Talk:Foreign relations of Australia
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Expansion
- 2 All the way?
- 3 Influence of Australia
- 4 Fall of Singapore and Britain west of Suez
- 5 NPOV
- 6 The "Rudd's foreign policy section"
- 7 Diplomatic ties with North Korea
- 8 Tensions with Indonesia (Schapelle Corby)
- 9 Australia–Germany relations merge
- 10 Australia - Commonwealth alignment
- 11 Asian emphasis
How about expanding Relation with US, Australia envoked ANZus after 9-11 and has constantly supported UNited Sates, Korea, Vietnam,Afghanistan, Iraq. I suggest thing more than actually them because I don't have great writing skills. Here are some points
- USA cheif ally
- Supported USA constantly since WWII
- Envoked ANZUS after 9/11
- Follows US tone on pre-emptive strikes and attitude towards UN
As I think of more I will notify, CooldogCongo
"Because Australia had always thought of itself as a part of the British Empire more so than an independent country relying on its own strength, when Britain left Australia to its own means in the Pacific War of World War Two, Australia felt the need to turn immediately to the protection of the US."
I don't believe "Australia had always though of itself . . ." is correct. Australia changed from being a British colony on it's own accord; during WWII, where it realised that geographic constraints made it inappropriate to rely on British help (the fall of Singapore) the US, the only other white, liberal democracy in the Asia-Pacific, was seen as the most appropriate ally in terms of security, trade and diplomacy.
I hope that someone else can word a correction. -Nal
All the way?
The slogan used by Harold Holt - "All the way with L.B.J." - clearly demonstrates this partnership which perhaps could be considered rather inequitable and profitable for the US.
Can someone produce a transcript in which Holt used that phrase?
The main things I can find is that "All the way with LBJ" was apparently a campaign slogan for LBJ, not Holt, and that LBJ apparently said "And I would like for every Aussie that stands there in the rice paddys on this warm, summer day to know that every American and LBJ is with Australia all the way.". I suspect that some critics of Holt and LBJ, not Holt himself, responded to the speech with the tag "All the way with LBJ". Andjam 14:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure of its factuality either. Certainly, as you say, the saying has been invoked as criticism of "too close" policies, but I don't think it can be said to originate with Holt. That text was merged into the article from another written by a one-off contributor.--cj | talk 14:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- The idea of Holt saying "All the way with LBJ" as a way of re-inforcing our devotion to the American alliance is hardly surprising. Australian leaders, especially liberal leaders tend to have that saught of attitude to the alliance, just as they did to the sub-ordination to Britain in earlier days. On a more related front, I believe Menzies also said about the Americans something along the lines of "My small country and your powerful country shall be together through thick and thin". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) .
Sure he did (sarcasm). You believe Menzies and Holt said what you believe they said because you want to believe it, if you can follow that train of thought. For some reason it suits your agenda to bash Australia's political leaders. No proof, no place in article Ebglider91 (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Influence of Australia
Reading this article and Foreign Relations pages of other countries, would anyone agree that Australia could be a potential superpower or perhaps more accurately a potential great or major power?
The government obviously takes a cautious but active role in International Affairs and some recent events have made me inclined to believe that Australia has a bright future as far as International influence is concerned.
I'd like to know the opinions of others on this matter, and to whether a reference or a related reference could be put into the main article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) .
- It's not our place to posit such arguments. If you can find a reputable source that has suggested this, then it can be included. My thoughts would be that such interpretations are on the wain anyway. To play along: I think that if Australia had, say, another 20 million people (and Australia would struggle to support that or any more ecologically), and retained an active foreign policy, we'd be at a level close to the United Kingdom (but not equal to). And this would only be because of our strategic importance in the Asia-Pacific and our place as core nation of the Anglosphere.cj | talk 11:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Fall of Singapore and Britain west of Suez
Something has to be said of the Fall of Singapore during WW2 and the British decision to concentrate their foreign efforts to the West of Suez during the 1960s. These incidences are the foundations of modern Australian foriegn policy ie. relationship with US and stability of Asia (Indonesian policy). - User:Htra0497 16:40, 16 May 2006 (AET)
hello I am a student in year seven and I really can not find any infomation that I need. I need to answer the question: Do you think Australia should send troops to other countries to help them solve thier problems?
