, Alison May. “John Howard’s Leadership of Australian Foreign Policy 1996-2004: East Timor and the War against Iraq”. PhD diss. Griffith University, 2007.

Mediansky, F[edor] A., ed. Australian Foreign Policy: Into the New Millennium. South Yarra, Vic.: Macmillan Publishers, 2001.

———. Australia in a Changing World: New Foreign Policy Directions. Botany, NSW: Maxwell, 1992.

Mediansky, F[edor] A., and A[nthony] C. Palfreeman, eds. In Pursuit of the National Interests: Australian Foreign Policy in the 1990s. Sydney: Pergamon Press, 1988.

Risse, Thomas. “Proseminar 15143: Einführung in die Außenpolitik Deutschlands.” [“Introductory Seminar 15143: Introduction to German Foreign Policy.”] Seminar at Freie Universität Berlin, April 25 – July 18, 2006.

Russell, Ian, Peter van Ness, and Beng-Chuat Chua. Australia’s Human Rights Diplomacy, Canberra: Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, 1992.

Singer, Peter, and Tom Gregg. How Ethical is Australia? An Examination of Australia’s Record as a Global Citizen. Melbourne: Black Inc., 2004.

Smith, Gary, Dave Cox, and Scott Burchill. Australia in the World: An Introduction to Australian Foreign Policy. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Ungerer, Carl. “Issues in Australian Foreign Policy: January to June 2004.” The Australian Journal of Politics and History 50.4 (2004): 573–587.

Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46. 2 (1992): 391425.

Woodard, Garry. Human Rights in Australian Foreign Policy: With Special Reference to Cambodia, Burma and China. Melbourne: Australian Institute of International Affairs, 1992.

This paper was written in May 2008 and does not take into account subsequent publications and developments. However, for your information, an interesting paper on idealism and realism in Australian foreign policy was given by former Labor Foreign Minister Gareth Evans at the University of Sydney on 14 August, 2012: http://www.gevans.org/speeches/speech482.html (accessed December 13, 2012).

Stefanie Land-Hilbert studierte Nordamerikastudien, Politikwissenschaft und Anglistik in Heidelberg, Sydney und Berlin. Derzeit promoviert sie an der FU Berlin im Bereich Cultural Studies/Neueste Geschichte und unterrichtet am Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik der Universität Potsdam.

Anmerkungen

  • [1]

     Gareth Evans and Bruce Grant, “Realism and Idealism in International Relationships,” Australia’s Foreign Relations in the World of the 1990s (Carlton, Vic: Melbourne Univ. Press, 1995), 42.

  • [2]

     Ibid.

  • [3]

     On the use of IR theories in diplomatic history, see Ole E. Holsti, “Theories of International Relations”, Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations, eds. Michael J. Hogan and Thomas G. Paterson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 51–90. Holsti gives an overview of the prominent IR theories of Realism, ‘Global Society’, Marxism, and Constructivism, and points out that although IR theories have long been studied by political scientists, few diplomatic historians have deigned to look at theoretical concepts of state behaviour. Only in recent years have an increasing number of studies been published that combine IR theory and historical research. (Holsti, 51f.)

  • [4]

     Said to have originated with Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, among others, classical realism in the twentieth century found its main proponent in Hans Morgenthau. John Herz belonged to the current of ‘defensive realism’ and was the first theorist who paid particular attention to the ‘security dilemma.’ Kenneth N. Waltz was the most prominent proponent of structural or ‘neo’-realism. It is important to note that some realists, such as Waltz, explicitly understood their concept of Realism not as a theory of foreign policy but of the international system, whereas others, such as John Mearsheimer, the main proponent of offensive realism‘, regarded their version of Realism as a concept that could explain (and thus potentially even predict) foreign policy behaviour (Gunther Hellmann, Rainer Baumann, and Wolfgang Wagner, Deutsche Außenpolitik: Eine Einführung [German ForeignPolicy: An Introduction] (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2006), 63, and Rainer Baumann, Volker Rittberger, and Wolfgang Wagner, “Neorealist Foreign Policy Theory,” German Foreign Policy Since Unification: Theories and Case Studies, ed. Volker Rittberger, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001, 38.) For a more comprehensive look at IR theories of Realism, see also Holsti, 5361, and Jeffrey Lego and Andrew Moravsik, “Is Anybody Still a Realist?”, International Security 24.2 (1999): 5–55, http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/anybody.pdf; Martin Griffith and Terry O’Callaghan, “Realism”, An Introduction to International Relations: Australian Perspectives, ed. Richard Devetak, Anthony Burke and Jim George (Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 5464; Derek McDougall, Australian Foreign Relations: Contemporary Perspectives (Melbourne: Longman, 1998), 1315; and Gert Krell, Weltbilder und Weltordnung: Einführung in die Theorie der Internationalen Beziehungen. [World Views and World Order: Introduction to International Relations Theory.] (Baden-Baden [Germany]: Nomos, 2004),129–143, 145–180.

