Why did President Bush take America to war with Iraq in 2003?

The decision for the United States and its allies to invade Iraq in 2003 is one of the most controversial foreign policy acts in modern US history. The reasons for going to war in Iraq remain at the centre of contemporary debate. Those critical of the war argue that Bush acted irrationally, with some suggesting that the Administration’s judgment was clouded by the tragedy of 9/11. Others suspect that the war effort was an attempt to control Iraq’s oil. I make the case against these theories and argue that Washington’s officially stated reason for invasion- the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein, remains the most plausible explanation for the war. Though America’s invasion did not find conclusive evidence of Hussein’s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) or links to Al Qaeda, these threats were reasonably believed at the time and justifiably acted upon by the Bush Administration. The promotion of democracy in Iraq is a further purported reason for the war. I argue that rather than underpinning the decision to go to war, the prospect of a democratic Iraq was merely a supporting factor. 

Then President George W Bush is seen addressing the US Army soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas about the possibility of military action against Iraq in January 2003 [File: Jeff Mitchell/Reuters]

9/11

The devastating effects of 9/11 reflected a turning point in American foreign policy. Some suggest that the decision to invade Iraq was impulsively made by officials who were jaded by the tragedy. However, this accusation does not stand up to scrutiny. The terror attacks demonstrated the capacity of lightly armed terrorists to wreak havoc and destruction on the United States. The Bush Administration’s fears were only heightened by allegations of Saddam Hussein’s WMD capability. The 9/11 attack on America’s homeland induced a visceral response that made Washington more acutely aware of their vulnerability to international terrorism. This awareness fundamentally transformed American foreign policy. The Bush Doctrine assumed that Cold War standards of deterrence and containment were no longer effective in regulating the actions of rogue states in a new age of international terrorism. Aware of the risks that Saddam Hussein could pose to the US, Bush called for assertive US leadership and the strategy of pre-emptive attack ‘against emerging threats before they are fully formed and can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.’

The necessity of pre-emptively attacking rogue states to protect national security was reinforced by the international community. Following the 2002 Bali Bombings which killed 88 Australians, Prime Minister John Howard stated the need to consider pre-emptive action as a last resort. Likewise, the European Union agreed that ‘threats such as terrorism may require action even before crises arise.’ This further strengthens the claim that the US declaration of war in 2003 was a prudent and reasonable response to the threat assessments of the time. In the US, 9/11 provided the wake-up call that thrust national security to the top of the Bush agenda. This change was echoed by policy makers throughout the world who also became more aware of the need to combat international terrorism. Therefore, the decision to invade Iraq was not impulsive or irrational, it was practical and made in accordance with the most accurate threat perceptions of international terrorism at the time.

Oil

Great powers of the past have often been driven by resource control. The interpretation of the Iraq war as a ploy to gain control of Iraq’s oil reserves continues to enjoy widespread currency today. To make this case, critics point to the oil industry links of Bush Administration officials ranging from President Bush himself, to the Secretary of Treasury Paul O’Neill and National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice. Gaining control of oil in the Middle East would have enabled the US to control the resources of China and India, the fastest growing economies in the world. However suspicious these factors may seem, both indicate a coincidence rather than a conspiracy. Closer examination of the facts leads to the conclusion that the Iraq war was not fought for oil. 

In the wake of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, America did not significantly benefit from Iraqi oil contracts. Despite the deployment of 200,000 US troops to Iraq and the estimated $2 trillion expended during the war effort, American companies were not given preferential treatment in virtue of their country’s involvement. Indeed, companies from nations that were neutral or hostile to the Iraq war were given equal footing to the US during oil negotiations. Only one US company (Exxon-Mobil) was successful in gaining a contract. This deal was no more impressive than the deals achieved by Russia’s Lukoil, Norway’s Statoil, Malaysia’s Petronas or Japan’s Japex. Furthermore, the most significant beneficiary of post-war oil contracts was China, emerging as the largest buyer of Iraqi oil in 2013. Considering that the Iraq war came at such a high cost to the American tax payer, while doing little to fuel the profits of American oil companies, it is extraordinary that the oil conspiracy continues to hold such popularity today. Defenders and detractors of the 2003 decision alike should acknowledge that the ‘oil narrative’ is a selective and speculative account at best.

National Security  

The officially stated and most plausible reason for the 2003 Iraq war was the national security threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States. At the time of the war, Saddam Hussein had been a brutal dictator of 25 years and a central threat to peace in the Middle East. Prior to 2003, the US had made ‘honourable efforts’ to contain and deter the threat of Iraq. Notably, the US engaged in diplomacy at the UN, imposing sanctions on Iraq and participating in the passage of 16 UN Security Council resolutions between 1990-1999 which demanded Iraq destroy all WMD and cease support for international terrorism. Hussein repeatedly defied these resolutions and responded to US funded peace keeping initiatives such as the Oil-for-Food Programme with corruption. Hussein also shot down US aircrafts which were in place to protect the Iraqi people from genocide. It was in this context that the Bush administration decided that the containment of Iraq through sanctions and deterrence was ineffective and could no longer ensure the national security of American citizens. The use of American military force was intended to defeat Saddam while also sending a cautionary message to any other nation currently harbouring or enabling terrorists.

From the American perspective, the two most concerning accusations of Saddam Hussein’s regime were his alleged WMD programme and ties to Al Qaeda. Though these allegations have since been discredited, the decision to go to war was based on leading threat perceptions of the Iraqi regime available at the time. While the intel regarding Saddam’s links to terrorism and WMD later proved to be incorrect, Saddam Hussein was a known aggressor of peace within the Middle East who had proven a distain for cooperation with the United States. Even putting the WMD and terrorism threats to one side, this regime was one that posed considerable dangers to the national security of the US. 

WMD Threat 

Saddam’s purported possession of WMD was of great concern to the United States. The reasonable chance that Saddam possessed WMD was a risk that President Bush was unwilling to gamble on. As he stated in the 2002 State of the Union address ‘We must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.’ In the case of Iraq, Saddam Hussein had a history of using WMD to murder thousands of his own citizens, ‘leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children.’ Thus, America only needed to refer to recent history to establish Hussein’s tolerance for utilising WMD. The Bush Administration then had to determine whether Saddam continued to possess WMD. This suspicion was difficult to prove, but equally difficult to rule out as the full account of chemical warfare munitions was never verified and international inspectors were routinely met with obstruction from the Iraqi government.

While the purported WMD were never found in Iraq, this does not mean that their potential existence did not warrant the invasion in the first place. Akin to all major foreign policy decision making, Bush’s declaration of war was a decision made under time-pressure constraints and with intel that was still in the development stages. Only after the war would it become known that Saddam’s deception about his WMD capacity stemmed from his desire to deter adversaries, such as Iran, and intimidate domestic foes, such as the Kurds.

Prior to the declaration of war, US intelligence strongly supported the theory that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD. Critics argue that analysts were bullied into finding evidence to support the Bush Administration’s agenda. However, American bipartisan inquiries such as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Robb-Silberman Commission, established to investigate the post-war intelligence, overwhelmingly found that analysts were not forced to manipulate their findings regarding Saddam’s alleged WMD. A further critique is that some intelligence agencies discovered evidence which contradicted the widespread belief of Saddam’s WMD capabilities and that Bush policy makers ‘cherry picked’ intelligence which bolstered the case for war while ignoring contrary evidence. Such claims are significantly weakened by the weight of the international consensus at the time. Suspicions of Hussein’s WMD program were not only supported by American intelligence analysts but also the clear majority of analysts working within the international intelligence community. This included analysts from countries strongly opposed to the war such as France, Germany and Russia. Though intelligence on Saddam’s WMD possession was inaccurate at the time of invasion and Saddam was arguably not as dangerous as the international community had initially believed, the Bush Administration made a time-pressured decision based on the genuine and most commonly held threat perceptions of the day.     

Terrorism Threat 

In light of Washington’s heightened sense of vulnerability to international terrorism, Saddam Hussein’s alleged and substantiated links to international terrorist groups further cemented the case for war in 2003. The Iraqi regime had a history of aiding, training and harbouring terrorists. Captured Iraqi documents published by the Institute for Defence Analyses reveal that although Saddam had no operational links to Al Qaeda, he did have ties to multiple terrorist groups, including the Palestine Liberation Front, Hamas, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and Afghanistan’s Hezb-e-Islami. Bush feared that Saddam’s links to terrorism could result in the deployment of further terrorist attacks against the United States. The risk of another devastating terrorist attack on American home soil was tangible as terrorism continued to destabilise the international community after 9/11. In 2002, journalist Daniel Pearl was beheaded, there was also an assault on a synagogue in Tunisia and American diplomat Laurence Foley was killed in Jordan. In October of the same year, the Bali Bombings killed more than 200 people. As Saddam Hussein was a clear enemy, President Bush could not rule out the potential for him to deploy terrorism against the United States or support another organisation to do so. Though Saddam Hussein was not found to have links to Al Qaeda or the 9/11 terrorist attack, his ties to other Islamic terrorist groups still characterised him as a threat. The US strategy to pre-emptively destabilise the Saddam regime was therefore warranted.   

Democracy 

Fostering democracy in the Middle East, was a supporting reason for President Bush’s campaign to oust Saddam Hussein in 2003. The Bush doctrine at its core advanced the theory ‘that people who are free and prosperous do not fly airplanes into skyscrapers.’ Toppling the Saddam regime gave the US the opportunity to help the Iraqi people build a new democracy. In the same way that post-war reconstruction had been successfully achieved in Germany and Japan, the Bush administration hoped that the instatement of democracy in Iraq would ‘fundamentally reshape the Middle East.’ Though there were considerable failures and setbacks in the reconstruction effort following the war in Iraq, today Iraq is a strategic partner of the United States and a voice of democracy in the Middle East. The war in Iraq enabled the fall of the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein — something that the Iraqi population had not been able to achieve. If Saddam had managed to transfer power to his sons, the regime may have survived for years or even decades. Though the democracy in Iraq remains fragile and imperfect today, the US role in overthrowing the Hussein regime subsequently enabled Iraqis to participate in their first relatively free and fair elections at both the national and local levels in 2005. This was a victory and promising path to freedom for a country that had a history of authoritarian political culture, tribalism and ethnic and sectarian violence.

A woman voted in Najaf, Iraq in 2014, in the first national election after U.S. forces pulled out of the country in 2011.
PHOTO: ALAA AL-MARJANI/REUTERS

There are numerous reasons that are purported to have been behind Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Those critical of the decision argue that the war was motivated by America’s lust for oil or was merely a knee-jerk reaction to the tragedy of 9/11. I have argued against these theories and have instead asserted that the Bush administration went to war first and foremost for the stated national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Following the honourable attempts to diplomatically disarm the Iraqi regime, the US and their allies invaded Iraq due to fears of Saddam’s WMD possession and links to terrorism. Both allegations held widespread bipartisan support in the US and were also reinforced by the international intelligence community. Though the accusations against Hussein were not established, 9/11 made the US aware of their vulnerability to international terrorism and the need to quash threats early on. An additional benefit of invading Iraq and winning the war, was the promotion of democracy. Though this was not Bush’s sole objective, it was a strong consideration which supported the final decision to go to war. 

The Iraq war remains a contentious aspect of US foreign policy today. However, most arguments made against the war have been made with the benefit of hindsight. It is important to remember that the war in Iraq was waged on the relevant information and risk assessments available to the Bush Administration in 2003. The US acted under time constraint and developed foreign policy that intended to protect the security of the international community.   


The 2020 US election, Prostitution Laws & Human Trafficking

In many ways, Senator Joe Biden’s selection of Kamala Harris as his Vice President is historic: She is the first woman of colour on a major party ticket, as well as the first female Vice-Presidential Democratic pick in more than three decades. 

However, many on the left were not overly pleased with the decision, critical of Harris’s  regressive record when she was District Attorney of San Francisco and Attorney General of California. Among these critics were sex workers’ rights advocates, who have been vocal about Harris’s historically aggressive approach to policing the community and her perceived backflips on the decriminalisation of prostitution. 

The legal status of sex work is a domestic factor which can impact upon the incidence of sex trafficking. Under the Trump administration prostitution has remained illegal in all states (with the exception of Nevada). Alternatively, much of Europe as well as Australia and New Zealand have opted to decriminalise or legalise sex work. Eight countries have also adopted the ‘Nordic Model’ where the buying of sex is criminalised, not the seller. 

Senator Harris recently commented that a Biden Administration would be in favour of a national decriminalisation agenda. Would this legislative change work in favour of America’s fight against human trafficking or against it?

Regardless of the 2020 outcome, the current debate on how to best regulate prostitution has divided America. The core legal approaches are as follows:

Prohibition

Prohibition aims to eradicate the market for paid sex, undercutting the sex trafficking business model, by targeting both supply and demand. In practice, this approach is problematic. In the United States, law enforcement overwhelmingly targets the sellers rather than buyers of sex. Annually 70,000-80,000 people are arrested for prostitution and estimates suggest that 70% of those arrested are female prostitutes and madams, 20% are male prostitutes and pimps, while only 10% are buyers. This approach carries an unfair gender bias against females and discourages victims of sex trafficking from coming forward to authorities due to fears that they may be punished. Thus, the sex industry is driven underground making it difficult for the legal system to deliver justice to victims.

Legalisation 

Through legalisation, states opt not deter people from selling or buying sex. Proponents of this approach argue that the criminalisation of prostitution makes trafficking more attractive. They argue that permitting prostitution reduces the prevalence of sex trafficking by allowing sex businesses to recruit local women who freely choose prostitution as their occupation There is insufficient evidence to support such claims. Research suggests that rates of sex trafficking remain high in places where prostitution is legal. European adopters of the legalisation approach, such as the Netherlands and Germany, have ‘the highest numbers of trafficked women in Europe.’

Critics argue that legalisation increases the size of the sex market, encouraging traffickers to exploit women and girls in greater numbers to meet increased demand. Evaluations have also found that legalised prostitution allows traffickers to hide victims in plain sight as consenting sex workers. The Chief of the German organised crime fighting unit in Stuttgart claimed that, since legalisation, his unit was fighting organised crime with ‘one hand tied behind their back’ as legal brothels provide ‘the perfect place to launder the proceeds of other organised crime.’

Strongly supporting the experiences of the Netherlands and Germany, a 2010 quantitative analysis reported that ‘sex trafficking is most prevalent in countries where prostitution is legalised.’ A 2012 study also overwhelmingly supported these findings. Researchers investigated the effect of legalised prostitution on human trafficking inflows from 150 countries and found that on average ‘those with legalised prostitution reported a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited.’ The study also reviewed the longitudinal effects of legalising and criminalising prostitution and found that the criminalisation of prostitution in Sweden resulted in the shrinking of the prostitution market and the decline of human trafficking inflows while the inverse was true in Germany.

Nordic Model 

The Nordic model, also known as the Demand model, criminalises the buyers of sex, but not sellers. This approach has grown in popularity as it focuses on shrinking the market for prostitution in order to reduce demand for trafficked women. This approach assumes that sex trafficking is lucrative due to the economic principles of supply and demand. ‘Traffickers choose to trade in humans due to the low start-up costs, minimal risks, high profits, and large demand.’

