Introduction
It can be quite challenging to define a nation's self-identity, particularly in a multicultural nation. Different generations and groups will feel differently about their country of origin. In that scenario, the concept of self-identity would be a fluid and ephemeral idea. The situation is quite challenging within the framework of Australia. Australia is referred to as a white nation that is located on the Asia-Pacific region. It is argued that Australia is on the wrong continent.
Identity first appeared in international relations literature throughout the 1990s under the constructivism umbrella. The constructivists created conceptual frameworks to comprehend how state identities affect foreign policy procedures and how international structures influence state identity creation. In order to improve the theoretical and empirical contributions on identity and foreign policy, the constructivists enlisted the help of analysts of foreign policy. A famous analysis of the liberal foundations of much identity theorizing in international affairs can be found in Williams (1998). Another thorough review of the literature on the identity-foreign policy nexus, covering its inception, development, and key controversies, is provided by Vucetic (2017).
Changes in Geopolitics
In the twenty-first century, geopolitical and geostrategic shifts take place. Australia's foreign policy, which is outlined in the 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper, must evolve in reaction to these developments.
National power comes to mind first when considering Australian foreign policy. All national policies are powered by national power, which also determines a country's course in the world. No matter how ambitious or significant, pursuing international objectives is impossible without utilizing the full potential of national power. An approach that is based on a clear, honest assessment of Australia's national might is more practical in this situation than one that is. Key considerations that must be thought through initially include what Australia has and how it may use it to effectively achieve its goals.
Since more than 60 years ago, foreign policy makers have referred to Australia as a middle power without defining or clarifying the term based on a thorough and unbiased analysis of the capabilities that define national power. Australia's history as a middle power highlighted three traits: nationalism, internationalism, and activism. However, these traits are more a function of perception than they are a representation of reality. It's crucial to underline how power is always moving in this context. As the world and civilizations develop, the elements of national power shift, with some traditional elements dying off and others evolving (Sanyal, 2019).
Therefore, it is essential to determine the current situation of the country's power resources before aspirations are expressed, goals are determined, and policies are executed. The ability to implement policies might be greatly hampered by the absence or inaccessibility of vital assets, even while their availability can give more options.
The second idea that comes to me is strategic tale. Australian foreign, security, and defense policies are all without a coherent national narrative. A national narrative may act as a unifying force for the nation and its institutions as well as a potent tool for self-reflection and progress. A nation without it risked losing its sense of direction, which would have an impact on all of its policy choices, including its foreign policy.
A fractured social consciousness that is developing along the rifts of a divided society makes it difficult for hopes, let alone ambitions and interests, to be realized. To meet the challenges of a developing world that is not only diverse but also a place of increasingly divergent interests, beliefs, and actions, an unified and connected narrative is necessary.
The finest illustration of a factor that contributes to the absence of a narrative is perhaps Australia's hesitancy to define its international identity within the community of nations. The 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper discusses Australia's values, but there isn't a comparable political will to project these values in the region and beyond, through which Australia may affect its strategic environment. It's critical to take into account Australia's aspirations for its own perception of itself in this situation. Contrast this with the image that the United States fostered in the immediate years following World War Two to maintain a liberal international order, such as the Marshall Plan and the Bretton Woods system. Australia's place in the Indo-Pacific is another important subject. The 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper emphasized the importance of the Indo-Pacific region as Australia's foreign policy context but said nothing on how Australia fits within this context.
A story about how it might be maintained and strengthened—and why it is vital to do so—must come after the acceptance of a middle power status. The following step is to rally support from the rest of the nation. It's necessary to raise the issue of Australia's place in Asia here. In this position, Australia seems to be lacking in confidence, direction, and clarity. Despite not geographically being part of Asia, Australia seems to have accepted the notion that Asia holds the key to Australia's economic future, particularly in terms of the chase of wealth. By developing a sub-narrative about this reality and using allusions and symbolism that are culturally acceptable, the strategic tale can be considerably reinforced and improved. It is impossible to stress the importance of developing a strategic narrative that not only incorporates the findings of the 2016 Census of Population and Housing but also helps to define Australia's international character and project soft power in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.
Only there can the conversation about multiculturalism start. As a nation with a long history and a population that is becoming more diverse and influencing its present, there is an opportunity to unpack this system of values in order to develop a distinct national outlook and voice that are resilient to unfavorable social forces, such as the ongoing threat posed by extremist forces. To more correctly reflect the changing social reality and strategically project its soft power, Australia's foreign policy identity in the twenty-first century needs an inclusive, cogent, and futuristic story.
