Category Archives: MBP Asia Pasifik, Australia dan New Zealand
NEW ZEALAND AND ITS EXERNAL RELATIONS (A BRIEF)
Devania Anesya/ 070810535
| In the early days of the New Zealand colony it was accepted readily enough that the British Government should continue to be responsible for external trade and foreign relations. In 1869 and 1870 colonial irritation with British policy over Maori affairs and the conduct of the Maori Wars led to mutters of independence, separation, and even of neutrality in a war caused by British policy. Imperial concessions in 1870, however, were a sign of increasing British sympathy for its colonial connections, and marked the beginning of a period during which New Zealand loyalty to the “motherland” was unquestioned. In the expansive 1870s New Zealand leaders began to look with interest on the Pacific Islands to the north. |
Economic growth in New Zealand has been underpinned by exports, especially of food and fibre products. While more than 80 percent of NZ exports are accounted for by firms in the manufacturing sector, nearly two-thirds of the exports are based on food, fibre and forestry products[1].
Talk about market in NZ, because shoppers who spend more on groceries each week are also more loyal to their main store, it is logical for supermarkets to attempt to increase store loyalty. However, despite these attempts, the proportion of high loyalty customers in New Zealand supermarkets is virtually the same, once market share is taken into account.
New Zealand supports efforts to strengthen the rule of law at the international level, including through an effective network of multilateral legal instruments to combat terrorism. It is therefore appropriate that we move now to become party to International Convention, which builds upon a group of first-generation international anti‑terrorism instruments which New Zealand has already ratified. Those were more situation-specific multilateral treaties (eg. hostage-taking, hijacking) whereas this Terrorist Financing Convention is a second-generation treaty that deals principally with the forms of terrorism covered by these earlier treaties and targets the financing of terrorist acts covered by them[2].
Geographically, New Zealand is isolated from the rest of the world. This is why then much of New Zealand’s foreign policy is focused on the Pacific region, particularly Polynesia and Melanesia. Just like Australia, New Zealand gazed Pacific region as their strategic importance-territory. Pacific region has strategic sea route for New Zealand and the islands located in this region are protective shield for their defense.[3] This is why then since New Zealand became one of British colony; New Zealand is ambitious to take control in Pacific region. Since then, New Zealand plays an active role in Pacific affairs; though New Zealand policies towards the islands have evolved markedly from the colonial period to the present.
In 1971, New Zealand joined the other independent and self-governing states of the South Pacific to establish the South Pacific Forum (now known as the Pacific Islands Forum), which meets annually at the “heads of government” level. Through SPF, New Zealand played a key role in setting up a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region. Looking at the history, the states in the Pacific region became concerned with nuclear weapon issues following the nuclear detonations over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when the region became a testing ground for such weapons. The Pacific Island countries, besides being concerned with nuclear testing in their region and its vicinity, were also worried about the dumping of nuclear wastes at sea, fearing radioactive contamination of the marine environment. The SPF took up the issue in 1975 in response to a proposal by New Zealand calling for the setting up of a nuclear-weapon-free zone (NWFZ) in the region.[4]
Meanwhile, New Zealand’s role in the Pacific Islands’ trade has been that of a supplier of agricultural products, essential foods, and, more recently, manufactured consumer goods. In turn, the Pacific Islands have supplied New Zealand with tropical fruits, sugar, and copra.
One of agreement made by New Zealand and Pacific Island countries is Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations or PACER for short. PACER is basically an agreement between Australia, New Zealand and 14 Pacific Island countries.[5] It was endorsed at the meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum in Nauru in 2001. PACER provides an initial trade agreement between Pacific Island countries and promised to initiate negotiations for free trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand by 2011.
In April 2008 New Zealand and China signed the New Zealand–China Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in Beijing. The two countries have also concluded an Environment Cooperation Agreement (ECA) and a Memorandum of Understanding on Labour Cooperation (MOU). Subject to ratification, the agreements are expected to enter into force by 1 October 2008.
The main values for New Zealand in entering into the FTA and associated instruments are:
- Increased access for New Zealand trade and investment, which will contribute to growth, jobs and higher living standards
- The framework the FTA establishes for resolving trade and investment issues that may arise in the future
- The framework established by the MOU and the ECA for discussing and cooperating on labour and environment issues
- The support the treaties give to New Zealand’s objective of broadening and deepening relations in Asia and with China in particular
- The support the FTA gives to New Zealand’s wider trade policy interests in strengthening economic integration in the Asia-Pacific and multilaterally
- The FTA’s assistance in raising the commercial profile for New Zealand companies in China.[6]
The FTA is expected to have an overall positive effect on the New Zealand economy, with gains to GDP, trade and welfare. The FTA is expected to deliver economic benefits through the removal of tariffs and the reduction of other impediments to bilateral trade and investment between New Zealand and China over time.
References:
Hamid, Zulkifli. 1996. Sistem Politik Pasifik Selatan. Jakarta: PT Dunia Pustaka Jaya
White Paper Our Future with Asia, 2007, available on the MFAT website (www.mfat.govt.nz ) [accessed 27 Desember 2010]
Iyer, Kris. 2010. The Determinants of Firm-Level Export Intensity in New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry [online] available at http://www.eap-journal.com.au/archive/v40_i1_05-iyer.pdf [accessed 27 Desember 2010]
http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Treaties-and-International-Law/03-Treaty-making-process/National-Interest-Analyses/0-Supression-of-Financing-Terrorism.php [accessed 27 Desember 2010]
http://www.forumsec.org.fj/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/PACER.pdf ,[accessed on 25 December 2010]
[1] Kris Iyer. 2010. The Determinants of Firm-Level Export Intensity in New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry [online] available at http://www.eap-journal.com.au/archive/v40_i1_05-iyer.pdf [accessed 27 Desember 2010]
[2]Anon. 2010. International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism [online] available at http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Treaties-and-International-Law/03-Treaty-making-process/National-Interest-Analyses/0-Supression-of-Financing-Terrorism.php [accessed 27 Desember 2010]
[3] Zulkifli Hamid. 1996. Sistem Politik Pasifik Selatan. Jakarta: PT Dunia Pustaka Jaya
[4] Zulkifli Hamid. 1996. Sistem Politik Pasifik Selatan. Jakarta: PT Dunia Pustaka Jaya
[5] Anon, Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER), [online] http://www.forumsec.org.fj/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/PACER.pdf ,accessed on 25 December 2010
[6] As outlined in the 2007 White Paper Our Future with Asia, the Government supports regional integration in Asia and sees it as a big opportunity for New Zealand’s economic transformation and for linking New Zealand’s growth to the growth of Asian economies. Our Future with Asia is available on the MFAT website (www.mfat.govt.nz).
UNDERSTANDING NEW ZEALAND: DOMESTIC POLITICS AND NATIONAL ECONOMY
Devania Anesya/ 070810535
| New Zealand is an island country in the south-western Pacific Ocean comprising two main landmasses (the North Island and the South Island), and numerous smaller islands, most notably Stewart Island/Rakiura and the Chatham Islands. The indigenous Māori language name for New Zealand is Aotearoa, commonly translated as “land of the long white cloud”. The Realm of New Zealandalso includes the Cook Islands and Niue (self-governing but in free association); Tokelau; and the Ross Dependency (New Zealand’s territorial claim in Antarctica). |
Domestic politics
New Zealand enjoys a parliamentary representative democratic monarchy that closely resembles the pattern of the Westminster system. Although it has no codified constitution, the Constitution Act 1986 is the principal formal statement of New Zealand’s constitutional structure. The constitution has been described as “largely unwritten” and a “mixture of statutes and constitutional convention (http://www.economist.com/countries/NewZealand/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Political%20Forces).
Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state and is titled Queen of New Zealand under the Royal Titles Act 1974. She is represented by the Governor-General, whom she appoints on the exclusive advice of the Prime Minister (http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/NewZealand/TheQueensroleinNe). The current Governor-General is Anand Satyanand.
Though the head of the estate is Queen Elizabeth II, the actual power rests with the Prime minister who is assisted by a Cabinet that is drawn from an elected parliament. In practice the all the official business in run in the name of the queen. All the functions of the monarchy are carried out by the Governor – General who is appointed by the monarch as advised by the Prime Minister.
As there is no written constitution which is based on a mixture of various documents, the Treaty of Waitangi and constitutional conventions. The cabinet is the senior policy making body and is responsible to the parliament. The Governor General has been bestowed with the power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister. He can also dissolve the parliament.
New Zealand enjoys a unicameral legislature known as the House of Representatives. it is the system of mixed member proportional voting system that is prevalent in the country. The highest court on New Zealand is the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The High Courts deal with the civil and the criminal matters. There are also Appellate Courts.
The current Prime Minister is Helen Clark who is the leader of the Labour party and the leader of the opposition is National a party leader John Key.
National Economy
New Zealand is a modern and a prosperous country that has an estimated GDP of $101.685 billion. The developed economy of New Zealand has a high standard of living with GDP per capita estimated at $26,400 while Australian figures are $31,900.
The GDP of the country has been estimated at $26,400. The Human Development Index has ranked the country 20th in the world and it is 15th as rated by the Economist’s 2005. New Zealand is heavily dependant on trade. Of the total agricultural produce New Zealand exports almost 20% of the whole. The principal exports include agriculture, horticulture, fishing and forestry.
Historically, New Zealand enjoyed a high standard of living which relied on its strong relationship with the United Kingdom, and the resulting stable market for its commodity exports. New Zealand’s economy was also built upon on a narrow range of primary products, such as wool, meat and dairy products. High demand for these products created sustained periods of economic prosperity, such as the New Zealand wool boom of 1951.
The country in its initial days experienced a high standard of living but when United Kingdom joined the European Community in 1973 the country saw a major crisis. Since 1984 there were major reforms introduced restructuring the entire economy. A sort of liberalized free economy became the order of the day. The tertiary sector is the largest sector in the country that is followed by the secondary sector. The primary sector comes at last contributing only 4.7%. The current economic objectives pursued b y the government is building a ‘knowledge economy’.
Since 1984, successive governments have engaged in major macroeconomic restructuring, transforming New Zealand from a highly protectionist and regulated economy to a liberalised free trade economy. These changes are commonly known as Rogernomics and Ruthanasia after Finance Ministers Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson.
The current government’s economic objectives are centred on pursuing free-trade agreements and building a “knowledge economy”. On 7 April 2008, New Zealand and China signed the New Zealand China Free Trade Agreement, the first such agreement China has signed with a developed country (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/trade-deal-with-china/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501819&objectid=10502506&pnum=0.).
References:
“Queen and New Zealand”. The British Monarchy.http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/NewZealand/NewZealand.aspx. Retrieved 20 Desember 2010
Fran O’Sullivan with NZPA (7 April 2008). “Trade agreement just the start – Clark”. The New Zealand Herald. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/trade-deal-with-china/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501819&objectid=10502506&pnum=0. Retrieved 20 Deseber 2010.
http://www.economist.com/countries/NewZealand/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Political%20Forces. Retrieved 20 Deseber 2010.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/NewZealand/TheQueensroleinNe. Retrieved 20 Deseber 2010.
UNDERSTANDING NEW ZEALAND: SOCIETY, CULTURE, AND ECONOMY
Devania Anesya/ 070810535
| New Zealand is an island country in the south-western Pacific Ocean comprising two main landmasses (the North Island and the South Island), and numerous smaller islands, most notably Stewart Island/Rakiura and the Chatham Islands. The indigenous Māori language name for New Zealand is Aotearoa, commonly translated as “land of the long white cloud”. The Realm of New Zealandalso includes the Cook Islands and Niue (self-governing but in free association); Tokelau; and the Ross Dependency (New Zealand’s territorial claim in Antarctica). |
New Zealand is notable for its geographic isolation; it is situated about 2,000 kilometres (1,200 mi) southeast ofAustralia across the Tasman Sea, and its closest neighbours to the north are New Caledonia, Fiji andTonga. During its long isolation New Zealand developed a distinctive fauna dominated by birds, a number of which became extinct after the arrival of humans and the mammals they introduced.
The North and South Island are separated by Cook Strait, 20 km wide at its narrowest point. The total land area is 26.021 km2. The country extends more than 1,600 kilometres (990 mi) along its main, north-north-east axis, with approximately 15,134 km (9,404 mi) of coastline (The World Factbook, 2008).
The dramatic and varied landscape of New Zealand has made it a popular location for the production of television programmes and films, including the Lord of the Ringstrilogy and The Last Samurai. The South Island is the largest land mass of New Zealand, and is divided along its length by the Southern Alps. There are 18 peaks over 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) the highest of which is Aoraki/Mount Cook at 3,754 metres (12,316 ft). The North Island is less mountainous but is marked by volcanism. The highly active Taupo volcanic zone has formed a large volcanic plateau, the North Island’s highest mountain, Mount Ruapehu 2,797 metres (9,177 ft).
Population of New Zealand is approximately 4.3 million (Stats.govt.nz, 2010),of which approximately 78% identify with European ethnic groups. The indigenous Māori are the largest minority. Asians and non-Māori Polynesians are also significant minority groups, especially in urban areas. The most commonly spoken language is English. The term Pākehā usually refers to New Zealanders of European descent, although some reject this appellation, and some Māori use it to refer to all non-Māori and non-Polynesian New Zealanders (Ranford, 2008). Most European New Zealanders are of British and Irish ancestry, although there has been significant Dutch, Dalmatian (Carl, 2007), Italian, and German immigration together with indirect European immigration through Australia, North America, South America and South Africa (http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/new-zealand-peoples, 2010).
New Zealand is culturally and linguistically part of Polynesia, forming the south-western anchor of the Polynesian Triangle, much of contemporary New Zealand culture is derived from British roots. It also includes significant influences from American, Australian and Māori cultures, along with those of other European cultures and – more recently – non-Māori Polynesian and Asian cultures. Large festivals in celebration of Diwali and Chinese New Year are held in several of the larger centres.
Cultural links between New Zealand and the United Kingdom are maintained by a common language, sustained migration rom the United Kingdom, and many young New Zealanders spending time in the United Kingdom on their “overseas experience” (OE).
Meanwhile Māori culture has undergone considerable change since the arrival of Europeans; in particular the introduction of Christianity in the early 19th century brought about fundamental change in everyday life. Māori culture has significant differences, for instance the important role which the marae and the extended family continue to play in communal and family life. Māori still regard their allegiance to tribal groups as a vital part of personal identity, and Māori kinship roles resemble those of other Polynesian peoples.
New Zealand has a modern, prosperous, developed economy with an estimated GDP (PPP) of US$119.549 billion (2010). The country has a relatively high standard of living with an estimated GDP per capita of US$31,067 in 2010, comparable to that of Southern Europe (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/we, 2010).
Historically, New Zealand enjoyed a high standard of living which relied on its strong relationship with the United Kingdom, and the resulting stable market for its commodity exports. However, in 1973 the United Kingdom joined the European Community which effectively ended this particularly close economic relationship between the two countries.
Since 1984, successive governments have engaged in major macroeconomic restructuring, transforming New Zealand from a highly protectionist and regulated economy to a liberalised free-trade economy. These changes are commonly known as Rogernomics and Ruthanasia after Finance Ministers Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson.
Agriculture has been and continues to be the main export industry in New Zealand. In the year to June 2009, dairy products accounted for 21% ($9.1 billion) of total merchandise exports (http://www.stats.govt.nz/Publications/BusinessIndicators/global-nz-jun-09/key-points.aspx, 2009) , and the largest company of the country, Fonterra, a dairy cooperative, controls almost one-third of the international dairy trade (http://www.fonterra.com/wps/wcm/connect/fonterracom/fonterra.com/home/frequently+asked+questions/, 2009).
References:
The World Factbook. CIA. 2008. http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=5lc9jxSKfuEC&pg=PA421&lpg=PA421. p. 421. Retrieved 22 Desember 2010.
Ranford, Jodie. “‘Pakeha’, Its Origin and Meaning”. maorinews.com. http://maorinews.com/writings/papers/other/pakeha.htm. Retrieved 22 Desember 2010.
“New Zealand Peoples”. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand.http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/new-zealand-peoples. Retrieved 22 Desember 2010.
Walrond, Carl (21 September 2007).“Dalmatians”. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand.http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/dalmatians. Retrieved 22 Desember 2010.
“World Economic Outlook Database—April 2010″. IMF.http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/index.aspx. Retrieved 22 Desember 2010.
“Global New Zealand – International Trade, Investment, and Travel Profile: Year ended June 2009 – Key Points”. Statistics New Zealand. June 2009. http://www.stats.govt.nz/Publications/BusinessIndicators/global-nz-jun-09/key-points.aspx. Retrieved 22 Desember 2010.
Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.fonterra.com/wps/wcm/connect/fonterracom/fonterra.com/home/frequently+asked+questions/ Fonterra website. Retrieved 22 Desember 2010.
AUSTRALIAN EXTERNAL RELATIONS: SPECIAL RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES
Devania Anesya/ 070810535
| Australia has a strategic location and geography since the mid-1980s. Its location isolated from world trouble spots and the fact that it is an island continent are said to provide certain strategic and tactical advantages which is contributed to its defensibility. The Labour government’s 1987 defense White Paper noted that Australia… naturally protected by vast ocean surrounds and the inhospitable tracts of our own country to the north and north-west… combine to provide with natural defences against conventional attack (Beazley, 1987). |
The 1994 defence White Paper again warned that at some time in the future armed force could be used against us and (so)… we need to be prepared to meet it (White Paper, 1994). This is in spite of the fact that white Australia has never seriously been threatened has said we are unlikely to be for at least the foreseeable future. Such continuing, obsessive, and arguably, irrational fear of military attack has its root in white Australia’s own history and experiences.
Australia has always been a frightened country (Renouf, 1979 and Pons, 1994) by the constant fear of attack or conquest by external and predominantly Asian countries. Australia beliefs that she cannot defend herself against these perceived threats, that’s why she led Australia’s policy makers to look to great and powerful friend for reassurance and protection. As a consequence, Australia has become a dependent ally (Bell, 1988), borrowing from and ever supportive of the policies and practices of its principal benefactors, and ready to dispatch military forces overseas in support of their imperial objectives (Andrews, 1979; Millar, 1991; and Watt, 1968).
The notion of keeping Australia safe created by maintaining its surrounding region as an Anglo-Australian and later United States-Australian preserve was not restricted to colonial times. It is important to remember that when United States dominance was arguably most legitimate, constructive, and benign in the first couple of decades after the Second World War, it was widely perceived to have assumed a hegemonic position that transcended national interest to provide international public good (Kindleberger, 1973).
Since the Second World War, relations with United States have assumed an increasingly prominent position in the construction of economic and security policies in Australia. Sentiment toward the United States has generally been positive. However, self declared ‘war on terrorism’ of United States and Australia’s participation in a conflict with Iraq in particular, has subjected the relationship to widespread scrutiny and criticism. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) has moved to qualify its support, some senior Labor figures have launched fairly splenetic attack on American foreign policy and the Howard government’ support of it (Price, Lewis, and Kerin, 2003).
Even before 11 September 2001 and the subsequent reordering of American foreign policy, the Howard government’s expectations about what the bilateral relationship with the United States could deliver looked likely to prove a triumph of hope over experience: a glance at the recent historical record suggested that the benefits likely to accrue to Australia were likely to be the modest at best. But if we examine closer, more exclusive relationship with the United States may have a significant and generally negative impact on Australia’s long term place in the region, its economic position, its political independence, and even domestic security.
In economic relations with United States, Australia is one of a select band of countries that actually runs a trade deficit with the United States. While American markets have played a pivotal role in underpinning the export-led development of much of region and more sustaining a faltering global economy through seemingly insatiable consumer-led demand, Australia has not been a major beneficiary of either of these developments. There is a range of visible and invisible trade barriers that discriminate against Australian-based producers (Beeson, 2003).
Australia-New Zealand-US alliance, ANZUS was plainly a gesture loaded symbolic than strategic significance, as Australia could add nothing material to America’s overwhelming and increasing military dominance (Brooks and Wohlforth, 2002) but it was a gesture that continued an Australian tradition with a respected heritage. Difficult to say anything sensible about the intelligence benefits but with the sort of threat Australians obviously did face in Bali, this sort of information was either inadequate or not acted upon (Walker, 2002). Indeed, White (2002, 254) argues that it is Australia that is out of step with contemporary strategic realities and that far from being an irresponsible free-rider. We can se that the Howard government’s enthusiastic support for the United States generally and for the ‘war on terror’.
Clearly, Australia has a limited capacity to influence American foreign policy. The United States’ present determination to use its overweening power to pursue more narrowly defined and supported objectives means that policy makers in allied countries like Australia need to balance what are debatable short-term domestic pay-offs against the long-term stability of the International system (Beeson, 2003). But in both of the most important elements of its bilateral relationship, economics and security, Asutralia is clearly disadvantaged by America’s willingness to exploit its overwhelming political, economic, and strategic leverage.
References:
Beeson, Mark. 2003. Australia’s Relationship with the United States: The Case for Greater Independence. Queensland: Australian Journal of Political Science, University of Queensland
Cheeseman, Graeme. –. Australia: the White Experience of fear and Dependence. –
AUSTRALIA HUMAN RIGHTS
Devania Anesya/ 070810535
| Human rights are about equality and fairness for everyone—no matter where people come from, their racial or cultural background, age, gender, disability or what they earn. Protecting and promoting human rights is about making sure that basic safeguards for equality and fairness are in place so that we can prevent the violation of rights, and provide remedies when a violation does occur. |
Australia’s human rights obligations derive, in large part, from the international treaties to which Australia has become a party. For this reason, all Australian Governments (Commonwealth, State, Territory and local governments) have a special role in protecting and promoting human rights. The main kinds of human rights are: Civil and political rights – which protect the individual from the misuse of political power and recognise every individual’s right to participate in their country’s political process. They include rights such as the right to be free from discrimination and the right to equality before the law – and Economic, social and cultural rights which protect an individual’s right to access economic, social and cultural aspects of their country. They include rights such as the right to education and the right to adequate health services.
Australia has ratified the two major international treaties which set out these rights: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This means that the Government is already responsible for respecting and ensuring rights under these treaties.
Australia has had a very racist past in which apartheid has been practiced and where indigenous Aboriginal people have lost almost all their land and suffered many prejudices. Aborigines are the poorest group in Australia and suffer from very much preventable diseases. For more about these issues, you can start at these harrowing reports from John Pilger (2000) a prominent Australian journalist who has been critical of many western policies.
“In 1987, a sensational “discovery” was made by a Sydney University team, led by Australia’s most celebrated pre-historian, Professor D J Mulvaney. They reported that the Australian population in 1788 was 750,000, or three times the previous estimate. They concluded that more than 600,000 people had died as result of white settlement.”
Recently, people have started thinking about emerging human rights principles. These human rights principles include things like the right to a healthy environment. These rights remain largely unofficial and their status is yet to be settled at international law.
Australia has a strong existing human rights framework. Human rights are currently protected in a range of ways including our democratic institutions, legal safeguards, and a culture that values human rights. Protecting and promoting human rights requires balancing the interests of individuals and groups with the interests of society including security, public health and public order.
Australian Constitution
The Australian Constitution provides for certain human rights protections. These specific rights include:
- prohibiting the Commonwealth from making any law establishing any religion or imposing any religious observance
- the right to a trial by jury, and
- the right to fair compensation when the Commonwealth acquires the property of a person or a State.
The High Court of Australia has also found that some rights can be implied from the Australian Constitution such as the implied right to freedom of political communication. The extent of the protection offered by these implied rights remains unclear.
A number of human rights are recognised and protected by the common (or judge-made) law. These include, for example, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right to silence and the requirement that evidence of confessions obtained by force be excluded at trials. These rights may be restricted or removed by legislation at any time.
Australia’s anti-discrimination laws are integral to the protection of human rights. Under Federal discrimination laws you are not allowed to be treated less favourably in public life because of your sex, marital status, race, age or because you have a disability. States and Territories also have anti-discrimination laws which, although similar to the Federal laws, vary in the grounds of discrimination they cover, the processes used to make complaints and the remedies available. Human rights in Australia are protected by a variety of others laws in addition to anti-discrimination legislation. These include Australia’s criminal laws which embody human rights principles such as the right to a fair trial.
In addition to their anti-discrimination legislation, two jurisdictions in Australia have enacted human rights legislation. In 2004 the ACT Government passed the Human Rights Act 2004. Victoria followed with its Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. The main features of these laws are that:
- they both set out the human rights that are protected in these jurisdictions
- do not enable courts to invalidate legislation, but instead enable them to tell Government if legislation is not able to be interpreted consistently with human rights, and
- in the ACT (although not in Victoria) the legislation, from 1 January 2009, provides for a direct right of action to the courts for individuals who believe their human rights have been breached.
States and Territories also have a range of human rights, anti-discrimination and equal opportunity commissions.
The Australian administrative law system provides for a number of rights and protections. For example, in some cases a person affected by a decision made by a government agency may have the merits of that decision reviewed. Other safeguards include: being able to access documents which might be relevant to an administrative decision made about you under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth); and privacy protections under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
In International law Australia has ratified the two major treaties which set out civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) as well as a number of other major international human rights treaties.
When Australia becomes party to an international human rights treaty, it does not automatically become part of Australian law and is therefore not automatically enforceable in Australia. Rather, the rights have to be specifically incorporated into domestic legislation. Australia has a broad range of domestic legislation that recognises the human rights instruments to which Australia is a party.
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) also helps to ensure that the rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international declarations such as the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons and are recognised in Australia.
Under some international treaties that Australia has ratified, individuals can submit a complaint to a United Nations treaty committee concerning alleged human rights violation by an Australian government. For example, the committee can consider the complaint and make a non-binding recommendation.
References:
John Pilger, New Statesman, July 10, 2000 available at http://www.globalissues.org/article/148/australia-and-human-rights [retrieved 15 Desember 2010]
http://www.humanrightsact.com.au/2008/ [retrieved 15 Desember 2010]
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/12/08/australia-make-rights-foreign-policy-priority [retrieved 15 Desember 2010]
http://www.globalissues.org/article/138/human-rights-for-all [retrieved 15 Desember 2010]
www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au [retrieved 15 Desember 2010]
AUSTRALIAN EXTERNAL RELATIONS: RELATIONS WITH INDONESIA, CHINA, AND ITS POSITION IN ASIA
Devania Anesya/ 070810535
| Australia has always been a frightened country (Renouf, 1979 and Pons, 1994) by the constant fear of attack or conquest by external and predominantly Asian countries. Australia beliefs that she cannot defend herself against these perceived threats, that’s why she led Australia’s policy makers to look to great and powerful friend for reassurance and protection. As a consequence, Australia has become a dependent ally (Bell, 1988), borrowing from and ever supportive of the policies and practices of its principal benefactors, and ready to dispatch military forces overseas in support of their imperial objectives (Andrews, 1979; Millar, 1991; and Watt, 1968). The notion of keeping Australia safe created by maintaining its surrounding region as an Anglo-Australian and later United States-Australian. |
Racial and ethnocentric concerns have informed most of the perceived threats to Australia’s security: initially invasion by ‘yellow hordes’, followed by the fear of communist ‘reds’, and then following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Arab, and Muslim terrorist and religious fanatics. As Jan Pettman has argued, these external fears have been fostered by a process of racialization which predisposes many Australians to associate threat with difference’ and continues to inform dominant assumptions of alliance/ affiliation/ allegiance with the west, and defines our regions against us (Pettman, 1992). Pettman further argues that Australia’s continued fear of invasion may also stem from a sense of guilt that white settlers come with superior military power and seize the land by force, claiming that its occupants were not really using the land productively, might not the more populous and pressured of Asia likewise (Pettman, 1992).
Australia Relations with Indonesia
Australian governments have developed a defense strategy predicated on a threat from and a need for stability in the north, giving observers the impression that Indonesia is a major concern that has loomed large in Australia’s strategic vision (rather than vice versa) (Smith, 2008).
In the past, officials in Australia have worked hard to build a special relationship with Indonesia, which included generous Australian aid, and—in Canberra’s view—tacit support for Indonesia’s acquisition of East Timor. Indonesia has also valued its relationship with Australia. Indonesia even gave Australia a sweetheart deal in divvying up the oil in the Timor Gap, most likely in exchange for Australia’s acquiescence to Indonesia’s controversial absorption of East Timor.
However, because of Australia’s role in the independence of East Timor, Indonesia ended a defense agreement with Australia and relations grew sour (Smith, 2008). In fact, Indonesian leaders have cited Australia as the primary threat to its cohesion, particularly in relation to the troubled province of Papua. Indonesia blamed Australia for the territory’s secession from the Republic. Today, Indonesians believe that Australia is the primary threat to national cohesion.