The Swedish law aims to combat human trafficking by acknowledging the connection between prostitution and trafficking. Approximately 400- 600 people are trafficked into Sweden each year. Since Sweden’s adoption of the Nordic model, this number has remained constant, with no significant increase in the number of recorded victims. Two years following the passage of the law, a Swedish taskforce reported a 50% decrease in the number of women prostituting and a 75% decrease in the number of men who bought sex. Thus, while the number of people trafficked into Sweden is believed to have remained level, there have been reported decreases in the number of people selling and buying sex which has reduced the attractiveness of the Swedish sex market for human traffickers. Critics claim that since the Swedish law passed, prostitution has not decreased, but rather been forced underground. While it is difficult to assess these arguments empirically, Sweden is no longer an attractive market within Europe for human traffickers. Swedish police have confirmed this view that the Nordic model has resulted in deterring traffickers from Sweden and pushed them into other countries.

The normative objectives and results of the Nordic model also cannot be underestimated. When Sweden introduced the legislation, it had merely 30% community support. Today the figure is close to 80%. The legislation has had the effect of changing Swedish culture. It is no longer socially acceptable to pay a woman for sex. This, alongside harsher penalties for buyers, has led to Sweden having a much smaller human-trafficking problem compared to other European nations. 

Recommendation

The fight against global sex trafficking is counterproductive if countries have conflicting approaches to regulating domestic prostitution. Having reviewed the various legislative approaches, it is evident that targeting demand is an integral part of any legal solution. Though imperfect, the Nordic model has a proven track record of reducing the demand for prostitution which minimises the incentives for human traffickers to conduct their businesses. 

According to the most recent polling, the Biden Harris ticket will be victorious in November. As the decriminalisation model has proven unsuccessful in reducing human trafficking, Biden and Harris should re-calibrate their official stance on regulation to reflect the Nordic Model. This will shrink the demand for prostitution in the US, thus making the American sex market less attractive to human traffickers. 

The battle to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The sudden passing of US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18 has ignited another intense feud over the future of America’s highest court. While there was always the real possibility that 87-year-old Ginsburg might lose her years-long battle with cancer prior to the November 2020 US Presidential Election, the timing of her passing – 46 days out from the election – guarantees another bitter partisan standoff in the US Senate.

Many Democrats seemed certain that Ginsburg would live into 2021, imagining that a Democratic President would then be able to nominate a suitably liberal replacement. Unlike then-candidate Trump in 2016, Joe Biden has so far seemed less eager to make this election a referendum on the Supreme Court. Other than indicating that he would nominate an African American woman, the Biden campaign is yet to publish a list of potential SCOTUS nominees. With Trump set to announce his nominee next week, they will be under increasing pressure to do so in the days ahead.

Senate Republicans are likely to vote to confirm Trump’s nominee in the coming weeks and the predictable partisan cries of hypocrisy have already begun. Democrats argue that Republicans should not be allowed to fill a Supreme Court vacancy before the election because Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell refused to do so in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. These arguments are disingenuous.

It is at best misleading to suggest that McConnell ever refused to bring on a vote on Obama nominee Merrick Garland simply because it was an election year. At the time, McConnell and his Republican colleagues were very precise about their reasons for not filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year in a situation of divided government. They have also been very transparent about their preparedness to confirm a nominee in 2020.

On 22 February 2016, immediately after Scalia’s passing, McConnell noted that ‘the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888.’ When asked in February 2020 about the possibility of a vacancy he stated that, unlike 2016, the Senate was controlled by ‘the same party as the President of the United States. And in that situation we would confirm.’

On this point, history is on McConnell’s side. He is correct that for more than 130 years a pre-election SCOTUS nominee has not been confirmed when the Senate and White House have been controlled by different parties. He is also correct that the Senate, on nine separate occasions, has confirmed the nominee of a President from the same party as the Senate Majority before election day. In fact, sitting Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was confirmed to the First Circuit in the final days of Jimmy Carter’s Presidency – after he lost his re-election bid to Ronald Reagan.

But this will not satisfy Democrats. The Democratic Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerrold Nadler, has already called for Democrats to ‘pack’ the Supreme Court with new progressive judges should they regain control of the White House and Senate in 2020. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has even suggested that Democrats may attempt to impeach President Trump or Attorney-General William Barr in order to stymie any Senate vote on Trump’s nominee. No matter the outcome, it’s clear that another rancorous and protracted DC battle lies ahead.

The passing of any significant public figure is a time for reflection and compassion. The community should be honouring the person that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was and commemorating a woman who, alongside Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, has become an inspiration to girls across the World. All sides should look to her decades-long close personal friendship with conservative Scalia as a much-needed example for today’s divided America. The US’ first thought should not be the political ramifications for contentious issues such as abortion and government mandated health insurance. It’s a sad indictment of the politicisation of the judiciary that, against the intentions of the Founding Father’s, some just can’t seem to help politicising almost every aspect of modern life in the US.

Xavier has written more on this subject for an article in The Spectator Australia, accessible here.

How human trafficking is enabled

We often associate human trafficking with a visceral image of young girls being exploited and sold for sex at the hands of ruthless pimps. Google an image of human trafficking and results of this description will be found. While this depiction reflects much of the human trafficking which is reported to authorities, it is an incomplete image of a much broader issue. Less attention is typically devoted to the trafficking of people into exploitative agricultural work, construction work, domestic work, or other non- sexual labor.

Acknowledging one form of human trafficking while remaining ignorant to all others, only addresses a fraction of what is a highly prevalent transnational crime. Society’s lack of understanding of the complexity of human trafficking is largely to blame for our crippling inability to protect victims and prosecute perpetrators.

The United States of America v Farrell illustrates the vulnerability of migrant workers and lack of public awareness of human trafficking warning signs.

Human trafficking - Crime Stoppers Australia
Resource derived from Crime Stoppers Australia, https://crimestoppers.com.au/resource/human-trafficking/.

United States of America v Farrell

In 2005, Robert and Angelita Farrell, owners of a Comfort Inn hotel in South Dakota arranged for nine Filipino workers to obtain visas to work in their hotel. 

The Farrells took care of all visa fees and drafted employment contracts for each worker. They told workers that they would not be reimbursed for travel to the US and that their visas would be denied if they revealed this to the consular authorities. Despite beginning the employment relationship financially indebted to the Farrells, the workers anticipated that their wages would enable them to promptly repay their debts.     

When the workers arrived, the couple confiscated their passports and other immigration documents. The Farrells took advantage of the workers making them work 12-16 hour days and paying them half the wages initially promised. The defendants also charged the victims for previously undisclosed fees such as unwanted food and transportation to and from work. Recognising that the workers would never be able to repay their increasing debts, the Farrells demanded that the workers obtain outside employment. 

Each worker initially expected to have two trips sponsored by the Farrells to work at the hotel. However, the Farrells’ informed their workers that no one was going to be brought back to the US for a second trip unless he or she submitted a letter requesting re-employment. The workers complied and returned to South Dakota, facing the same enslaved conditions as last time.

One evening, the Farrell’s contacted the chief of police to intimidate the workers after two had expressed a desire to leave. Sensing something was amiss after visiting the hotel, the officer removed the victims from the couple’s possession and the Farrells were subsequently arrested on the charge of conspiracy to commit peonage.

On November 2007, a federal jury found Robert and Angelita Farrell guilty of peonage, document servitude, visa fraud and making false statements. Robert Farrell was sentenced to a term of 4 years and 2 months in federal prison and his wife, Angelita, a 3-year sentence. The defendants were individually fined US$15,000 and subject to three years of supervised release following their respective prison terms.

The Farrell case stresses the underreporting of human trafficking in the US. This couple managed to forge immigration documents twice and illegally administer second jobs for their workers, while enslaving them in horrendous living conditions for some time, without triggering immigration officials, police or members of the public. 

Partially to blame for this is the inaccurate, widely held public perception of human trafficking and the culture of law enforcement.

Failing Public Perceptions of Human Trafficking

A key issue in this case was whether the victims worked voluntarily for the Farrells. While it would have been a simpler case if police had found victims chained in the Farrell’s basement, the reality is that many human trafficking cases occur within the context of a voluntary working relationship. Thus, the degree to which the victims’ work was involuntary was difficult to prove.  

Akin to many human trafficking cases, the victims initially worked voluntarily for the Farrells, testifying that they wanted to better their livelihoods in the US. The Farrells possessed strong evidence in favour of a finding that the employees were in a voluntary working relationship. For instance, the Farrells’ presented the signed contracts and the fact that the workers agreed to begin their working relationship indebted to the Farrells. Additionally , the Farrells had letters written by the workers, each requesting a second trip to the US to work at the hotel.   

In this trial, the testimony of human trafficking expert Joy Zarembka enabled jurors to better understand the behaviour of victims and assess the truthfulness of their allegations. Zarembka provided a testimony of the various warning signs in employer-employee relationships that may indicate the employee is not labouring voluntarily but rather in a climate of fear. In her opinion, there was a climate of fear in the Farrells’ relationships with their workers. 

In this way, the role of expert witnesses in human trafficking cases can be paramount to ensuring victims receive a fair trial. Experts should also play a more substantial role in public education to alleviate widely held misconceptions of human trafficking. This will equip people with knowledge of warning signs to look out for that may be indicative of human trafficking.

The culture and framework of Law enforcement

Police rely on community members to report crimes by calling 911. Their work is reactionary rather than investigatory. This is problematic for victims of human trafficking as the crime usually occurs behind closed doors or without community awareness. If the public fail to report on instances of human trafficking, the framework of law enforcement is such that police cannot protect victims or charge perpetrators.

For these reasons, Police in the US focus on the prevention of sex trafficking of U.S. female minor victims, whom they perceive to be the most vulnerable, publicly supported victims. We know from the Farrell case that human trafficking can seamlessly occur outside of the sex-slavery paradigm, however more often than not it seems that cases like these are falling through the cracks of our justice system. Human trafficking does not discriminate against gender, age or culture, it impacts girls, boys, men and women alike. The double standard of US law enforcement efforts to address the sexual slavery of US female minors, while remaining legally blind to other forms of modern slavery that exist is a true failing of the justice system.

Though the institutional weaknesses of law enforcement and lack of public awareness for human trafficking are grim, greater understanding of the problem among ordinary people like you and I will lead to increased reporting of the crime. If we acknowledge that human trafficking is happening in our communities and educate ourselves on its many variations, this will inevitably lead to a world where more perpetrators are held legally accountable for their actions.


A Model Partnership

When two Australian Ministers travel to the US at such an uncertain and volatile time in history, it says something about the strength and significance of the relationship between the United States and Australia.

This week, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne and Defence Minister Linda Reynolds traveled to Washington D.C for the Australia-US Ministerial Consultations. AUSMIN provides a principal bilateral forum to discuss approaches on major global and regional political issues and cooperate on foreign security and defence. Notably, Marise and Linda are the first members of the Australian executive to travel overseas since Australia borders closed in March.

While other American allies have declined the Trump administration’s request to resume in-person meetings, suggesting instead to delay appointments or hold conferences virtually, the effort made by Payne and Reynolds to attend AUSMIN in Washington D.C demonstrates the level of priority that the Australian government places on the bilateral relationship.

A hallmark of the Trump Administration has been the trade war against Beijing. Trump has clashed with Beijing over numerous issues including Huawei, unfair trading practices and China’s cyber warfare. COVID-19, has only agitated tensions further with the US strongly criticising China for its mismanagement of the pandemic which has taken the lives of 150,000 Americans to date, destroyed the US economy and severely harmed Trump’s re-election prospects. Throughout this time, members of the Trump Administration such as Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo have rallied for their partners to take a unified stand with them against China.

Australia, a small population in the Indo-Pacific region of the world has managed to live up to this call by confronting the challenge of an increasingly belligerent China. Australia was the first among the international community to call for an inquiry into the mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis, a move that deeply angered and offended China. Despite relentless economic threats and bullying from Beijing, the Australian government also declared that China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea were illegal. Further, in response to China’s new security laws in Hong Kong which seek to undermine the human rights protections of Hong Kong citizens, Australia suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong and offered citizenship to dissidents.

Australia has shown that when it counts, it is not afraid to stand up for its values and choose a side. For decades, politicians, diplomats and scholars have stressed the difficult decision Australia will be forced to make due to its strong trade with China and military alliance with the United States as tensions between the countries reach an inevitable boiling point. While it is early days, it appears the choice has not been as difficult as some presumed. Australia has chosen to uphold its values and stand by its closest ally, despite the obvious risk of economic reprisal.

The AUSMIN meeting between the respective foreign and defence ministers – Mike Pompeo, Mark Esper, Marise Payne and Linda Reynolds went beyond the usual formalities as both countries are deeply engaged and committed to the challenge presented by China. The US acknowledged Australia’s bravery in standing up to China’s threats and utilised the opportunity to model the AUS-US alliance, juxtaposing Australia’s support with the tepid support it has received from some of its other allies.

A commitment to stick closest when times are tough is the true test of any relationship. This year, Australia and America have continuously proven that the relationship is far more than mateship or an obligatory tradition, it is a world-class model of an alliance which is above personalities and greater than the challenges of the day.

Does American National Identity still exist in 2020?

Watching the state of affairs in the US over the past few months has left many of us in a state of paralysis. Our hearts have bled for the millions of American lives lost to COVID. The violent imagery of George Floyd’s last breath and subsequent violent riots and protests have poured across our screens. From an Australian perspective, it seems America has never been more politically and socially divided. One might argue that Americans have lost the connective national tissue which once bound them together.

In spite of the recent social and political upheaval we are observing within the United States, it is important to keep in mind that socio-cultural movements are nothing new for the American people. A glance at US history depicts numerous movements which have fought to uphold and actualise the rights of minorities. I argue that the social movements bubbling within America today such as Black Lives Matter do not undermine the notion of an American identity, rather they demonstrate the attempt of modern Americans to live up to the founding values of their nation. In this way, movements of social change can help the United States move closer towards actualising the hopes and dreams that the American founding fathers had for a new nation.

American national identity is built upon the unique and radical founding of the United States.   Unlike nations whose identity is based on shared ethnicity and ancestry, America was formed on the idea of “the essential dignity of the individual human being, and of certain inalienable rights to freedom and justice.” Though at the time of America’s founding, these admirable ideals were not realised for most citizens, American history has steadily embraced and began to live up to the freedoms expressed in seminal founding texts such as the Declaration of Independence and U.S Constitution. Leader’s such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. come to mind as men who enabled America to live up to their founding commitments by abolishing slavery and segregation. While America has never been perfectly aligned with its founding values, what appears to bind Americans together is a dedication to see the United States lives up to its founding values.

The idea of American identity is under constant pressure to change by those who experience barriers when attempting to access freedom and equality in the United States. Racism is one of these barriers that is deeply rooted within American history. The United States will always contend with the harsh reality that while European colonists could claim an American identity, people trafficked as slaves from Africa were not entitled to the same privileges. The practice of slavery continued in the United States until 1865 with the introduction of the 13th Amendment.  Following this, black Americans endured an entire century of racial persecution and discrimination before the promises of the Civil War were realised. While America’s Declaration of Independence and the Constitution proclaimed universal liberty, such documents coexisted alongside the exploitation and exclusion of black Americans. Despite an increasingly diverse US population and racial progress [evidenced through achievements such as the election of Barak Obama, the first African American president], some Americans argue that there is an entrenched racial component to American identity that divides whites and non-whites. 

Building upon historic injustices against African Americans, The Black Lives Matter movement has emerged in response to controversial law enforcement policies and police brutality against members of the African American community. At the core of this issue is the social concern that African Americans are not afforded the same societal protection as other Americans. Black Lives Matter demonstrates a powerful message: African Americans, like all Americans, long for freedom, equality of opportunity and access to the American Dream. Historic and contemporary racism in the United States have prevented African Americans from accessing this promise. American citizens responsible for discriminating and continuing to exclude African Americans from the benefits of American identity are contradicting the very values which underpin American identity. In this way, the plight of members of the African American community throughout history expresses a pattern: the continuous attempt to reconcile society with the country’s founding values.