Third on our list of factors to take into account is national security. Australia's national security strategy has traditionally placed a high priority on physical security. Defense of territorial sovereignty despite being crucial to national security is insufficient. Granted, in the post-9/11 era, when violent extremism is primarily carried out by sub-national actors, the physical component of security has taken precedence over other areas of security concerns. The general public has come to believe that physical security is the only factor that matters. This is also demonstrated by the investments made in these regions. The fourth factor is a nation's standing.
Australia is frequently seen as a nation where everyone has an equal chance to succeed and where people are proud, lively, and resilient. Australia has benefited by turning these traits into a national identity, particularly in the 20th century. The Australian Defence Force's expeditionary military operations, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, and its decades-long involvement in UN peacekeeping missions, have both contributed to this perception. In the Five Eyes intelligence community as well as in its security partnership with the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand, Australia is considered highly as a partner. However, the significant cultural changes that are transforming Australia could affect how people view the country.
The complicated social face of Australia goes beyond merely its unfavorable reputation as a place to reside. Like other countries, Australia is still vulnerable to changing socioeconomic dynamics and demographic issues. Future foreign and defense policy for Australia should take into account the impact they will have on the nation's morale and character. It is a timely reminder that as more and more disruptive technologies start to influence our lives and our way of thinking, Australia should seek intelligence when developing answers to its security and other national challenges. The fifth strategy is the national one. The expanding strategic picture both inside and outside of Australia serves to highlight the need for a shift in policy thinking. What should be done and how should it be done is the next question. It takes caution and protocol to alter national customs, laws, or institutions because doing so is difficult. Perhaps there is never the perfect time to implement significant improvements in a nation's affairs. As a result, Australia must take small, steady steps that are informed by facts rather than empty rhetoric and supported by a strategic viewpoint rather than solely by tactical considerations. This approach could represent a substantial advancement in Australian foreign policy in the future.
A national strategy that entails major decisions requires support from the entire country. To ingrain the basics of the policy in the public mind, a new form of partnership with the civil society is required, one that includes representatives from all facets of society in addition to the parliament. A forum similar to the Australia 2020 Summit, which was established in 2008 to strengthen linkages between society, the country, and policy, would be relevant in this situation. Such a procedure can assist the country in becoming aware of the new foreign policy options that Australia will have to make in the near future and the years to come. It is true that among the different categories of public policies created and administered by the government, foreign policy holds a special place. However, Australia needs a new civil partnership model in order to define the direction that the current government wants Australia to go in. This is because there is intense competition between states and a growing shortage of economic and other essential resources. Without such a collaboration, the difficulty of making little or large advances will continue to be susceptible to tactical concerns and short-term thinking. This may lead to gaps in the recognition, evaluation, and comprehension of strategic dangers to national security, for instance.
Penny Wong, Australia's minister of foreign affairs, presented her perspective on that country's relations with its neighbors in July 2022. Because Australia and ASEAN share a region and a future, the minister claimed that ASEAN is important. Australia is dedicated to ASEAN centrality and sees itself as a member of the ASEAN community. Geographical centrality is the first component of ASEAN centrality. Although it might seem clear, there is more to it, according to Wong. The Indian and Pacific Oceans border the continent, while Southeast Asia lies in the middle of the continent, bridging the two.
Australia's connection to the rest of the globe is made possible by the contours of Southeast Asia's landmass, which are seen through its archipelagos and the waters that encircle its islands. Therefore, events in, to, and through this region will have an impact on Australia's strategic future.
For security, Australia is strongly reliant on ASEAN. According to Wong, Australia must find its security in Asia rather than via Asia. Australia must first and foremost find security in Southeast Asia.
Conclusion
Australia needs to make a new thinking in order to response the changing strategic environment. Action needs to be taken right away to get Australia ready for the future. Strategic windows of opportunity close eventually. Australia runs the serious risk of losing its power status in terms of possibilities and being forced to accept a challenging reality at the price of its own national interest.
References
Acharya, Amitav. 2000. The Quest for Identity: International Relations of Southeast Asia. Oxford: Oxford
Sanyal, Jayasubroto. 2019. “Shaping Australian Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: Thoughts on a Reflective Framework of Analysis” Security Challenges , 2019, Vol. 15, No. 1 (2019), pp. 1-8 Published by: Institute for Regional Security Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26644514
Vucetic, Srdjan. 2017. “Identity and Foreign Policy,” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.435
Wæver, Ole. 2002. “Identity, Communities and Foreign Policy: Discourse Analysis as a Foreign Policy Theory,” in Hansen, Lene and Ole Wæver, eds., European Integration and National Identity: The Challenge of the Nordic States pp. 20– 49.
Williams, Michael C. 1998. "Identity and the Politics of Security." European Journal of International Relations
Zehfuss, Maja. 2001. “Constructivism and Identity: A Dangerous Liaison.” European Journal of International Relations, 7, no. 3: 315–48.