After September 11 and, especially, the October 12, 2002 Bali bombings that killed eighty-eight Australians, Indonesia figured prominently in Australian security. Australia believes conditions there may pose a threat to its citizens and Australian assets overseas. Australian officials have worked hard to revitalize the relationship. At the functional level there is substantial cooperation. Australia has maintained its aid program and has assisted the Indonesian police in their Bali blast investigations. Restoration of military-tomilitary ties is in the works. Yet Australia has struggled to establish high-level visits. Both Indonesian presidents Wahid and Megawati have cancelled planned trips to Australia, most likely because of nationalist pressures emanating from the Indonesian Parliament and the general public.
In the wake of difficulties to the bilateral relations, both Canberra and Jakarta are trying to restore elements of past cooperation. For example, in the aftermath of the Bali blast, Australian police were instrumental in assisting their Indonesian counterparts in dismantling the culpable Jemaah Islamiyah cells.
For the United States, Australia’s links with Indonesia have always been useful because they helped shore up Indonesia’s security and stability. However, today in the wake of East Timor and Bali, Canberra-Jakarta links are shaken, and the United States needs to be realistic about the limitations of the Australia-Indonesia relationship. Furthermore, Australia’s close alliance with the United States has proven to be a millstone in normalizing Australia- Indonesia relations; many Indonesians see the Untied States as having negative designs on their country for which Australia is a willing partner.
Australia Relations with China
Australia’s first diplomatic mission in China opened in 1941, but closed again only eight years later after the Communist victory over the Nationalist Kuomintang and the subsequent establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. Cold War fears of Communism characterised Australia’s relations with China over the next two decades, with Australia refusing to recognise either the Communist government of the PRC in Peking (Beijing) or the Nationalists in the Republic of China (Taiwan) (http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/fact-sheets/fs247.aspx ).
In 1966, under Prime Minister Harold Holt, a diplomatic mission was established in Taipei. Seven years later, when the Whitlam government established diplomatic relations with the PRC, the Taipei embassy closed and an embassy was opened in Peking (http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/fact-sheets/fs247.aspx ).
Australia’s relationship with China is documented in records created by the Department of Trade, the Prime Minister Department and within the papers of individual prime ministers including Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser (http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/fact-sheets/fs247.aspx ).
According to her White Paper, Australia perceive china as the new state with rapid growing economy that must be addressed by Australia elites at the most considerable level. Australia cannot neglect China capabilities and how this will open to a new trade agreement that would benefit Australia. Cooperation between China and Australia is enhanced in the mining and energy sectors. he agreements cover projects worth more than $10 billion in total.Seven of the ten agreements relate to resources and energy. This demonstrates the dynamic relations between the two countries in this sector, and the strong complementarity of the two economies (Downer, 2005).
References:
Cheeseman, Graeme. –. Australia: the White Experience of fear and Dependence. –
Smith, Anthony L. 2008. Australia_indonesia Relations: Getting Beyond East Timor. Hawaii: Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (www.apcss.org )
Fact sheet 247 – Australia’s diplomatic relations with China. National Archives of Australia. [Online] n/a n/a, n/a. [Cited: November 23, 2010.] http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/fact-sheets/fs247.aspx
Understanding Australian Society and Culture
Understanding Australian Society and Culture
by Renny Candradewi
- Australian identity
Identity is an attribute that defines where we live; who and what we are. National identity is a major concern for certain nation to build their well-being. Australian identity has been questioned throughout the years. Somehow her people feel uncertainty about their identity[1]. Whether it exist or how it presents and represent her people.
It is believed that Australia identity has long history of Anglo-Celtic[2]. Between the sholars, as Sydney Professor of English, Elizabeth Webby describes that Australian identity has linkages with family descent from Anglo Celt[3]. In fact, Donald Horne insists that has argued there will be no australian identity, there never has been and there never be something called the Australian national identity[4]. What have constructed the view among Australian people is convenience brought by British colonization[5]. In other word, today’s Australian identity still carries the marks of yesterday’s British’s connection. Most Australian people have been linked with Anglo Celtic culture. Anglo Celtic is a cultural bond to define people who originated from British Isles and Irish.
Australian national identity is a social imaginary shaped by the bonds emotion and feeling with Britain. Relate to historical accounts by many Australian novelists, as Malouf, that Australian is related to political and familial ties with Britain and its long history[6]. Such attachment is evident within Australian social identity.
Another notion would suggest that there’s a growing concern towards Australian identity that has been multiculturalized. Australia has been known for its complex ongoing democracy in todays modernized world[7]. It never really escapes from British influence and commonwealth as it never refuse the evidence of democratic process within its political system. This brings their identity into confusion. What happen is, neither one has been chosen by to define the character of Australian itself. Rather than choose one another, Australian identity has been a consolidation of both political circumstance. It promotes a political and ensures social cohesion of an emerging, though not completed yet, a multicultural and democratic nation[8]. So, if there’s question raising about how Australian social or imaginary identity is, the answer will focusing on how the cohesion exist between the Empiral and historical heritage and changes that exist within them[9].
- Australian position in Asia
In the 1980s and early 1990s, Australian foreign policy and world leader’s opinion are focusing her position towards Asia countries. Previously, history accounts Australia as a distant prison and British Empire lookout. Increasing population happened in 1850s is caused by the gold rushes and through nativists (European Australian-born) and nationalist movements of the late nineteenth century[10]. This has brought about a vague and problematic national identity. Somehow, most Australians accepted their belonging within imperial frame. Thus allow them to join in many Empire wars, one notorious example was World War I.
To this cause, it appears that Australia’s identity is intentionally constructed to distinctively different from Asia countries. Within it, manifested what we have known as a White Australian Policy. It is stated that it policy against Chinese immigrants and laborers[11]. This largely is due to the collapse of British power and European closure towards strangers. This is also due to the brutal treatment of Australians by Japanese military occupation on Thai-Burma railway[12].
During the Cold War, Australian policy inclines to capitalism due to the rising communism in the other hand. This paves Australian ways to alliance with US military alliance which signifies the Australian identity as white and Western[13].
However, Australian policy succeeded racialized policy by 1972. It is when social democratic Labour government under Gough Whitlam recognized limited indigenous rights and calms and declared Australia a multicultural society[14]. This is the first time, Australian politics accept the notion of multiculturalism although there was little agreement about what that might mean. At this time of year, Australia has been closer to Asia. There’s permitted increasing immigration from Asian Australians coming to Australia.
After accidence of September 11, Australia government perceives the danger of difference as threats to security. Australia has strictly restrained any incoming immigration originated from Pakistan and Afghanistan that were identified as enemy[15]. This by mean has set Australia position quite distant from Asia and raise criticism from Asian country leaders.
Reference
Dixson, Miriam. 2002. Identity in Australia: Issues and Strategies for the Early to mid Twenty-first Century. Armidale : University of New England British Australian Studies Association, 2002.
Pettman, Jan Jindy. n/a. Questions of Identity: Australia and Asia. n/a : Australian National University, n/a.
