Suchergebnisse

The first half of 2001 saw traditional issues dominating the foreign policy agenda, with both Australia's relationship with the United States and the policy of Asian engagement still holding centre stage. But those old issues generated fresh anxieties. In the United States, the incoming Bush administration displayed a genuine radicalism in its approach to foreign policy, and that raised concerns in many Western capitals — including Canberra — about a new mood of unilateralism in Washington. At the same time, the emergence of the thesis that Australia was becoming a "branch office economy", where key decisions were taken in the capital markets of New York and London, made the government noticeably more cautious and selective in its endorsement of globalisation. Further, the issue of Asian engagement grew steadily more complex: Australian policy‐makers searched unsuccessfully for a new focus for the policy of Asian engagement, as Japan's economy wallowed and Indonesia's democratic government tottered.

An analysis of Australia's foreign policy agenda during the first half of 2001 maintains it was dominated by the relationship with the US & Asian engagement. Although Prime Minister John Howard openly opposed the election of George W. Bush, considerable effort was given to establishing a good working relationship with the Bush administration. However, US actions, including withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol, heightened concerns about a new attitude of unilateralism in Washington. Australia's keen interest in pursuing a bilateral free trade agreement with the US is discussed, along with worries about the state of the Australian-Japan relationship, & problems related to engagement with the People's Republic of China due to Chinese suspicions stemming from their perception of Australia as a Western ally of the US. Other issues examined include attempts to build a better relationship with India, & smaller foreign policy issues, including tensions with New Zealand over the reshaping of the Defense Force; Australia's detention policies for asylum seekers; & other immigration matters. The continuing importance of defining a national identity is discussed. J. Lindroth

Studies undertaken by both the Canberra Commission & the Tokyo Forum have advocated complete nuclear disarmament. Yet, three major roadblocks stand in the path to a nuclear-free global environment: getting to zero, staying at zero, & using only conventional weapons to maintain both global & regional security. Getting to zero is extremely difficult, as there is no accurate count of the exact number of nuclear weapons currently in existence. Further, the nuclear-weapons states are not yet ready to completely cast off their nuclear weapons. Staying at zero is equally difficult. New nuclear weapons breakouts could occur at any time. In addition, an inherently unstable international system would result. Finally, the idea that conventional weapons could be used to remedy this unstable system is unrealistic. The strategies outlined by the Canberra Commission & the Tokyo Forum are deemed incompatible with a future in which nuclear weapons are likely to remain an integral component of global security. Therefore, instead of focusing on the abolition of nuclear weapons, attention should be given to arms control & the stabilization of existing nuclear arms. 38 References. K. A. Larsen

This article argues that, over the decades, Australians have held three different, coherent, long-lived 'visions' of nuclear weapons and strategy. Those visions-which we have labelled Menzian, Gortonian and disarmer-compete on four grounds: the role that

Leaver, Richard: The failing NPT. The case for institutional reform. - S. 417-424. Lyon, Rod: Nuclear weapons, international security and the NPT. - S. 425-430. Ayson, Robert: Selective non-proliferation or universal regime? - S. 431-437. Wareham, Sue: It's time to abolish nuclear weapons. - S. 439-445

The authors assess the future of the Australian-U.S. security relationship within the context of the Canberra's transformation and strategic shift. They conclude that this relationship will remain important and will be strengthened in some ways--interdependence will be central to Australian strategy--but they consider the building of large-scale American military bases in Australia unlikely. The challenge, they note, will be sustaining political support within Australian for this type of relationship. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1779/thumbnail.jpg