Social change in the United States has improved the freedoms of its people, reconciling the US with its founding principles and helping to evoke the true sense of what it means to be American.



What makes America unique?

Defining Elements of American national identity: Exceptionalism, Volunteerism and the American Dream

In an ordinary year, the United States expects roughly 76 million people to visit their country. People from all over the globe come to enjoy the beauty of American landscapes from the breathtaking Grand Canyon to the Utah Mountain ranges. They come to re-live American history by visiting the many historical landmarks and museums such as the nation’s capitol in Washington D.C, Gettysburg cemetery and Mount Vernon.

If those things don’t do it for you, there is a multitude of entertainment on broadway, world-class theme parks and sporting events, the best shopping in the world and a choice of global cuisines – available with a supersize option!

The United States of America certainly is the land of the plenty, and tourists commonly marvel at the confident, patriotic and entrepreneurial nature of the American people. We can point to these common stereotypes, but what is it that actually makes the American nation and its people so different and remarkable from the rest of us?

Having lived and worked in the United States, I boil it down to three defining characteristics. American Exceptionalism, Volunteerism and the Dream. It is these three components that have defined America since its founding and set the U.S apart from the rest of the globe.

In the era following World War II, America has made strides to become the world’s economic, military and cultural hegemon. US exceptionalism is predicated on American’s strong tradition of successful immigration. Since its founding, America has been the ‘nation of nations’ and a refuge for the poor, oppressed and persecuted; sentiments which are inscribed inside the base of the Statue of Liberty. In 1858, Lincoln stated that when immigrants internalised the creed that “all men are created equal,” they “have a right to claim it as though they were blood and flesh of the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence.” Today, immigration continues to be largely supported by both major political parties. In contrast to much of Europe, America has no major political party calling for ethno-cultural policies that would see a ban on immigration. These combined factors afford Americans a world-leading standard of living. Such standards outrank all other countries of major size and geopolitical importance. US history of post-WWII dominance and leadership on the international stage has reinforced and magnified traditional conceptions of American exceptionalism: a core aspect of American national identity today.

A long-standing tradition of volunteerism is another hallmark of American national identity based on the founding values of personal responsibility, moralism and equality of opportunity. It was Benjamin Franklin who formed the first volunteer fire department in 1736, and many American militias during the Revolutionary War were comprised of volunteers. Some of the most well-known American charitable organizations, such as the YMCA and the American Red Cross, date back to the 19th century. Writing about his travels through the US in the 1830s, the French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville frequently commented on Americans’ tendency to form voluntary civil associations. He was impressed by their desire to come together with their friends and neighbours to accomplish community goals. Today, this same tradition of civic duty and community development is exemplified by the 40% of Americans who actively volunteer their time. This figure sets the United States apart as one the most philanthropic nations in the world. The strong culture and history of volunteerism in the United States lives on today and continues to enable a highly diverse population to unite around shared goals and common purpose.

A further core element of American national identity with particular relevance today is the concept of the American Dream. While the US is a country consisting of a ‘melange of beliefs, cultures and traditions,’ its common thread is that America is the land of opportunity.  The Pilgrims realised this dream, imagining a new destiny for themselves as did the founding fathers. In the 1830’s de Tocqueville observed the ‘charm of anticipated success’ in American society and his research led him to discover that this same optimistic outlook existed among the European colonists some 200 years’ prior.The American Dream is an elastic element which continues to be a defining element of American identity in the 21st century. Athletes invoke it during championship games, immigrants leave their homes in search of it and aspiring politicians appeal to it as a basis for their candidacies. Imbued with a sense of community, the Dream speaks to people of all races, ethnicities. From its earliest settlers to its most recent arrivals, the shared hope and aspiration at the heart of the American Dream is another key unifying concept of American identity. American exceptionalism, the American Dream and volunteerism each remain central in American culture today and establish a shared American identity that is consistent with the nation’s founding ideals of freedom, personal responsibility, equality of opportunity, stewardship and hope. 

The United States of America is a wonderful country, though it is not perfect, it has never claimed to be. Today it is promising to see that the values of US Exceptionalism, giving back to one’s community through volunteering and the American Dream of a better life have endured from the nation’s founding and enable today’s American citizens to live prosperous and free lives.

American national identity: land of the free

National identity refers to a shared belief among a group of individuals that they form a cohesive whole due to shared history, connection to a territory and common distinctive characteristics. Within modern America there are some who question the existence of a national identity. Others argue that while a shared American identity currently exists, social division and fragmentation will result in the demise of US national identity. Contrary to such views, national identity in the United States has proven to be resilient throughout history and plays an important role in continuing to unify a diverse population.

The US was formed on the idea of “the essential dignity of the individual human being, and of certain inalienable rights to freedom and justice.” This identity is exemplified in American leaders and seminal texts such as the Declaration of Independence, The U.S Constitution and Bill of Rights, Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Martin Luther King Jr.’ s “I Have a Dream” speech. US national identity continues to be comprised of America’s founding ideals, evidenced through the American Dream, American Exceptionalism and volunteerism.

Puritan settler John Winthrop conceived of America as a “city on a hill,” a distinct place with a heaven-sent obligation to build a new world. In the aftermath of the War of Independence, many citizens agreed that Americans had “formed a character peculiar to themselves, and distinct from other nations.” Today, many Americans continue to perceive their nation in this exceptional light. In the era following World War II, America has made strides to become the world’s economic, military and cultural hegemon. US exceptionalism is further predicated on American’s strong tradition of successful immigration. Since its founding, America has been the ‘nation of nations’ and a refuge for the poor, oppressed and persecuted; sentiments which are inscribed inside the base of the Statue of Liberty. In 1858, Lincoln stated that when immigrants internalised the creed that “all men are created equal,” they “have a right to claim it as though they were blood and flesh of the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence.” Today, immigration continues to be largely supported by both major political parties. In contrast to much of Europe, America has no major political party calling for ethno-cultural policies that would see a ban on immigration. These combined factors afford Americans a world-leading standard of living. Such standards outrank all other countries of major size and geopolitical importance. US history of post-WWII dominance and leadership on the international stage has reinforced and magnified traditional conceptions of American exceptionalism: a core aspect of American national identity.   

A long-standing tradition of volunteerism is another hallmark of American national identity based on the founding values of personal responsibility, moralism and equality of opportunity. It was Benjamin Franklin who formed the first volunteer fire department in 1736, and many American militias during the Revolutionary War were comprised of volunteers. Some of the most well-known American charitable organizations, such as the YMCA and the American Red Cross, date back to the 19th century. Writing about his travels through the US in the 1830s, the French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville frequently commented on Americans’ tendency to form voluntary civil associations. He was impressed by their desire to come together with their friends and neighbours to accomplish community goals. Today, this same tradition of civic duty and community development is exemplified by the 40% of Americans who actively volunteer their time. This figure sets the United States apart as one the most philanthropic nations in the world. The strong culture and history of volunteerism in the United States lives on today and continues to enable a highly diverse population to unite around shared goals and common purpose.

Another aspect of American national identity with particular relevance today is the concept of the American Dream. This refers to the belief that anyone can attain their own version of success in a society where upward mobility is possible for everyone. Imbued with a sense of community, the Dream speaks to people of all races, ethnicities and cultures. The Pilgrims realised this dream, imagining a new destiny for themselves as did the founding fathers. In the 1830’s de Tocqueville observed the ‘charm of anticipated success’ in American society and his research led him to discover that this same optimistic outlook existed among the European colonists some 200 years’ prior. The American Dream is an elastic element which continues to be a defining element of American identity in the 21st century. Athletes invoke it during championship games, immigrants leave their homes in search of it and aspiring politicians appeal to it as a basis for their candidacies. From its earliest settlers to its most recent arrivals, the shared hope and aspiration at the heart of the American Dream is a key component of American identity.

The idea of American identity is under constant pressure to change by those who experience barriers when attempting to access freedom and equality in the United States. While America’s Declaration of Independence and the Constitution proclaim universal liberty, such documents have coexisted alongside the exploitation and exclusion of black Americans and women. Despite immense social progress, some Americans argue that racism and sexism continue to divide American societies. The Black Lives Matter movement (BLM) has emerged in response to controversial law enforcement policies and police brutality against members of the African American community. At the centre of this issue is the social concern that African Americans are not afforded the same societal protection as other Americans. The #MeToo movement similarly draws upon the historic injustices encountered by American women while also raising awareness of the contemporary experiences of sexual abuse survivors. The movement exemplifies the intention of American women to seek freedom from barriers of sexual exploitation they experience, which currently prevent them from realising the full effects of freedom, equality and the hope implicit within the American Dream.

These movements both symbolise a powerful message: all Americans long for freedom, equality of opportunity and access to the American Dream. Historic and contemporary racism and sexism in the United States have prevented people from accessing these promises. In Gunnar Myrdal’s description, America has represented the ideals—not the perfect execution—of liberty. Therefore, contest within the United States does not undermine the concept of US national identity, rather the ongoing quest for greater freedom within America attempts to reconcile society with the country’s founding values, emphasising the continued relevance of core aspects of American identity: liberty, equality and hope.

American national identity is broad enough to encompass all citizens, yet powerful enough to establish a shared connection between Americans, their country and their national aspirations. Though the United States will continue to face pressure to change, American identity will remain consistent and will continue to uphold the shared culture, ideals and values which founded America. 

References

Adamic, Louis. “A Nation of Nations.” Pi Lambda Theta Journal 24, no. 4 (1946): 137-39.  

Armstrong, Joslyn. “A Dream Deferred: How Discrimination Impacts the American Dream Achievement for African Americans.” Journal of Black Studies, vol. 50, no. 3 (2019): 227–250.

Bone, Martyn. “City on a Hill.” Dictionary of American History, vol. 2 (2003): 184.

Cullen, Jim. The American Dream: A Short History of an Idea That Shaped a Nation (Oxford University Press. ProQuest Ebook Central 2014.

Devos, Thierry and Hafsa, Mohamed. “Shades of American Identity: Implicit Relations between Ethnic and National Identities.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8, no. 12 (2014): 739-54.

D. Lavy, Marvell. “Volunteerism in America.” Contract Management 45, no. 8, Aug (2005): 65-69.   

Erickson, Bradley M. ” Understanding American Identity: An Introduction.” Master’s Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, California, 2017. 

Gunnar, Mydral. “An American Dilemma.” Race vol. 4 (1962): 3–11.

Habermas, Jurgen. “The European Nation-State and the Pressures of Globalization.” New Left Review 235 (1999): 46-59.  

Hamilton, Alexander. “Federalist No. 1.” Independent Journal (1787).

Hughes, Richard. “Teaching Note Race, Housing, and the Federal Government: Black Lives on the Margins of the American Dream.” Radical Teacher 106, no. 106 (2016):138–140. 

Jack, Elkin Terry. “Alexis De Tocqueville’s America.” National Civic Review 106, no. 1 (2017): 30-31.

Momen, Mehnaaz. “The Paradox of Citizenship in American Politics Ideals and Reality.” Ideals and Reality 1st Ed (2018): 33-35.

Miller, David. On Nationality. Oxford Political Theory, Clarendon, 1997.  

Schuck, Peter H.  “James Q. Wilson and American Exceptionalism.” National Affairs 43, (Spring 2020)

Song, Sarah. “What does it mean to be an American?” Daedalus (Spring 2008): 31-40.

The Economist. “Bernie Sanders, nominee.” February 27, 2020. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/02/27/bernie-sanders-nominee.

“THE BILL OF RIGHTS: A BRIEF HISTORY.” Aclu.org. Accessed May 17, 2020. https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history.

Thompson, Debra, and Chloe Thurston. “American Political Development in the Era of Black Lives Matter.” Politics, Groups, and Identities, vol. 6, no. 1 (2018):116–119.

“Top 10 countries for volunteering time for charity between 2009 and 2018, by share of population.” Statista.com. Accessed May 18, 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/283354/top-10-countries-volunteering-time-for-charities/.

Walzer, Michael. “What does it mean to be American?” What It Means to Be an American: Essays on the American Experience 46, no.6 (1974): 46. 

“Women’s Suffrage.” History.com. Accessed May 13, 2012. https://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/the-fight-for-womens-suffrage



Realism and the diverging foreign policy approaches of the United States and China

The COVID pandemic has showcased a proliferation of blame, acrimony and military aggression between the United States and China. Additionally, we have witnessed the fragility of international institutions as the WHO which struggled to balance the strategic interests of China with the health of the global community. Core realist tenants of the anarchical, state-centric international order are proving relevant in the study of modern international relations.

The emergence of the COVID-19 global pandemic has inspired varying international responses from the United States and China. China severely mismanaged the outbreak of the coronavirus through censorship and denial. As precious weeks passed and the seriousness of the outbreak became apparent, officials of the Communist Party of China made extensive preparations to protect their population, while only selectively sharing information with the international community. Amid the global pandemic, the Chinese government has continued to advance its strategic ambitions in the South China Sea and has been accused by the United States government of exploiting the crisis to gain territory. On April 2, Vietnam reported a Chinese military ship deliberating sinking a Vietnamese fishing ship in the disputed territory. In March, the Chinese government commissioned two research stations with defence capabilities on maritime turf claimed by the Philippines. The US international response has differed significantly from China’s approach.

America’s democratic values and trusted institutions have enabled more accurate reporting of COVID-19 figures, this has allowed epidemiologists to develop policies to ‘flatten the curve’ and contain the virus. The US Centre for Disease control also continues to publish information that helps American citizens gain access to medical services and minimise community transmission. The US has prioritised holding China accountable for the global spread of the coronavirus and has scaled up its military presence in the South China Sea. In March, the US military conducted live-missile testing in the Philippine Sea, sending a message of deterrence to China. On March 31, President Trump announced the suspension of all US funding to the World Health Organisation (WHO) due to concerns of its mismanagement of the COVID pandemic and “China-centric nature.”

Structural realists assert that the architecture of the international system forces states to compete for limited power. For this reason, cooperation within international institutions often proves fragile. The COVID pandemic provides a vivid reminder of the relevance of these realist precepts. States are fearful that cooperation may enable another state to advance their capabilities and gain greater power and influence relative to them. In this case, President Trump declared the suspension of all funds to the World Health Organisation, perceiving the benefits of US cooperation within the WHO to be waning relative to the growing influence of China. Structural realist theory also provides valuable insight into China’s behaviour within the WHO. States will engage in international institutions when they perceive opportunities to gain power relative to their competitors. President Xi Jinping of the Chinese Communist Party has established the priority to challenge the American global order by strengthening Beijing’s multilateral clout. The World Health Organisation’s response to the spread of coronavirus has demonstrated the influence China wields in the institution relative to the US. Until mid-January, the WHO stated that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission on a large scale, this statement was made without independent investigation into China’s claims.  Following the US decision to halt funding, China identified a US leadership void and stepped in to fill it, announcing a 30 million dollar increase in their contributions to the institution, enabling greater Chinese influence in global health and the portrayal of China as the new champion of multilateralism. So long as China continues to benefit from this institution relative to others, structural realists predict they will continue to amplify cooperation and influence within the World Health Organisation. 