[1] Miriam Dixson, (2002), Indentity in Australia: Issues and Strategies for the early to Mid Twenty-first century, British Australian Studies Association, Armidale, p. 238
[2]Ibid., p. 238
[3] Ibid., p. 238
[4] Ibid., p. 238
[5] Ibid., p. 238
[6] David Malouf dalam Miriam Dixson, (2002), Indentity in Australia: Issues and Strategies for the early to Mid Twenty-first century, British Australian Studies Association, Armidale, p. 244
[7] Op.cit, p. 239
[8] Ibid., p. 240
[9] Ibid., p. 240
[10] Jan Jindy Pettman, (n/a), Questions of Identity: Australia and Asia, p. 160
[11] Ibid., p. 161
[12] Ibid., p. 161
[13] Ibid., p. 162
[14] Ibid., p. 162
[15] Ibid., p. 166
Understanding Australian Politics : National politics, foreign policy, national interest
Understanding Australian Politics : National politics, foreign policy, national interest
by Renny Candradewi
- Permanent Interest
There several aspects of Australian interest rests on maintaining a constitutional issues and policies to impose rules onto indigenous people. It is believed that Australia is facing a long history of legitimacy, racialized politics, economic reform after 2008 global financial crisis, and quest of national identity[1]. In addition to that, what Australia is currently struggling is to combat terrorism and maintaning tied relationship with United States[2].
In its international relations, Australia uses its assets – economic, strategic and cultural – as well as an international reputation as a responsible, constructive and practical country. The values which Australia brings to its international relations are the values of a liberal democracy. These have been shaped by national experience and given vigour through cultural diversity. They include the rule of law, freedom of the press, the accountability of the government to an elected parliament, and a commitment to a ‘fair go’[3].
As a nation with global interests, Australia deals with countries in many regions. The countries which most substantially engage Australia’s interests are those which are influential in shaping Australia’s strategic environment, as well as being significant trading and investment partners. Foremost among these are the three major powers and largest economies of the Asia-Pacific region – the United States, Japan and China – and Australia’s near neighbour, Indonesia. Significant Australian interests are also engaged in Australia’s relationships with the other states of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the European Union and its member states, the Republic of Korea, and, in the South Pacific, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea[4].
- National politics
The issues of legitimacy where indigenous people and non-indigenous people could share a common citizenship and how their rights are fully claimed[5]. There’s circumstances in which non-Australian live with guilt for the absence of national identity[6]. The presence of minor ethnics has been overlooked by the regime, and their struggle continues till the past recent years. They effortless keep struggling to attain an equal rights and protection from national government or regime. However, their dispossession undermines the construction of future national identity[7].
Racialized politics remains intact with Australia social structures. It also constructs today immediate Australian politics. Although this racialized politics are gradually decline but the its presence is still evident among non-Australian and Aboriginal people.
However, Australia still remains closure to some certain Asia countries and Asia continents, with continuously build strong and tied relationship with US and European regions.
- Foreign policy
The purpose of Australian foreign policy is to advance the national interest of security and properity of Australia and Australian. The actualization of its foreign policy has been dealing with Australian interest in globalization and global scope of geopolitics. Second, Australia is continuously promoting political freedom as an egalitarian country.
The recent issues have dealing with effort to combat terrorism militarily and politically. Terrorism has been a very serious issue for serious bombing in Bali, Indonesia in the past 2002, war in Afghanistan, and War in Iraq 2001.
Australia foreign policy also focuses on engaging stronger relationship with Asia and most significantly with China, Japan, Korea, and Indonesia. First, China, is known for its rapid growing on economic and exports. China is the major trading partners for Australia so is Japan in more liberal international market. Second, Indonesia and Australia previously have an oil and territorial disputes in East timor. As a nearest neighbor country, Australia is trying to cooperate in more moderate ways by political visit in the year presidency of Wahid and Soekarnoputri’s.
- National Interest
Security and prosperity of Australia and Australian. National interest somehow reflected by how national politics is and domestic view are portrayed. Let’s begin with the reflection of national identity towards Australian policy. How this factor is likely to influence the cultural politics and policy of Australia.
Some critics emerge due to the controversy between liberal democracy that promotes equality among people and freedom of individuals and indigenous people that seems overlooked. Australia policy seems to move towards pragmatic model in which they would follow policy that to them is beneficial. Australia always seeks to firm relations with the West and therefore, they seem to adopt and pursue British, United States, and other European countries.
Especially with Britain, Australia continues loyal to the British Crown with our head of state derived from the hereditary line of the British monarchy. Australia has the Union Jack as an integral part It is believed that their policy has been shaped by those interest also, and their influence and interference are evident[8].
Addition: Australian National Identity and Today Issue
National identity between non-Australian and Australian citizenship, will be discussed below. It took until 1967, the citizenship rights and national census of Australian people takes into account the Aboriginal people. Prior to that, they were not even calculated and counted as original inhabitants or citizens. It was not until the High courts’ Mabo vs Qold decision in 1992, that the legal fiction of ‘terra nullius’ was not recognised by the common law[9]. Australia’s legal system finally acknowledged that Australia was not an empty continent. Prior to this, Aboriginal people simply did not exist within the eyes of the law as a sovereign people. The Australian Constitution still does not recognise the sovereignty of Indigenous Australians.
Non-Indigenous Australians still struggle today to come to terms with this past history of colonial dispossession, neglect and erasure. The impact of this history on Aboriginal peoples’ lives is experienced continually in the present[10].
Problematic questions will be: How might Indigenous Australians view national identity? What purpose has their exclusion from ideas of the ‘Australian type’ served both in the past and today?
Reference
Anonim. 2007. Australian in International System. Australian Year Book 2002. [Online] Australian Bureau of Statistics, August 20, 2007. [Cited: October 30, 2010.] http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/e1504510e33b7b60ca256b3500035ca2!OpenDocument.
CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIA: National Identity. Cousins, Sara. 2005. the Monash University National Centre for Australian Studies course, developed with Open Learning Australia, s.l. : Monash University Press, 2005.
Pettman, Jan Jindy. n/a. Questions of Identity: Australia and Asia. n/a : Australian National University, n/a.
[1] Pettman, Jan Jindy. n/a. Questions of Identity: Australia and Asia. Australian National University
[2] Richard Mulgan, n/a/, Citizenship and Legitimacy in Post-colonial Australia, Canberra, Australian National University Press, chapter 10, pp. 179-195
[3] Anonim, 2007, Australia 2002 Yearbook, [Online] http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/A00516A67F17B5A2CA256B3500035CA0?opendocument accessed 30 October 2010
[4] Ibid., p.2
[5] Richard Mulgan, n/a/, Citizenship and Legitimacy in Post-colonial Australia, Canberra, Australian National University Press, chapter 10, pp. 179-180
[6] Richard Mulgan, n/a/, Citizenship and Legitimacy in Post-colonial Australia, Canberra, Australian National University Press, chapter 10, pp. 179-195
[7] Ibid., p. 184
[8] Sara Cousins, 2005, National Identity, National Centre for Australian Studies, Monash University, p. 1
[9] Ibid., p. 2
[10] Richard Mulgan, n/a/, Citizenship and Legitimacy in Post-colonial Australia, Canberra, Australian National University Press, chapter 10, pp. 179-195
Australia’s relations with Asian countries: Indonesia and China
Australia’s relations with Asian countries: Indonesia and China
by Renny Candradewi
- “Positioning Australia di Asia”
Australia foreign policy also focuses on engaging stronger relationship with Asia and most significantly with China, Japan, Korea, and Indonesia. First, China, is known for its rapid growing on economic and exports. China is the major trading partners for Australia. Second, Indonesia and Australia previously have an oil and territorial disputes in East Timor[1]. This working paper will only focus on Australia relations with China and Indonesia to her significance in building relations with Asia in general.
Australia positioning in Asia has been dynamically changing depends on the ruling elite of its national politics. History has noted that the origin of Australia, Australia is shaped against British colonization, its indigenous people and Asia previously. Particularly, the first parliament of Australia has invented policy what has widely been known as “Australian White Policy”. It is a consolidating effort of separate colonial legislation against Chinese immigrants[2]. This policy instituted a racially and culturally exclusivist immigration politic to keep the nation white preferably to British; which this also means that Australia implemented a closure policy against stranger, peculiarly Asian.
However in this more globalized era, Australia has acknowledged the rapid growing of several and most of Asian countries. This occurrence has urged Australia to engage her economic towards Eastern front, which consists of South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, and most significantly China.
This event is evident within the framework cooperation of ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum) held in 2006 that also involved not only Australia, but also several countries of Europe. Another turning point of the changing of Australian policy can also be traced back through the action to counter terrorism during year 2001 and the current of United States foreign policy to ensure world peace.
As the political elite of Australia changes will also consequence on her foreign policy orientation. For instance, John Howard is widely known to have a close tied with Bush Administration especially to tackle down terrorism and regards Asia as the main source of threats towards its national policy, while we are familiar that Kevin Rudd is moderately open to Asia.
Australia position in Asia was during 1980 was quite ambiguous, Mahathir (Malaysia) had promoted Asian values to exclude Australia from their region. It is believed that this background reason is quite fruitful to suggest that Australia must remain excluded from Asia[3].
What is necessary to be noted about Australia relations with Asia, is, Australia has suffered a trauma of Japan successes in World War II and a severe treatment in Tha-Burma Railway[4]. Today Australia relation and Asia can be observed indirectly through its white paper and current relations with certain big state in Asia such as Malaysia, Indonesia, China, and Japan. This relation is changing to be a better shape. For example, Australia had been in long and hard relations with Malaysia. But currently this relation changes significantly. The visiting of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi in Australia is noted as the mark for outstanding and open political relations[5].
Australia engagement with China is relatively active in economic and reducing barriers and tariffs that’s essential to conduct trade between two nations. Later this issue will be discussed below and so is Indonesia.
- Relations Indonesia and Australia
The locus of Australian relations with Indonesia rests on earlier 1940’s history during Soekarno presidency. Diplomatic ties ensuing Indonesia independence was significantly crucial. This tie then gradually declined during Soekarno ambition to make West Irian belong to Indonesia. Australia facilitated mediation against Netherland to support Indonesia independence[6].
Soeharto presidency marks the gradually declining in the bilateral relations ensuing Indonesia annexation towards East Timor in 1975. This action is criticized by Australian public which eventually forces Australian government to deliver Timor issues in United Nations Security Council. The critic is believed to be inherited from Indonesia military action that has caused five Australian journalists died. Since then, Australian public and press has increasingly become sensitive towards any Indonesia’s policy towards East Timor[7].
Instead of conflicting relations with Australia during the first two crucial presidency in Indonesia’s history, Australia has established a bilateral cooperation on their basic aspects of economy, trade, education, culture, and security such (1) standardization through mutual understanding Concerning cooperation on Standards and Conformance,(2) trade reflected through Agreement, A trade agreement between the republic of Indonesia and the Commonwealth of Australia agenda no. 346, (3) culture through Cultural Agreement between the Government of republic Indonesia and the government of Commonwealth of Australia. (4) Economic through Exchange of Letters. (5) Territory by Establishing Certain Seabed Boundaries[8].
- Australia Relations with China
According to her White Paper, Australia perceive china as the new state with rapid growing economy that must be addressed by Australia elites at the most considerable level. Australia cannot neglect China capabilities and how this will open to a new trade agreement that would benefit Australia. Cooperation between China and Australia is enhanced in the mining and energy sectors. he agreements cover projects worth more than $10 billion in total.Seven of the ten agreements relate to resources and energy. This demonstrates the dynamic relations between the two countries in this sector, and the strong complementarity of the two economies[9].
China has invested in Australian mining industry and energy industry. This becomes evident in Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy .
Australia and China has a long history account in relations of two countries. The first Chinese Consul-General to Australia arrived in Melbourne in 1909, but it wasn’t until 1921 that Australia established representation in China through a trade commissioner, an effort that was disbanded the following year[10]. Australia’s first diplomatic mission in China opened in 1941, but closed again only eight years later after the Communist victory over the Nationalist Kuomintang and the subsequent establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. Cold War fears of Communism characterised Australia’s relations with China over the next two decades, with Australia refusing to recognise either the Communist government of the PRC in Peking (Beijing) or the Nationalists in the Republic of China (Taiwan). In 1966, under Prime Minister Harold Holt, a diplomatic mission was established in Taipei. Seven years later, when the Whitlam government established diplomatic relations with the PRC, the Taipei embassy closed and an embassy was opened in Peking[11].
Reference
n/a. Fact sheet 247 – Australia’s diplomatic relations with China. National Archives of Australia. [Online] n/a n/a, n/a. [Cited: November 23, 2010.] http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/fact-sheets/fs247.aspx.
Anonim, 2010. Australia And China Strengthen Clean Energy, Economic Cooperation. GovMonitor: Public Sector News and Information. [Online] June 21, 2010. [Cited: November 23, 2010.] http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/asia/australia-and-china-strengthen-clean-energy-economic-cooperation-34049.html
Pettman, Jan Jindy. n/a. Questions of Identity: Australia and Asia. n/a : Australian National University, n/a.
The Hon. Alexander Downer, MP. 2005. Australia’s Engagement with Asia. FORMER MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AUSTRALIA. [Online] December 1, 2005. [Cited: November 23, 2010.] http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/2005/051201_asialink.html.
LECTURE
Positioning Australia in Asia?
Is Australia part of Asia?
China remains paling penting bagi Australia, disamping negara2 barat seperti Inggris dan Australia. Hubungan itu sangat penting, karena China dipersepsikan sebagai suatu Negara komunis yang aktif secara politis, dan kebijakan politis yang berani menantang Amerika serikat.
Source of Consideration
Geographically, Australia is at the foot of Asian, isolated, marginalized, remote (terpencil). Banyak orang menganggap Australia sebagai bagian (secara kultural dan sosial) merupakan bagian dari negara dan kebudayaan Barat.
Chronoligal Historical Relations
Before great depression: Asutralia see Britihs empire, and adopt the entire British policy, which means she never looks or tends to Asia policy (importance). They reinforce their position in terms trade, defence, and immigration
Early ’30, Australi see Asia and Pacific for trade to help Australia from depression (John Latham going tour to East Asia).
Historical Relations
Middle and late 1930, dispute with Japan in 1936
Japan expansion to Manchuria, china create worries to Australia
Until 1945, relations decreased by war
After WW II, Australia support sifnificant diplomatic effort for independence in Asia
Historical Relations
Impact of the WW Ii to Japan
Cold War
Australian involve in Wars in Asia on behalf of Western Policy (Korea, Indo China0
Impac relations to seee China
Hubungan emosional Australia dan negara barat selalu erat meskipun terkadang bersifat samar (ambiguous)
Support militer Australia selalu berperan sebagai aktor marginal dalam berbagai perang (foreign policy) Barat.
Historic relations to Asia
Eurpean Colonial Thinker
Australis were guarding the last part of the world, in which the higher races can live and increase freely, for the higher civilisation’ (Charler Henry Pearson’s in nationala Life and character)
Artinya, Australian secara civilisation, lebih tinggi daripada (negara Asia lainnya)
Important Policy
White Australian Policy (1901-1973)
Fundamental principla of national life
Progress and Engagement
1980’s, Constuctive engagement (Gareth Evan)
Belief that Asia would play a new role for Australia
Based on suggestion on report from academics
Dibb report in defense, garnaut in trade, Ingleson on Asian language, Fitzgerald on immigration.
This suggestions are coming from Australian ministers, ato ahli akademik dari masing2 sektor.
[1] Pettman, Jan Jindy. n/a. Questions of Identity: Australia and Asia. n/a : Australian National University, n/a.
[2] Ibid., p. 161
[3] Ibid., p. 161
[4] Ibid., p. 161
[5]The Hon. Alexander Downer, MP. 2005. Australia’s Engagement with Asia. FORMER MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AUSTRALIA. [Online] 1 December 2005. [Dikutip: 23 November 2010.] http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/2005/051201_asialink.html.
[6] Leo Suryadinata. 1998. Politik Luar Negeri Indonesia di Bawah Soeharto: Bab 6 Hubungan Indonesia dengan Australia dan Papua New Guinea. Jakarta: LP3ES. p.116-124.
[7] Ibid., p.. 115
[8]dephan.gov.id
[9] Anonim, 2010. Australia And China Strengthen Clean Energy, Economic Cooperation. GovMonitor: Public Sector News and Information. [Online] June 21, 2010. [Cited: November 23, 2010.] http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/asia/australia-and-china-strengthen-clean-energy-economic-cooperation-34049.html
[10] n/a. Fact sheet 247 – Australia’s diplomatic relations with China. National Archives of Australia. [Online] n/a n/a, n/a. [Cited: November 23, 2010.] http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/fact-sheets/fs247.aspx.
[11] n/a. Fact sheet 247 – Australia’s diplomatic relations with China. National Archives of Australia. [Online] n/a n/a, n/a. [Cited: November 23, 2010.] http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/fact-sheets/fs247.aspx.
Australia’s Relations with United States
Australia’s Relations with United States
by Renny Candradewi
Since the World War II, relations with the United States have assumed an increasingly prominent position in the construction of economic and security policy in Australia[1]. Events that mark this increasingly strong relation encompass various Australia support to US military aggression in Iraq by 2001, so is her NATO ambition currently in Afghanistan.
However, this relation also becomes subjected to criticism and scrutiny. This strong support to maintain a strong relation is emanating from the character building of Australian political elites, which is Australian Labor Party. As noted previous, the former Australia Prime Minister John Howard has been a very close ally to United States. He supports Bush’s Military Agression towards Iraq in year 2001 and military intervention in stabilizing Afganishtan politics vis a vis with Taliban. In year 2010, Untied States has her military base in few regions in Australia (Western Australia about 370 kilometers north of Perth, Pine Gap). This joint action has been a further defence cooperation for both countries to maintain a close tie[2]. However, US never allows even its key ally, not excluding Australia to buy the highest aircraft F-22 raptor[3].
The implication to lean too much on US foreign policy will include long term impacts on Australia position in the region, economic position, and political independence (for instances)[4]. Some economic pay offs that must be addressed by incumbent Australian government: (1) exclusion from regional cooperation in ASEAN, (2) exclusion from grouping ‘ASEAN+3’ as the major economic partner in region, and (3) further explanation. However, this tie is on its way to working out where elected Prime Minister, Julia Gillian, has visited several state within its neighborship including Indonesia in 2010. Indonesia is widely known to produce security threats and the spread of terrorism within Asia Pacific and Southeast Asia[5]. Australia and United States has this common interest to counter any terrorism attack emerging from Middle East and (as regarded) Moslem country such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Philippines.
A bilateral economic relation between Australia and United States has been running unevenly. Australia is currently undergoing trade deficits with United States. Her main export is only in the sensitive matter that is a subject of restriction and trade barrier[6]. This economic position before US becomes debatable. Meanwhile, there are several arguments that to follow US foreign policy, Australia must prepare herself from losing another percentage in economic agreement with East-Asia and Southeast Asia economic cooperation[7]. If only Australia would engage in export and import with US, Australia would run her deficit.
One fundamental success in Australia foreign policy is the significant improvements in Australia’s access to the United States is in the context of multilateral negotiations[8]. The Australia foreign policy engagement with US opens more multilateral market cooperation that enables Australia to enter North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
In the security matter, Australia calls for security integration in the Pacific region that involves the collaboration with New Zealand. This notion has been inevitably linked with US security interest to secure the rest of the region so is to maintain its dominancy[9]. The problem that occurs in reshaping Australia’s foreign policy is that she usually reflects US’s global geopolitics in priority at the same time neglects to keep in Australian (genuine) interest. For example, what has been known as ‘Howard Doctrine’ expresses Australia position to keep continuing act as ‘deputy sheriff’[10].
In maintaining strong relations with US, brings consequence to exclusion. This seems Australia remain isolated and far from its Asia neighbors. There’s one ultimate reason that follows this relationship with US, it is there’s no other alternative to undertake such a strong foreign policy but to highly rely on US foreign policy. As Pacific Review strengthens that Australia has no better security option than to sustain and cultivate the American security tie[11].
Reference
Beeson, Mark. 2003. Australia’s Relationship with the United States: The Case for Greater Independence, Queensland, University of Queensland. University of Queensland: Queensland, p. 112-131
Lockhart, Greg. 2000. We’re so alone: Two Versions of the Void in Australian Military History., p. 389-396
WT Tow, 2000. Deputy Sheriff or Independent Ally? Pacific Review, pp. 275-288
[1] Mark Beeson, 2003, Australia’s Relationship with the United States: The Case for Greater Independence, Queensland, University of Queensland, p. 112
[2] Anonim, 2007, The Age, US Military Base in Western Australia, [Online] The Age, February 15, 2007 [Cited: November 30, 2010.] http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/us-gets-military-base-in-australia/2007/02/14/1171405295243.html
[3] Anonim, 2007, ibid.
[4] Mark Beeson, 2003, Australia’s Relationship with the United States: The Case for Greater Independence, Queensland, University of Queensland, , p. 335
[5] Leo Suryadinata. 1998. Politik Luar Negeri Indonesia di Bawah Soeharto: Bab 6 Hubungan Indonesia dengan Australia dan Papua New Guinea. LP3ES, Jakarta. p.116-124.
[6] Ibid., p. 116
[7] Ibid., p. 117
[8] Ann Capling, 2001 in Mark Beeson, 2003, Australia’s Relationship with the United States: The Case for Greater Independence, Queensland, University of Queensland, p. 117
[9] Ibid., p. 119
[10] Ibid., p. 120
[11] WT Tow, 2000, Deputy sheriff or Independent Ally?, Pacific Review, p. 277
