With empire and paternalism in foreign affairs the most visible it has been in post-colonial times, Australia is taking its place as a regional parent.
It is a role that does not come easily to Canberra. For a number of decades, Australia has adopted a hands-off attitude to foreign aid. Its biggest aid contribution of $300 million annually is to Papua New Guinea. Since the country’s independence in 1974, PNG has been allowed to administer its funds with relative autonomy. The same attitude has applied to Pacific islands such as Fiji, Nauru and the Solomon Islands.
In January, the Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer defended this policy of distant inertia, discounting any intervention in the Solomon Islands.
“Sending in Australian troops to occupy the Solomon Islands would be folly in the extreme,” Downer said. “The fundamental problem is that foreigners do not have answers for the deep seated problems.”
Eight months on, it appears foreigners have found the answers to the complex problems besetting our Pacific neighbours. Australian troops have been sent to the Solomon Islands to control the accelerating lawlessness and chaos. Canberra has also sounded out a warning to Papua New Guinea that future spending of any Australian aid will be heavily overseen and tied to changes in governance. The PNG Prime Minister, Michael Somare, was incensed, saying it was a direct threat to his country’s independence.
The Australian Prime Minister John Howard explained the about face, referring to intervention in the Solomons as:
“We have sent a very large force to the Solomon Islands because it is in Australia’s interestsĆ¢€Ā¦that it [Solomon Islands] not become a failed state. Failed states become magnets for international criminals and money launderers and potentially international terrorists.”
The Australian Prime Minister is merely the local foot soldier of Washington’s latest strategy. A report from one of Washington’s leading think-tanks this year outlines why the US must no longer practice an arms-length imperialism but embrace a more active role in the ‘white man’s burden’.
The term “failed state” began in political science circles during the Cold War to address post-conflict territories. It refers to states whose institutions have collapsed leaving a vacuum in power and order. The term has been resurrected in our times for it has come to be associated with terrorism.
Afghanistan became a haven for fostering terrorism because it lacked a central authority, organized and powerful enough to stop the development of sinister activity. It was a failed state, vulnerable to the forces of international terrorism and transnational crime.
The Bush administration’s contribution to Liberia in terms of humanitarian relief and troops assisting EU peacekeepers would have been unthinkable pre-September 11. Africa would not have registered a blip on George W’s grey matter.
But now, Liberia is categorized as a failed state and therefore ripe for intervention, however limited.
In the Pacific, the similar fear is that countries like the Solomon Islands could degenerate into lawless badlands, ruled more by criminals than legitimate governments. At worst, it means a small island nation can be bought. Its resources, flag, passports, banks and officials can all be made available to gangsters and terrorists for running drugs and weapons, laundering money, people smuggling and other degenerate activities contrary to Australian and US interests.
It should be said that this new policy may have a considerable upside to the developing world. It has focused Washington’s energy into attacking poverty, disease and decadence. Not for humanitarian purposes, but as part of the ‘War On Terror’. It should be added that the Solomon Island’s leadership was also very happy for Australian intervention.
But the new theory of failed states encourages intervention on the thinnest of grounds. If a country even fails to provide jobs and education for the majority of its people, it can be classified as a failed state. This opens up much of the developing world for invasion on the grounds of ‘anticipatory self-defence’, the same thinking used for the pre-emptive strike on Iraq.
If this theory begins to be applied more widely on an international scale, aside from totally undermining global decision making, there is a risk of global anarchy. Countries with superior military power could easily justify projecting it onto far weaker rivals. Israel could attack its neighbours, citing civil unrest and a possible future threat, just as it did when it attacked Iraq’s nuclear facility in 1981. The US could potentially attack Argentina under this strategy, citing social unrest due to economic upheaval.
Symbolically, it appears to be a more transparent return to colonial times and the idea of a ‘white man’s burden’. The developing world can once again be available for plunder at the discretion of a powerful government. The US could in other words be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
Worryingly, Australia is happily putting its hand up to play a role in this world order, at the expense of international co-operation and the UN. It was clearly highlighted in comments from Australian Prime Minister John Howard last week. When responding to criticism of George W Bush’s speech to the UN general assembly regarding the UN’s global relevance, John Howard could only offer his own criticism of the French. This is consistent with Australia’s move to become America’s attack dog in the Pacific rather than maintain its place within multilateralism.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate