cam: Bush has certainly been radical: but as you said, more of an exception, than the rule. After Bush goes the US will probably settle down to blue water and global trading hegemony while using containment on non-democratic and closed-economic powers again.

We are always going to have a strong relationship with the US, it is the nature of international relations and the US is exceptionally strong. There are other historical relationships as well, but the damaging part of the GAPF is the military, foreign policy and even economic submission to an external entity which doesn\'t have the interests of the Australian nation-state as its first concern.

Australian foreign policy is only about sixty years old but even so, Australia is one of the biggest nations on the planet. We are wealthy, have a large economy, have strong educational institutions, tonnes of resources, are a regional military power - we don\'t have to do this.

The stability argument is similar to the Imperial argument when Australia still did its foreign policy under the Colonial Office. It was also stated as the \"Lucky League\" by John Reeve as well. Harries writes:

It does not want that state of affairs to change. It cannot sensibly hope to get even more than it has, but upheaval and turbulence could easily result in it having less. So aligning itself with the leading status quo countries made good realist sense.

I reckon Au is strong to get more than it has, not in land, or empire or whatever, but in increasing influence . With a bit of vision anything is possible for a vibrant country like Australia. I think it is morally important for a nation to give a gift to liberty, arguably we already have by making the secret ballot common and workable, but we should be continuing to innovate in that area.

cam