  • [5]

     Holsti, 54.

  • [6]

     Ibid. Holsti refers to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 as the point in time at which sovereign (nation) states became the dominant actors in the international system.

  • [7]

     Henning Boekle, Volker Rittberger, and Wolfgang Wagner, Constructivist Foreign Policy Theory,” German Foreign Policy Since Unification: Theories and Case Studies, ed. Volker Rittberger, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), 105.

  • [8]

     Krell, 369.

  • [9]

     Krell, 346, 369; also Boekle, Rittberger, and Wagner, 105.

  • [10]

     Krell, 346.

  • [11]

     Holsti, 67.

  • [12]

     Ibid.

  • [13]

     Boekle, Rittberger, and Wagner, 105. The authors speak of “consequentiality” and “appropriateness”, respectively.

  • [14]

     Krell, 349, 360.

  • [15]

     Boekle, Rittberger, and Wagner, 106, 132.

  • [16]

     Krell, 370.

  • [17]

     Boekle, Rittberger, and Wagner,115ff.

  • [18]

     Ibid, 128131.

  • [19]

     Ibid, 124125. The three authors themselves regard the distinction between domestic and transnational norms as artificial and argue for an approach that integrates both research traditions. Boekle, Rittberger, and Wagner, 105106.

  • [20]

     Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, In the National Interest: Australian Foreign and Trade Policy White Paper (Canberra, 1997), iii.

  • [21]

     For scientific examinations of the concept of ‘national interest’, see in particular Daniel Flitton, “Issues in Australian Foreign Policy: July to December 2003,” The Australian Journal of Politics and History 50.2 (2004): 229246, and Joseph A. Camilleri, “A Leap into the Past – in the Name of the National Interest”, Australian Journal of International Affairs 57. 3 (2003): 431454.

  • [22]

    Allan Gyngell and Michaeal Wesley, Making Australian Foreign Policy (Melbourne: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003), 26.

  • [23]

     Ibid.

  • [24]

     See Stewart Firth, Australia in International Politics: An Introduction to Australian Foreign Policy (Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2005), 93.

  • [25]

     Ibid, 92.

  • [26]

     For a similar thought, see [Christian] Reus-Smit and [Martin] Indyk as cited in McDougall, 15.

  • [27]

     For an elaboration on the concept of ‘international citizenship’ or ‘global citizenship’ (both term are often used interchangeably), see April Carter, “Nationalism and Global Citizenship,” The Australian Journal of Politics and History 43.1 (1997): 6781; Andrew Linklater, “What is a Good International Citizen”, Ethics and Foreign Policy, ed. Paul Keal, (St. Leonard, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 1992), 2143; and “International Citizenship and Global Citizenship,” Open Learning Australia: Discovering Democracy, Commonwealth of Australia, 1999, http://www4.gu.edu.au/ext/civics/cv02/mod04/cv02m04t01.htm. On Australia’s performance as a ‘good international citizen’ see also Peter Singer and Tom Gregg, How Ethical is Australia? An Examination of Australia’s Record as a Global Citizen (Melbourne: Black Inc., 2004), particularly pp. 13–16 and 79f.

  • [28]

     Evans and Grant, 34.

  • [29]

     Marianne Hanson and William T. Tow, eds., International Relations in the New Century: An Australian Perspective (Melbourne: Oxford Univ. Press, 2001), 4, and Gareth Evans, “The Labor Tradition: A View from the 1990s,” Evatt to Evans: The LaborTradition in Australian Foreign Policy, eds. David Lee and Christopher Waters (St. Leonard: Allen & Unwin, 1997), 18f.

  • [30]

     John Burton, “A Human Component: The Failure of the Labor Tradition”, Evatt to Evans: The Labor Tradition in Australian Foreign Policy, eds. David Lee and Christopher Waters (St. Leonard: Allen & Unwin, 1997), 28. As a primary source, see Gareth Evans, Cooperating for Peace: The Global Agenda for the 1990s and Beyond (St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 1993).

  • [31]

     Australian National War Memorial Museum. “Timeline of Australian Peacekeeping Operations.” Keeping the Peace: Stories of Australian Peacekeepers. Exhibition. Canberra, 2008.

  • [32]

     Evans (1997), 19.

  • [33]

     Paul Kay, “Australia and Greenhouse Policy: A Chronology,” Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Group, Background Paper 4, 1997-99, Commonwealth of Australia, 1997 (updated 2000).

  • [34]

     Ibid, 18.

  • [35]

     Evans and Grant, 35.

  • [36]

     Hawke and Keating aimed to establish closer trade links and security ties with the region. Their governments promoted a strengthening of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and played an important role in establishing the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) (Hanson and Tow, 81).

  • [37]

     See Lorraine Elliott, “Social Justice in Labor’s Foreign Policy: ‘Falls the Shadow’”, Evatt to Evans: The Labor Tradition in Australian Foreign Policy, eds. David Lee and Christopher Waters (St. Leonard: Allen & Unwin, 1997), 189f. On bilateral representations see also Firth, 252.

  • [38]

     Ibid.

  • [39]

     Burton, 29.

  • [40]

     Ibid, 190.

  • [41]

     Burton, 29f., and Anne Kent “Human Rights” in Australian Foreign Policy: Into the New Millennium, ed. F[edor] A. Medianksy (South Yarra, Vic.: Macmillan Publishers, 2001), 172.

  • [42]

     David Dutton, “Human Rights Diplomacy“, Facing North: A Century of Australian Engagement with Asia, Vol. 2: 1970s to 2000, eds. Peter Edwards and David Goldsworthy (Carlton, Vic: Melbourne University Press, 2003), 122.

  • [43]

     See Elliott, 184f.

  • [44]

     Paul Keating, as cited in Dutton, 110.

  • [45]

     Elliott, 183.

  • [46]

     Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, In the National Interest: Australian Foreign and Trade Policy White Paper (Canberra, 1997). The White Paper outlines the government’s long-term policy vision and captures its view of Australia’s foreign policy priorities.

  • [47]

     Ibid, iii.

  • [48]

     Ibid.

  • [49]

     Cited in David Goldsworthy, “An Overview,” The National Interest in a Global Era: Australia in World Affairs 1996-2000, eds. James Cotton and John Ravenhill (Melbourne: Oxford University Press in assoc. with the Australian Institute of International Affairs, 2001), 10f.

  • [50]

     Alexander Downer, “‘Neither Isolated nor Isolationist’: The Legacy of Australia’s Close Engagement with Asia,” speech by the Hon Alexander Downer, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, to the Murdoch University Asia Research Centre, Perth, August 9, 2000.

  • [51]

     Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 49. See also Goldsworthy, 11.

  • [52]

     Ibid.

  • [53]

     Goldsworthy, 17.

  • [54]

     Katharine Gelber, “Australia as an International Human Rights Citizen: Understanding ‘National Interest,’” Who’s Australia? – Whose Australia? Contemporary Politics, Society and Culture in Australia, ed. Russell West-Pavlov (Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 2005), 11.

  • [55]

     See Gelber, 21.

  • [56]

     Gelber, 20.

  • [57]

     John Howard, “Election Campaign Policy Launch Speech,” speech by Prime Minister John Howard, October 28, 2001.

  • [58]

     For details, see James Cotton, “The East Timor Commitment and its Consequences,” The National Interest in a Global Era: Australia in World Affairs 1996-2000, eds. James Cotton and John Ravenhill (Melbourne: Oxford University Press in assoc. with the Australian Institute of International Affairs, 2001) 213234. Katharine Gelber remarks that Australia’s military involvement in East Timor has been criticised because of its “heavy-handedness, arrogance and preparedness to act to protect what it perceived as its own interest in the region,” which included “Australia’s stake in the oil and gas reserves of the Timor Sea,” thus calling into question whether Australia’s eventual support of East Timor’s independence was primarily driven by an international human rights agenda. (See Gelber, 17.)

  • [59]

     Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, iv.

Empfohlene Zitierweise

Land-Hilbert, Stefanie: Realism and Idealism in Post-Cold War Australian Foreign Policy, 1989-2001. aventinus varia Nr. 37 [19.12.2012], in: aventinus, URL: http://www.aventinus-online.de/no_cache/persistent/artikel/9752/

Bitte setzen Sie beim Zitieren dieses Beitrags hinter der URL-Angabe in runden Klammern das Datum Ihres letzten Besuchs dieser Online-Adresse.



Erstellt: 13.12.2012

Zuletzt geändert: 22.02.2013

ISSN 2194-1971