According to realists, the main goal of states within the international system is survival. States understand the best way to ensure their territorial integrity is to be more powerful relative to others. These conditions place a premium on the possession of military power as states are aware of the inherent risks of conflict. China has historically undertaken expansionist strategies to guarantee security and survival, during the global COVID pandemic China has scaled up its territorial ambitions in the South China Sea, seizing the strategic opportunity presented by the diminished capabilities of the United States. On April 2, a Chinese Coast Guard ship rammed and sunk a Vietnamese fishing boat carrying eight fishermen off the disputed Paracel Islands. Beijing blamed the Vietnamese ship for fishing illegally in Chinese waters. In the previous month, China commissioned two new research stations on artificial reefs it has built on maritime turf claimed by the Philippines. The reefs are equipped with defence silos and military-grade runways. John Mearsheimer asserts that hegemony is the most effective way to secure the survival of a state. For this reason, the rivalry among the great powers for hegemony is a constant feature in the international system. 

The US government and military officials have criticised China for its increased militarisation in the South China Sea during the global pandemic. From the US perspective, the waterway is a vital channel for US-style sea power. In mid-March, US military vessels and aircraft conducted live-fire missile testing in the Philippine Sea. By demonstrating US military capabilities, a clear message of deterrence was sent to China. Structural realism offers a simple explanation for the recent foreign policy of China and the US. China is an emerging global hegemon and is pursuing as much power as possible within the South China Sea while discouraging others as a means of guaranteeing their security. The US seeks to maintain the status quo of American regional hegemony within the South China Sea and is attempting to balance against the increasingly combative behaviour of China.  

While structural realism provides unique and helpful insights into understanding recent COVID-inspired foreign policies of the US and China, the theory fails to grapple with the influence of domestic politics on a state’s external behaviour. Structural realists assert that the driving forces for international relations are systemic and uninfluenced by domestic politics. States are considered interchangeable ‘black boxes’ that will behave similarly as the international system creates the same basic incentives for all states. This level of analysis has limited structural realism in its understanding of the diverging COVID strategies of the US and China. Differences in the domestic political systems of China and the United States have proven relevant to recent international relations. Neo-classical realists have attempted to reconcile this criticism of structural realism by recognising the impact that domestic politics may have on a state’s external behaviour. Under the leadership of President Xi Jinping protecting the reputation and authority of the Chinese Communist Party is prioritised above human life. China’s authoritarian leadership and communist political system led to the censorship of COVID information and prevented China from signalling early warnings to the international community. 

The United States is a democratic republic and stresses the importance of free communication between people and government. These internal values within the US have led to high rates of testing and the transparent disclosure of these figures to the international community. At current, the US has recorded the highest COVID death toll in the world, surpassing China. In saying this, it is important to remember that while the Chinese government claims to be ahead of the US in containing the virus with no reports of new cases, we have reason to doubt China’s information due to its censorship of early COVID warnings and lack of cooperation throughout the pandemic. We will likely never know how many Chinese citizens were infected and died due to COVID-19. In the US, President Trump downplayed the coronavirus and offered advice which conflicted medical experts. However, the democratic system in the US underpins the leadership of the President. When a US president fails, citizens can count on the objectivity of trusted institutions such as the U.S Centres for Disease Control and Prevention to provide accurate and objective information. The Disease Centre’s weekly morbidity and mortality report has been a fixture of critical communication between government and the public since 1946 and this has continued throughout the COVID pandemic. 

Neo-classical realist theory inspires the contemplation of alternate foreign policy decisions which may have emerged had COVID-19 first broken out in New York rather than Wuhan. Internal conditions within the United States uphold democratic values enabling stronger communication between government and citizens. These societal underpinnings are likely to have guided a different foreign policy approach to China. While we can never truly be certain of this assumption, in order to prevent the COVID-19 global pandemic, an approach focused on saving lives rather than preserving power, based on transparent reporting and international cooperation was required, the US has exhibited these priorities in their COVID response while China did not.

The relevance of structural realism in the study of modern international realtions has been reinforced by the COVID-inspired external behaviours of China and the United States. The theory provides a useful framework for understanding inter-state completion, the fragility of international cooperation and military security. While it is limited by its system level of analysis, neo-classical realism has built upon previous work of structural realists and can assist in our understanding of the domestic forces behind foreign policy.


References

Asian Scientist Newsroom. “Chinese Scientists Sequence Genome Of COVID-19.” Asian Scientist, February 25, 2020. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-04-10/coronavirus-doesnt-deter-chinas-aggression-in-south-china-sea.

Beech, Hannah.“U.S. Warships Enter Disputed Waters of South China Sea as Tensions With China Escalate.” The New York Times, April 21, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/world/asia/coronavirus-south-china-sea-warships.html.

Bengali, Shashank. “What the coronavirus hasn’t stopped: Beijing’s build up in the South China Sea.” Los Angeles Times,April 10, 2020, https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-04-10/coronavirus-doesnt-deter-chinas-aggression-in-south-china-sea.

Caspani, Maria. “The United States now has the world’s highest coronavirus death toll.” World Economic Forum, April, 12, 2020, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/united-states-worlds-highest-coronavirus-death-toll/.


“Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” Britannica.com. Accessed May 6, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Centers-for-Disease-Control-and-Prevention.

Chan, Minnie. “US Navy launches live-fire missiles in ‘warning to China.’” South China Morning Post, March 24, 2020, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3076768/us-navy-launches-live-fire-missiles-warning-china.

Ching, Nike. “US ‘Strongly Opposes China’s Bullying’ in the South China Sea.” VOA News, East Asia Pacific, April 22, 2020,  https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/us-strongly-opposes-chinas-bullying-south-china-sea.

Crocket, Sophie. “The role of International Organisations in World Politics.” Student Essay, E-International Relations Students, 2012.  

Fidler, David. “The Globalization of Public Health: Emerging Infectious Diseases and International Relations.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 5, no. 1 (1997): 11-51.

Hernandez, Javier C. “Trump Slammed the W.H.O. Over Coronavirus. He’s Not Alone.” The New York Times, April 8, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/world/asia/trump-who-coronavirus-china.html.

Hernandez, Javier C. “Deadly Mystery Virus Reported in 2 New Chinese Cities and South Korea.” The New York Times,January 21, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/world/asia/china-virus-wuhan-coronavirus.html.

Kaarbo, Juliet. “A Foreign Policy Analysis Perspective on the Domestic Politics Turn in International Relations Theory.” International Studies Review, 17, no. 2 (2015): 189. 

Nassar, Dr Heba. “Review of Economics and Political Science.” Emerald Insight Publishing 3, no. 2 (2018): 50-68.

Newman, Edward. “A Crisis of Global Institutions? Multilateralism and international security.” Routledge, New York 2007.

Nuri, Yeşilyurt. “Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics.” Uluslararasi Iliskiler International Relations 14, no. 55 (2017): 119–124.

Paul, Rajat. “Internal political unrest and power struggle in China post-COVID-19.” The Sentinel, April 17, 2020,  https://www.sentinelassam.com/editorial/internal-political-unrest-and-power-struggle-in-china-post-covid-19/.

Powell, Robert. “Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory.” The American Political Science Review 85, no. 4 (1991): 1303-1320.

Pradt, Tilman. China’s New Foreign Policy Military Modernisation, Multilateralism and the ‘China Threat.’ (1st Ed 2016), 32.

Schweller, Randall. “Opposite but Compatible Nationalisms: A Neoclassical Realist Approach to the Future of US–China Relations.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 11, no. 3 (2018): 23–48.

Stewart, Cameron .“How China rewrote coronavirus history.” The Australian, May, 9, 2020, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/part-two-chinas-great-wall-of-silence-you-are-the-sinner/news-story/7e463f9c78bb73ed584b64160157dfb7.

Waltz, Kenneth. “Structural Realism after the Cold War.” International Security (2000): 5–41, https://doi.org/10.1162/016228800560372.

Waltz, Kenneth. “Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis.” New York Columbia University Press 329, no. 1 (1960): 204. 

The value of a strong US-Australia alliance

The enduring alliance with the United States remains Australia’s most important defence relationship. Close economic and cultural ties between the nations also continue to flourish and significantly benefit Australia and the US. The historic US-Australia partnership is unique, resilient and enviable among other nations. 

Former Australian prime ministers Malcom Fraser, Kevin Rudd and Paul Keating have each consistently argued for a recalibration of our alliance with the United States. Fraser, a former Liberal prime minister who passed away in 2015, was a major critic of Australia’s military alliance with the US and the implications for our relationship with the People’s Republic of China. Fraser called for Australia to forge an independent strategic posture apart from the US, arguing that the defence risks of our close relationship with the US outweighed any possible benefits. Likewise, previous Labor prime ministers Rudd and Keating have both asserted a need to scale back our alliance with the US government, in favour of stronger relationships within Asia. 

Though the positions of these outspoken former prime ministers might indicate division within Australian foreign policy community, our most recent Foreign Policy or Defence White Papers reflect the Morrison Government’s clear commitment to deepening Australia’s long-standing alliance with the United States and keeping this relationship at the centre of Australian security.  

Australia’s relationship with the United States is based on a robust relationship underpinned by shared democratic values, common interests and strong cultural affinities. The US-Australia partnership is formally recognised in the ANZUS treaty, which has seen significant military coordination between the two nations. The relationship extends much further, however, securing an economic boost for America and Australia and a wealth of cultural exchanges in areas such as health, science and education. For these reasons, Australia should continue to foster and strengthen close cooperation with the United States to secure a safe, prosperous and enlightened future for our country.  

Defence and Security

The history of Australia’s relationship with the United States is based on a close military alliance which has served both American and Australian national interests. The ANZUS Treaty, concluded in 1951, is Australia’s foremost security treaty alliance. While the ANZUS Treaty was created in the wake of World War II when the risk of invasion from Japan was still live in our collective memory, our military relationship has since deepened due to the ANZUS Treaty and ensures that Australia continues to develop its military alongside the strongest in the world. The US-Australia Force Posture Agreement signed in 2014 and the 2015 Joint Statement on Defence Cooperation have instructed the annual rotation of US Marines to Darwin and enhanced rotations of US aircraft to Australia. The Talisman Saber is a biennial military endeavour between the two militaries, enhancing our respective combat readiness and interoperability of our forces. This project reflects the progressive, forward- thinking military relationship that America and Australia have managed to create that is responsive to modern security threats. 

Our relationship with the strongest military in the world provides Australia with privileged access to information and high-end military equipment. This has allowed Australians to foil at least a dozen domestic terrorist plots since 2014, break up transnational crime networks, and stop money laundering and illicit trafficking of drugs, weapons, and people. Our military alliance with the US assists the Australian Defence Force as it responds to security threats and provides an added edge for us within the Pacific region. As China continues to rise, pursuing an aggressive foreign policy agenda, the muscle of the US Armed Forces can be leveraged as a counter-balance to China and shape a stable, prosperous Indo-Pacific region. Australia is a small population, with limited military force in a culturally diverse region. For this reason, it is important that hubris does not stain foreign policy, leading us to think we are better or more powerful than we really are. Our military relationship with the United States has ensured that Australia remains a secure, free and open state in a region where this is not the status quo.  

Trade and Investment

Australia and the United States are not only strong military allies. Our economic partnership is critical to our interests. While Australia’s trade relationships, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, has lead to unprecedented growth and prosperity, the United States remains Australia’s most indispensable economic partner. Our economic relationship encompasses extensive two-way investment supporting production, growth and jobs in both countries. The United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has served as the basis of our bilateral trade relationship since the agreement came into effect on January 1, 2005. Under the FTA, all tariffs have been eliminated for products exported from the United States to Australia. The FTA has led to the growth of trade and investment in both countries. The United States is the largest foreign direct investor in Australia, accounting for nearly 25 per cent of foreign investment – more than the next two countries – Japan and the UK – combined. The foreign capital provided by the United States is a crucial driver of employment, economic growth, and also the ability to export. Ultimately, foreign investment facilitates Australia’s trading relationships by providing the necessary capital and know-how for production of goods and services.

Innovation and Cultural Exchange

Australia and the US have successfully established and maintained partnerships that benefit both states. As part of the Australian National Innovation and Science Agenda, the Australian government has established a ‘Landing Pad’ in San Francisco to facilitate cooperation by US and Australian entrepreneurs. Australian scientists, researchers, and innovators enjoy maximum access to America’s world-class innovation ecosystem, and US academics and researchers travel to Australia to share their findings and learn from Australian counterparts. US and Australian government agencies also work together to advance global environmental goals. Zoos and universities in the United States and Australia are working collaboratively to save threatened species, such as the iconic Tasmanian Devil.

The United States and Australia also share best practices, personnel, and technology and equipment to combat wildland fires. In 2017 Wildland Fire Management Agreement was signed, building on 15 years of close collaboration. The United States and Australia also work together to build and strengthen health system capacities, including addressing antimicrobial resistance, human resources for health, and infrastructure within the Asia Pacific region. A recent example of this strong coordination was demonstrated in a call between US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Prime Minister Scott Morrison indicating plans to coordinate responses to the coronavirus in the Pacific. With President Trump’s recent decision to halt funding to the WHO this may make further funding available to strengthen bilateral and regional health coordination between the United States, Australia and their allies.  

A special relationship worth preserving

US presidents and officials have often referred to Australia as America’s closest friend and most trusted ally. This reputation is consistent with the special treatment and benefits Australian’s receive within the United States. For instance, the E3 visa is a United States visa only available to Australian citizens created by an Act of the United States Congress. Approving 10,500 slots for Australians each year, this visa is exceptional and signifies America’s appreciation of our alliance. In 2013, Ireland called for the E3 visa to be shared among Australians and the Irish, but these calls have so far been resisted in Congress. Then-Australian Ambassador Joe Hockey and the Embassy’s congressional liaison team successfully advocated for a change in the language of the first version of the proposed E3 amendment to ensure this outcome. Australia succeeded in Congress because of our historical defence bond and strong relationship with America.

Nonetheless, the narrative that Australia must choose between China and the United States has gained considerable traction in the media in recent years. At the heart of the story is the notion that Australia is economically beholden to China—a perception that China encourages. While there is no denying that escalating competition between China and the United States carries risks, Australia can continue to enjoy a strong, multifaceted partnership with the US whilst trading with China. The argument that Australia is at a cross-roads and somehow at the behest of China is weakened by the fact that China and the US have closer economic independence than China and Australia. Australia’s significant trade with China provides few, if any channels for the PRC to coerce Australia economically. The Chinese are not purchasing Australian commodities because they want to cultivate a friendship or drive a wedge between Australia and the United States. We are a supplier of choice to the Chinese as we have proven ourselves to be an efficient and reliable supplier by international standards. If China does not buy our commodities, someone else will. Research by Shiro Armstrong on the China–Japan relationship—a relationship marked by deep mistrust and periodic heightened tensions concluded that “trade has not been diminished or disturbed by politics to a significant extent”.

If Japan and a host of other countries in our region including South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam and Taiwan can enjoy growing trade with China while maintaining a strategic relationship with the US, surely Australia can do the same. Australia’s foreign policy debate needs to progress beyond an unhelpful focus on binary alignment choices toward a deeper dialogue about the practical challenges that China’s influence poses for alliance management. In saying this, it would be beneficial for the US and Australia to build a more resilient coalition where we discuss areas of divergence in our approach to China. This will secure productive, US-Australia relations and a united front on future foreign policy.  

Shared history, values, and prosperity have allowed the US-Australia alliance to thrive for the better part of a century, furthering both states militarily, economically and culturally. It is within our interests to maintain and grow the US-Australia partnership to ensure both nations can work together to tackle geo-political challenges with force and unity.