I know what I am going to right but I need more back up facts about why they are going. PLEASE HELP Thank you
"Ill-conceived and possibly disastrous" and "Committed and industrious role" seem to be fairly POV. Andjam 17:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The "Rudd's foreign policy section"
I really don’t think this section is relevant to the article. It should be include (if all it, it really isn’t significant to warrant mentioning) in the “Diplomatic history of Australia” page. Not here. - Luke 18:55, 3rd April 2008 (AEST)
- You're right, it should go. It's just Rudd groupies plastering his promises all over wikipedia. If it belongs anywhere, it goes in history. It's an inappropriate level of detail for a bunch of promises that have yet to pan out. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Diplomatic ties with North Korea
I recall reading/seeing somewhere that Australia is one of the few countries to have diplomatic ties with North Korea, and hence have an embassy in North Korea. I also got a feeling that the embassetor was recalled not long ago.
- Australia recognises NK of course - NK has a seat in the UN, and so far as I know it's universally recognised. So there's nothing unusual about Aus recognising NK. Aus also has dip ties with NK - we have an ambassador who is accredited there. But he doesn't stay in NK, he just visits. That also is not remarkable - our ambassador to Morocco lives in Paris and visits down in the desert from time to time (about once in the course of his posting). Aus does NOT have an embassy in NK. Again, nothing unusual - many countries recognise each other, have accredited ambassadors, but don't have resident embassies. What you're remembering is that Aus and NK once did have resident ambassadors - some time in the 70s I think. NK's policy is that its embassies, everywhere, support themselves. This isn't official of course, but it's a fact. Usually they do it by selling drugs and cigarettes and laundering counterfeit US dollars. The NK embassy in Aus tried to rely on drugs. A large shipmenbt of heroin was sent, but there was an accident and the Australians found out about it. That was the end of thge resident NK embassy in Canberra, and the Aus emnbassy in P'yang was also withdrawn. PiCo (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Tensions with Indonesia (Schapelle Corby)
Edited the caveat which followed that Corby had been found guily of drug smuggling, as the fact that she claimed the drugs were not hers is irrelevant (she's been found guilty in a court of law). Also put in a qualifier in parentheses to just how much tension this caused internationally, which is not much. The issue behind Corby's trial at the time was about Australian Cultural Sensitivities versus the Indonesian Legal System. Far from being a source of tension, there is officially documented and widely publicised support for Indonesian Legal Sovereignty. As far as being a source of tension between Indonesia and Australia, Corby is almost a non-issue. If someone finds a better way to present that, then please edit away... Xlh (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Australia–Germany relations merge
- Page already merged by Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs). Outback the koala (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Australia - Commonwealth alignment
This article and two other related articles(Foreign relations of the United States and Australia – United States relations) make three separate statements about Australia's alignment to the Commonwealth of Nations. This article states: ...Australia has traditionally been aligned with the Commonwealth of Nations... The Foreign relations of the United States article states: Australia used to be aligned with the Commonwealth of Nations. The Australia – United States relations article states: Australia is also [in addition to the United States of America] aligned with the Commonwealth of Nations... A subject should not be interpreted in three conflicting ways in different articles. Australia is a member of the Commonwealth, therefore, how can Australia not be aligned with the Commonwealth? If it is possible for a country to be aligned to the Commonwealth than surely a member of the Commonwealth must be naturally aligned to the Commonwealth. Though, personally, I would refute that a country can be aligned to the Commonwealth as members of the Commonwealth have and are free to pursue completely separate foreign policies. I shall, however, edit statements in these three article relating to alignment between Australia and the Commonwealth to agree; utilising the statement made in this article as it presents the middle ground. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Aus is not now, and never has been, aligned with the Commonwealth. This is an impossibility, as the Commonwealth has no common foreign policy, and therefore nothing to align with. It has, however, been a member of the C'wealth, which is entirely different. PiCo (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
in recent years, and more so under Rudd, there has been a tilt towards developing relations with Asiaproper, which i think is not adequately represented here. The focus on Oceania (which is important) is big, but Asia doesnt have that. Indonesia, Japan and India, as well as China should be more represented here. Certainly joining the AFC was a foreign policy tool (Politics nd Sports). East Timor (Asia?) is important too, even is small.Lihaas (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)