Book review: The High Commissioners: Australia's representatives in the United Kingdom, 1910-2010

The post of Australian High Commissioner in London has always been one of the most important and prestigious of Australia’s diplomatic posts. Indeed, as The High Commissioners demonstrates, for much of the one hundred years for which the post has existed it was an influential link between two parts of the British Empire, rather than a diplomatic mission in a foreign nation. It was for a long time a diplomatic post, but of a hybrid nature; an evolving child of empire. This handsomely produced book is a scholarly study of the position and of the many high commissioners. The chapters, which examine all the high commissioners and a range of related subjects, have been authored by many of Australia’s leading historians of empire and of foreign policy, with the most recent high commissioners covered by former government officials. While the book is designed as a celebration of the centenary of the Australian High Commission in London it is not a work of hagiography. Important analyses are presented of the strengths and weaknesses of many of the key high commissioners, such as George Reid, Andrew Fisher, S.M. Bruce, Alexander Downer senior and John Armstrong. Indeed, the book leaves the strong impression that some of the high commissioners, especially after the Second World War, were often well behind the Australian people in appreciating how the relationship between Australia and the United Kingdom was changing. The research and writing is of a uniformly high standard with each chapter providing many interesting insights into the history of Australian foreign policy.

How neocons are still winning in 2016

Amidst the antiestablishment fervor, one establishment characteristic of American politics and foreign policy is more likely than not to survive: neoconservatism.

The South China Sea ruling : who really won?

The legal blow on the South China Sea ruling might actually lead China to harden its position.

China anxieties in the geopolitical cartographies of the Indo-Pacific

Concepts about space and time, such as the Asia-Pacific and the Asian Century, are not articulated lightly in international relations discourses. When a spatial or temporal term comes into vogue, it often comes with political connotations and policy implications. This is the context in which we ought to consider the making of the spatial term Indo-Pacific, which has recently made it into the lexicon of official speeches, think-tank reports, government white papers and scholarly works. While many pundits and practitioners are embracing this new formulation, others cast doubt on its usefulness or even question its actual existence. Yet, despite its sudden stardom in foreign policy circles and some debate around its policy implications, how the Indo-Pacific as a political spatial concept came about has not been well understood.To address this gap, this chapter will first briefly survey the Indo-Pacific debate and examine how the debate has not paid adequate attention to the issue of the Indo-Pacific as a discursive construct. It then turns to how the United States, Australia, Japan, India and China together contribute to the formation of this concept amid ongoing geopolitical anxieties about the shape and trajectory of future Asian regional order. While acknowledging China's role in this constitutive process, I argue that as a discursive construct the Indo-Pacific has been motivated primarily by geopolitical anxieties about a perceived emerging regional order dominated by China. Driven by such anxieties, the concept is not an innocent description of a natural region out there; it has the potential of fuelling regional rivalries and exacerbating security dilemmas. Given its possible destabilising consequences, the chapter concludes with a call for a critical reimagination of this now increasingly accepted term.

The Australia-United States alliance and the management of elite opinion

This thesis firstly demonstrates that support for the current Australia-United States alliance at the elite level primarily derives from the desire to sustain western control over regional and international affairs and extend Australia’s influence abroad. Secondly, it demonstrates the role of the Australian American Leadership Dialogue in sustaining alliance orthodoxy.