Asia, America and Australia
Michael Wesley
For more than a century, Pacific Asia has profoundly shaped the Australian-American relationship. By the mid-19th century, elites in both countries were defining themselves as Pacific nations, and the lands and societies of Pacific Asia provided important ingredients of the geopolitical identity of each. Asia was seen as a new frontier for these young and vigorous settler societies, which as the century wore on identified themselves and each other as representatives of the “Anglo-Saxon race” that had taken possession of the most productive temperate territories outside of Europe. To re-order and engage with Pacific Asia was seen as a civilisational destiny.
The most important principle in the re-ordering of Pacific Asia was to try to force the other colonial powers to comply with an “open door” principle of access to Asia’s markets. While this principle is now broadly accepted as a central tenet of US foreign policy, what is less commonly acknowledged is the extent to which it was a powerful norm at the heart of the foreign policy of the British Empire at its height. The United States’ own foray into colonialism was driven by civilisational and strategic impulses. The Philippines was seen as an important strategic base to allow the US to prosecute its commercial interests in Pacific Asia. The one-sided result of the Spanish-American War stimulated paroxysms of delight and Anglo-Saxon solidarity in Britain and the white Dominions. It marked the beginnings of a strong movement within the British Empire and the US for the development of an English-speaking alliance that would maintain global peace and free commerce; a sentiment that was carried by many of those who would later drive the formation of close alliances among the Anglophone states.
If Asia was seen as an opportunity by Americans and Australians, it was also feared. The paradox at the heart of Anglo-Saxonism was that even though the English-speaking peoples were believed to be freedom-loving, just, reliable, tenacious, strong willed and enterprising, there was the prospect that they would be overwhelmed by the more fecund, avaricious, conniving societies of Asia. Not only did this require that “racially pure” Anglo-Saxon societies in North America, Australasia and southern Africa had to keep themselves free of Asian immigration, it further mandated solidarity among the Anglophone powers. Writers such as A.T. Mahan and J.R. Seeley argued explicitly that the freedom-loving and independent-minded Anglo-Saxons risked being divided and overwhelmed by lower races, and that they needed to forge strong alliances of common purpose to protect the Anglophone world order—an appeal for “civilisational” solidarity in the face of the rising Asian challenge that was echoed in recent years by the late Samuel Huntington. It was partly a response to the rise of Japanese power that prompted Theodore Roosevelt—himself an avid believer in Anglo-Saxonism—to dispatch the Great White Fleet on a tour of the Pacific in 1908. Its rapturous reception in Sydney was underpinned by a sense of pride felt by Australians in the extraordinary rise of this branch of their “race” and also a sense of relief that in the face of the Japanese menace, Australia could find protection in the bonds of racial solidarity. As The Sydney Mail editorial put it:
We welcome the American officers…if it ever has to come to seeking the protection of another power our people could probably turn instinctively to Uncle Sam.
To read the full article please subscribe »
Next: America as an idea
Previous: Handle with care
Subscribe!
In the news
Interview with James Hansen: The Grandfather of climate change science
11 Mar 2010
In this interview renowned climate scientist James Hansen explains why the 'cap and trade' model mooted at Copenhagen is inferior to the 'fee and dividend' model for reducing carbon emissions. Additionally, Hansen argues that a shift toward renewable energy and away from fossil fuels need not involve cuts to economic production. He also states that the recent 'climate-gate' and IPCC related controversies have been blown out of proportion.
In the news
Obama's health Bill at crucial stage
10 Mar 2010
The Canberra Times
In this article Lesley Russell examines the likelihood of the new health Bill being signed prior to President leaving for this month's scheduled visit to Australia and Indonesia.
This week, President Barack Obama will begin making what White House officials are calling the ''closing arguments'' on why the Congress must urgently move to enact health-care reform, focusing on steep increases in insurance premiums and an insistence that a comprehensive overhaul is needed rather than the incremental approach Republicans are demanding.
In his weekly media address last weekend, the President set a new deadline for action, stating that he's asked leaders in both of Houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. Later, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was more specific, saying the president wants the Bills passed by both houses before he leaves the country on March 18 for his trip to Indonesia and Australia.
That timetable may not be met in full. The House leadership is preparing for a vote on the Senate Bill, quickly followed by a vote on the reconciliation Bill that will effect the President's proposed compromises, on March 17 or 18. But the Senate will still need to vote on the reconciliation Bill, and in the absence of firm prior agreements and strict controls over process, any amendments added on the Senate floor could set up a ping-pong process that will add days or weeks to the time for a Bill to land on the President's desk for signing.
The scramble is on to get the votes needed for passage: reconciliation means that only a simple majority is needed in the Senate, but the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, will need all her formidable skills to marshal the 216 votes needed in the House. The hope is that anyone tempted to drop their previous support for the Bill recognises that this will be seen as a flip-flop stance that will draw no votes in the mid-term elections.
Despite the White House summit on health-care reform and Obama's inclusion of Republican proposals from the summit in his plan, health-care reform will almost certainly be enacted without a single Republican vote.
The conservatives are in full rallying cry on why health-care reform must be stopped. They are ignoring the assessments of the independent Congressional Budget Office that the Bill costs around $950 billion, is fully paid for, and will in fact help reduce the deficit, and are now using their own calculations to claim that the Bill involves $2.5 trillion in new spending.
Their mantra is that it will increase taxes, cut Medicare, and represents a government takeover of health care. Their confected rage at the use of the reconciliation process ignores the fact that this is precisely how president George W.Bush got his tax cuts passed measures which have added $2 trillion to the federal debt.
Obama's efforts to drive passage of this key election promise must take place against the backdrop of an economy and employment that is struggling to emerge from a deep recession. That's why he so often refers to the rising cost of health insurance and the industry practice of dropping those who need care. These consumer protections test well in opinion polls. He has also revived his criticism of the United States' political culture, something he promised to change during his 2008 campaign. His efforts have been rebuffed at every opportunity by a Republican party that ultimately wants less not more government intervention in the health sector. Republicans who might once have been willing to engage in bipartisan efforts are now intimidated by the Tea Party ultra-conservatives into doing nothing.
For Australians anxious to see Obama and his family Down Under including surely the Prime Minister and his government the chances of that happening look increasingly iffy. It would be quite difficult for the President to cancel his trip to Indonesia, the political ramifications of that are significant.
But telling an understanding ally like Australia that issues with health-care reforms back in Washington require that a planned visit is rescheduled is an easier matter. Such news should be received with considerable understanding by a Prime Minister just beginning his slog to sell health care reforms prior to an election campaign.
Dr Russell is the Menzies Foundation Fellow at the Menzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney/Australian National University, and a Research Associate at the US Studies Centre, University of Sydney. She is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Washington DC.
© 2009 The United States Studies Centre | Privacy Statement
University of Sydney NSW 2006, Australia
Phone: +61 2 9351 7249 | Fax: +61 2 9351 6877
Email: us-studies@sydney.edu.au | Web: ussc.edu.au
ABN: 85 122 586 341 | CRICOS Number: 00026A
Site by CDW
