Book Reviews : Australia in World Affairs, 1950-1955. Edited by GORDON GREENWOOD and NOR MAN HARPER. (Melbourne: F. W. Cheshire, 1957. Pp. vii, 366. $6.50.)

DOI10.1177/106591296001300230
Date01 June 1960
AuthorR.N. Rosecrance
Published date01 June 1960
Subject MatterArticles
538
Australia
in
World
Affairs,
1950-1955.
Edited
by
GORDON
GREENWOOD
and
NOR-
MAN
HARPER.
(Melbourne:
F.
W.
Cheshire,
1957.
Pp.
vii,
366.
$6.50.)
For
a
considerable
period
of
time
the
most
important
secondary
sources
for
the
study
of
Australian
foreign
policy
have
lain
in
a
fugitive
literature
of
I.P.R.
papers
and
British
Commonwealth
Relations
Conference
documentation.
It
is
most
welcome,
therefore,
to
note
the
appearance
of
a
more
permanent
collection
devoted
to
the
recent
problems
of
Australian
policy.
While
the
work
does
not
pretend
to
be
a
definitive
statement
or
resolution
of
the
policy
dilemmas
con-
fronting
Australia
(indeed,
its
major
focus
is
historical
and
descriptive),
it
does
raise
some
cogent
questions
about
the
proper
direction
of
Australian
diplomacy:
(1)
Is
it
more
important
to
cultivate
the
friendship
of
independent
Asia
than
to
shelter
under
the
mantle
of
America?
(2)
Is
American
protection
and
help
more
valuable
than
the
traditional
sentimental
links
with
the
United
Kingdom?
(3)
Is
the
British
connection
so
important
that
the
reservoir
of
good
feeling
built
up
between
Asia
and
Australia
should
be
squandered
to
maintain
it?
No
single
answers
can
be
given
to
these
questions;
nor
do
the
separate
authors
agree
upon
a
common
priority
ranking
of
the
issues
involved.
But
all
concur
that
Australian
policy
is
determined
by
three
conditions
which
must
be
met
more
or
less
simul-
taneously :
the
connection
with
the
Commonwealth,
the
link
with
the
United
States,
and
the
courtship
of
free
Asia.
In these
circumstances,
the
great
challenges
for
Australian
diplomacy
have
arisen
where
hard
choices
have
had
to
be
made.
The
Indochina
imbroglio
and
SEATO
(which
posed
question
1),
ANZUS
(which
posed
questions
1
and
2),
and
Suez
(which
posed
questions
2
and
3)
along
with
the
squabbling
over
Formosa
and
the
offshore
islands
(which
raised
all
three
questions)
have
been
the
test
of
Australian
mettle
in
recent
years.
It
is
perhaps
significant
that Australia
has
most
often
placed
the
British
and
American
con-
nections
above
the
need
to
make
a
secure
place
for
herself
in
Asian
affections
when
a
decision
had
to
be
made.
In
the
Suez
case,
the
British
link
was
deemed
more
important
than
cordial
relations
with
either
America
or
Asia.
Since
1945
sheer
power
imperatives
have
dictated
a
closer
relationship
with
both
the
United
States
and
Asia,
and
yet,
Professor
Greenwood
quite
rightly
says:
&dquo;If
anything,
there
has
been
a
strengthening
of
the
emotional
ties
with
Britain....&dquo;
Power
considerations
aside,
the
British
relation
&dquo;is
a
matter
of
sentiment
and
history.
It
is
a
matter
of
roots.
And
unless
there
appears
to
be
no
alternative
a
people
will
not
lightly
cast
itself
adrift
from
its
own
past.&dquo;
Unlike
American
thinkers,
Aus-
tralian
academicians
are
quite
willing
to
avow
ideological
strands
in
the
foreign
policy
of
their
nation;
nor
do
they
argue
that these
lineaments
of
policy
could
or
should
be
purged.
There
is,
to
be
sure,
a
certain
naivet6
in
their
approach
to
subject
matter:
the
analytical
apparatus
which
accompanies
(and
in
part
en-
cumbers)
works
on
international
relations
in
this
country
is
largely
absent.
But
the
conclusions
are
clear:
while
we
in
the
United
States
are
all
agreed
on
the
pursuit
of
the
national
interest,
we
are
hard
put
to
say
what
that
elusive
object
is;
Australians
talk
very
little
of
national
interests,
but
they
know
what
they
are
about.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT