The Legacy of Daniel Andrews: Recognising the Good…

Today the impending retirement of Daniel Andrews – Labor Premier of Victoria…

Study reveals most common forms of coercive control…

Media Release A new study by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and…

Great Expectations from the Summit of the G-77…

By Denis Bright The prospects for commitment to UN General Assembly’s sustainment development…

Imperial Footprints in Africa: The Dismal Role of…

No power in history has exercised such global reach. With brutal immediacy,…

Fascism is unlikely: idiocy is the real threat

The fight against domestic fascism is as American as apple pie. Even…

Murdoch: King Lear or Citizen Kane?

By guest columnist Tess Lawrence It may be premature to write Emeritus Chairman…

"This Is All A Giant Push By (INSERT…

"Beer?" "Thanks" "So what you been up to this week?" "I went on a march…

Dutton reminds us of Abbott, but not in…

Reading Nikki Savva’s The Road to Ruin is a depressing read, because it validates…


Foreign Policy Tripe: Scott Morrison’s “Arc of Autocracy”

Grand foreign policy speeches are not usually the specialty of Australian Prime Ministers. Little insight can be gleaned from them. A more profitable exercise would be consulting the US State Department’s briefings, which give more accurate barometric readings of policy in Canberra. The same goes for the selected adversary of the day. Washington’s adversaries must be those of Canberra’s. To challenge such assumptions would be heretical. To act upon them would be apostasy.

The speech by Prime Minister Scott Morrison on March 7 to the Lowy Institute lived down to expectations. Where it did serve some value was to highlight a mirror portrait of the man himself, describing an amoral world of power he inhabits. “We face,” he solemnly stated, “the spectre of a transactional world, devoid of principle, accountability and transparency, where state sovereignty, territorial integrity and liberty are surrendered for respite from coercion and intimidation, or economic entrapment dressed up as economic reward.”

In other respects, this speech was derivative of previous efforts to simplify the world into camps of wearying darkness and sublime light. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, US President George W. Bush did precisely that. Before losing our intellectual integrity in examining Morrison’s efforts of profound shallowness, let us go back to that original, dunce-crafted address, amply aided by David Frum, the Iraq War’s polished and persistent apologist.

When Bush delivered his address, the moment was certainly strained. The September 11, 2001 attacks still searingly fresh; the administration trying to come up with a doctrine to cope with the scourge of international Islamist terrorism. In such instances, a subtle analysis of the global scene, a mapping of sensible policy, might have been too much to ask.

What the world got was an adolescent morality sketch based on angry pre-emption in a rotten world. The US, Bush promised, would pursue “two great objectives.” The first involved shutting down terrorist camps, disrupting the plans of terrorists, and bringing “terrorists to justice.” The second: “to prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.”

With the objectives stated, the heavy padding was introduced into the speech. North Korea, Iran and Iraq were singled out for special mention. “States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.” The sequence of catastrophic, and bloody blunders that would culminate in the destruction of the ancient lands of Mesopotamia, was being floated. Evidence would be secondary to assumption and ideology.

Morrison’s own assessment is not much better. “A new arc of autocracy is instinctively aligning itself to challenge and reset the world order in their own image.” At best, this silly formulation is dated, one straight out of musty history books depicting Beijing and Moscow as joined at the hip, keen on world revolution.

Russia’s assault on Ukraine is taken to be an attack on the “rules-based international order, built upon the principles and values that guide our own nation.” This order “supported peace and stability, and allowed sovereign nations to pursue their interests free from coercion.”

This same order was grossly, and willingly violated by the US-led coalition that marched into a sovereign state in 2003, unleashing tides of sectarianism that continue in their fury. The grounds for attacking Iraq were specious, and there was no interest in allowing it to pursue its “interests free from coercion.” Instead, a sanguinary, ramshackle protectorate was created, crudely supervised by international forces that aided in driving jihadi tourism.

The same order Morrison blithely describes was violated by NATO in its bombing of vital civilian infrastructure in Serbia in 1999, ostensibly to halt a genocide of Kosovars. In 2011, the same rules-based-order became something of a joke with the aerial intervention by French, UK and US forces in backing a revolt against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Unceremoniously butchered by an ecstatic mob, Gaddafi did not live to see his country virtually partitioned by rival militias.

The adversaries of the US are on very solid ground to point these misdeeds out, and Russian President Vladimir Putin does not shy away from reminding the West of this fact in his February 24 speech. Western colleagues, Putin remarked, “do not like to remember those events, and when we talk about it, they prefer to point not to the norms of international law, but to the circumstances that they interpret as they see fit.” This hardly adds weight to his own self-interpreted claims, but they serve to draw a thick line under hypocrisy masquerading as virtue.

Morrison hits a sinister register in describing the effects of the principle-free, transactional world. “The well-motivated altruistic ambition of our international institutions has opened the door to this threat. Just as our open markets and liberal democracies have enabled hostile influence and interference to penetrate not our own societies and economies.” What is he suggesting? A violent retaliation, a forced reversal?

