The world has witnessed rampant changes at a faster pace ever since the end of the Cold War. The beginning of the 21st century illustrates and highlights this idea of quick changes. Thus, changes in terms of increased terrorism, the new American foreign policy and the rise of China are few examples which illustrate the turbulence and agitation of international relations. Further, the ties between nations are increasing in complex environments and changes are occurring more rapidly than in the past. Consequently, it is difficult to predict the future and make assumptions as guarantees are non-existent. This is mainly due to the uncertain economic cycle (upswing or downswing movements). The context of rapid changes within the international scene constitutes a challenge for Australia. The challenge begins with the role that Australia as a middle power is expected to play, and how would this role be played to the best of its ability?
This essay aims to discuss the relation between Australia and the United States and the extreme closeness that characterizes it. The first important point to be noted is that the United States is a great power and Australia on the other hand is a potential middle power.
[...] Therefore, from each part of the globe, the invasion of Iraq leaded by the United States encouraged critics of the American foreign policy and its on terror'. In fact, the decision to attack Iraq has provoked some diplomatic reactions at a global scale. Thus, despite all their efforts, the United States did not obtain the support of the United Nations because too many members were against that war. The sharpest oppositions came from France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, and more discretely China (Chaliand 2003). [...]
[...] Australia should have known that an intervention in Iraq would be in opposition to rules and norms of international behaviour on which middle powers, especially, heavily rely” (Verrier 2003). To declare the war on Iraq and legitimate it, the United States used the concept of pre-emptive war, concept adopted after the attacks of September 2001. This pre-emptive concept legitimates an attack on a country on the only assumption that it represents a potential threat, and before this one even declares a conflict. [...]
[...] Finally, from Australia, the United States appreciates its strategic location, in Asia- Pacific region, which allows them to have some control on the region. Thus, it appears that Australia and the United States are interconnected due to the various fields in which they complement each other. In order to fully understand the current relationship between the United States and Australia and the most recent events in particular, it is important to understand some key aspects of the history of this relationship. [...]
[...] Obviously, the perfect situation for Australia would be a well-balanced status between a close relationship with the United States and some growing economic ties with China. But what if the United States and China become politically and strategically increasingly divergent? How could Australia manage its foreign and strategic policy between its western ally and the new promising power of Asia? Geographically, as Australia is located in the Asia-Pacific region, its main interest is to thrive due to Chinese growth, and to build a safe and prosperous future in Asia. [...]
[...] The context has evolved and considerably changed as the threats of 1951 have disappeared, but the treaty remains intact without any updates. And it is also surprising that the treaty relative to the security issues between the United States and Australia contains only 800 words, which seems a little bit too succinct (Woolcott 2005) The ANZUS system seems to wedge Australia with obligations she would rather prefer to avoid in the case it would lead to an Australian intervention over a conflict between the United States and China. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
