Wild Colonial Ploys? Currents of Thought in Australian Foreign Policy

Reputation and responsibility in Australia's 2003 intervention in the Solomon Islands

“…This concern for order and reputation resonates with both the 'middle power' and 'great and powerful friend' traditions in Australian diplomacy (see Wesley and Warren 2000). Australia's managerial and governance-promoting role in the South Pacific region is consistent with Australia's self-identification as an important member of the liberal-democratic core of the international community and Canberra's understanding of its US alliance responsibilities.…”

Imperialism and Internationalism in Early Australian International Relations: The Contribution of W. Harrison Moore

“…If the historical methodology proposed by Adcock and his co-authors is consistently adopted, it can be said that for Moore imperialism could be reconciled with national sentiment and both could be embedded in an emergent internationalism; in short, empire and international institutions could both serve Australian national ends. In their theorising of Australian foreign policy, Wesley and Warren (2000) have identified a position they term 'traditionalism' which affirms the primacy of 'a priority relationship with a great power' (19); this position is to be distinguished from 'seclusionism' (often based upon a rugged Australian nationalism) and also from 'internationalism'. Again, elements of both traditionalism and internationalism, thus understood, can be found in Moore's thinking; this essay has shown, further, that the internationalist strain became more prominent over time.…”

Collective Security and a New World Order: Justifying Australia's Participation in the Persian Gulf Crisis, 1990‐91

“…Two of these characterisations, Internationalism and Traditionalism, loosely align with the collective security and NWO justifications respectively. 75 They also approximate IR's idealist and realist traditions, although there are differences. Wesley and Warren argue that while there are compatibilities and incompatibilities in the currents of thought, they coexist and "repeatedly provide support and leverage to each other between and across foreign policy sectors".…”