Much impatience was expressed with how these naughty regimes of the autocratic arc have managed to get away with it. It might be “right to aspire” to “inclusion and accommodation,” but Australia and its allies had been left “disappointed.” But not his government – not the Liberal-Nationals, who had been “clear eyed,” having “taken strong, brave and world-leading action in response.”

To show how clear of eye Morrison has been, he has successfully made Australia the subservient partner in the AUKUS security pact with the United States and the UK. What was left of Australian sovereignty has been brazenly outsourced. The prime minister barely acknowledges the rationale of the agreement in the Lowy address, which has little to do with Australia eventually having its own questionable submarines with nuclear propulsion. The central point is granting greater access to US armed forces for easier deployment in the Indo-Pacific, a logistical benefit that is bound to make any war more, rather than less likely. Some freedom; some sovereignty.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button


Login here Register here
  1. Some Village Hampden

    Can someone please identify the dickhead who wrote this speech (surely not our PM himself ) so he or she can be properly pilloried on social media and if you happen to live in the same street, pelt the said dickhead with rotten tomatoes for such an appalling display of speech writing.

    As someone who, once upon a time in a dark and distant age, wrote speeches for politicians and was even then dismayed by the changes their PR people insisted on making, a word of advice to the political wordsmiths: your job is not to explain policy in clear and coherent terms but to make memorable statements devoid of meaning but sounding impressive in retrospect.

    This one was a clear fail!

  2. GL

    He goes on and on about naughty autocracies elsewhere and what is it he’s trying to create here by stealth?

  3. Terence Mills

    Morrison was wisely counselled by Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to engage more calmly and directly with China. But he chose to ignore that advice.

    Mr Lee described China as “one of the biggest policy questions for every major power in the world” and he told Morrison that Australia should focus on areas of mutual interest rather than ideological differences.

    “You don’t have to become like them, neither can you hope to make them become like you,” he said. “You have to be able to work on that basis, that this is a big world in which there are different countries, and work with others who are not completely like-minded but with whom you have many issues, where your interests do align.”

    “There will be rough spots … and you have to deal with that,” Lee added. “But deal with them as issues in a partnership which you want to keep going and not issues, which add up to an adversary which you are trying to suppress.”

    Morrison (and Dutton) chose not to heed this advice and prefer to handle diplomacy like a shouting contest and they do this purely for cynical political reasons rather than considering the national interest.

    They make me sick !

  4. Michael Taylor

    Terry, Mr Lee sounds a lot like K Rudd or J Gillard.

  5. Cool Pete

    Scotty From marketing thinks he’s idiot trump!

  6. Consume Less

    They make me sick, Ditto

  7. Michael Taylor

    I hear that Kerry O’Brien mentioned the “C” word on The Drum tonight: Conscription.

    It’s just a rumour.

  8. Bob

    Michael, I missed that segment but wtf? What’d be the driver of ADF conscription in an era of high-tech war run by algorithm guiding swarms of drones? Is the government prepping for war or is it thinking cleanup crews for climate change messes it helps to create.
    The PM: “We face the spectre of a transactional world, devoid of principle, accountability and transparency, where state sovereignty, territorial integrity and liberty are surrendered for respite from coercion and intimidation”. Was he referring to the WHO recommended mandates that were used to force people to decide between getting jabbed or losing their job? That episode in our history surely spells out a low point in freedom and it is good that a PM has made it explicit in a speech, and whether he said it off his own bat or someone else wrote his speech is irrelevant. Good on the PM for leaving this gem of wisdom behind for future historians.

  9. New England Cocky

    @Bob: COVID cures stupid ….. painfully ….. permanently

  10. Terence Mills


    I think Kerry O’ was just making a passing comment on the foreshadowed boost to our ADF numbers.

    Typically Morrison and Dutton have not addressed the important aspects of increasing and maintaining a
    standing defence force :

    Pay and conditions and a family friendly environment.

    Where do the conscripts come from ? His Treasurer is saying that we are close to maximum employment so the ADF would have to compete to get the conscripts (see 1 above).

    Ukraine has shown us that the likes of Putin can use the rules based order and treaties such as the NATO agreement, against us (e.g. the “free world” is afraid to interfere to introduce or enforce a ‘no fly zone’ over Ukraine giving Russia a free hand to destroy the country and perpetuate a genocidal policy on a previously sovereign country.

  11. Michael Taylor

    Indeed, Terry.

    It might have been based on Morrison’s recent announcement to boost the ADF by 20,000.

    It was muttered loosely by Kerry, in my opinion.

  12. wam

    The ‘pig in a poke’ purchase by Scummo echoes the U SUKA thoughts of boris and biden. Anyone with the ability to think can see nothing worthwhile in this man’s words, nothing trustworthy in his promises and nothing to show that he is ability to accept responsibility for his actions. Every day consolidates the reality that only the bandit stands between labor and the government benches. Go for scummo, labor, keep strong, Albo et al.
    the ADF are overwhelmingly anti-greens and pro-libs and the base in townesville is important. They cannot afford to antagonise any service personnel?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: