The Geopolitics Of Australian Independence


Dr. Jim Saleam
First published December 3 2006; New edition June 2011



Introduction




This article is adapted from an item published here in December 2006. A slightly modified version appeared in 2011 in Ab Aeterno, Journal Of The Academy Of Social And Political Research. Since then, I have corrected a couple of errors in the text. I acknowledge the input of A. Saunders, M. Peters, A. Patterson and others (who preferred anonymity). Where I have relied upon bodies of geopolitical and other thought or the opinion of a person, it is stated clearly. The good idea is eternal and belongs to all who carry it, defend it and develop it.


Geopolitics may be an old study, but it has had only occasional airing in Australia. In the pursuit of an independent Australian nation state, we are required to understand Place and Time. The former teaches us that we are a Continent Nation, set in a geographical context (macro and micro) and the latter tells us how contemporary politics amplifies our geographical advantages and disadvantages for national survival. I shall provide a more concise, or usable, definition of the term 'geopolitics' below.

The reason for this discussion is - urgency. Australian nationalists reason that our country finds itself on the edge of being ultimately absorbed into a huge Asia-Pacific trade zone. This zone, in the process of full gestation, functions as a part, if only economically at this time, of the emergent New World Order (NWO), but it has 'local' historical features of its own. It may yet be fought over between America, the policeman state of this coercive order - and Chinese superpower imperialism. We exist in a period when New World Order imperialism threatens war against those who refuse to enter into its borderless fantasy, its one-world. Yet the one-world is also (in contradiction to globalist rhetoric) the prize of the two state-based imperialisms of America and China at a time when other blocs are struggling to create a 'multi-polar world'. Our planet suffers too, from an ongoing and deepening crisis of food and population, all in a period of dramatic climactic changes; therefore also, we exist at the opening of a phase of rivalry for resources, including living space. (1) The Australian Continent is attractive for aggressors of all types.

We are interested therefore, in developing a new outlook which allows us to understand better our potential to win national independence and then to maintain that independence. Learning the geopolitics of Australian independence is a proper task, because we aim to survive our time.


1. A Long History Establishes Australian Relations With Other Continents


Australia as a Continent, separated from the others, around a time just after the era of the dinosaurs. It existed in a form of almost-splendid-isolation, affixed between three oceans. It was visited and occupied by new creatures most certainly, but not in such an array of life-forms that it did not adapt highly idiosyncratic animals and other life. Australia was, from the opening of the Cenozoic Era, a true biosphere.

Humans arrived on this Old-Continent very 'early' in their history. Some evidence exists that Peking Man and Java Man appeared here and vanished at unknowable points. That they were here showed Australia was never 'isolated' despite its isolation, an understandable contradiction. In these lost ages, even the most barbarous of human kind could locate this land and eke out a rude existence upon it. It was a place difficult to reach, but always attainable: perhaps the first principle of our geopolitics.

Then others came, using as they did, the effective 'land-bridge' with New Guinea, or a process of simple island-hopping in the Torres Strait. Negritos, Aborigines, other groups arrived (including proto-Caucasoids), from a time possibly 80,000 years ago, but probably in an age much more remote. They contested for the land and the Aboriginal groups became dominant; and this struggle left isolated pockets of other human types. So the Aboriginal races remained - essentially alone - until what the historians call 'ancient times'. There is no doubt as to the antiquity of these Aboriginal races, nor is there any doubt that they occupied the Australian Continent untrammelled for tens of thousands of years, without the effective competition of other human types. They were able to 'dream' their 'dreaming'. The Aboriginal races built no 'civilization' and therefore no state; they became a people constituted as 300 tribal groups, sorted into linguistic and other sub-divisions. They considered they did not 'possess' the land; rather, it 'owned' them. The Aboriginal races always existed as humankind had lived in the Old Stone Age, in a form of primitive communism. On that basis, they were challenged in recent historical times by modern men - and dispossessed. (2)

Men ruined much of the landscape, scarring areas, possibly beyond redemption. There is debate as to the impact of the Aborigines (and others?) upon the flora and fauna of this land. It might be safer simply to say that human activity harmed the earth to a real degree, perhaps intensifying desertification and destroying the mega-fauna. We Europeans, with our 'European' farming methods, carried on the environmental disaster. Whatever the inter-relationship in some areas, the Continent, in the last 10,000 years, became drier, less hospitable, fragile in places, incapable of ultimately supporting human masses: perhaps the second principle of our geopolitics.

The conventional history, that had Australia first sighted by the Portuguese in the sixteenth century, the first modern landing with Dirk Hartog in 1616, the discovery of 'Tasmania' by Abel Tasman in 1642, all culminating with the 'claim' of Captain Cook in 1770 - has long since been overturned. If anything, the Spanish constructed a fort at Eden and mapped the East Coast, long before Cook (who possibly carried a Spanish map). (3) And yes, there were Malayan sailors on the northern coasts and possibly ships from the Great Chinese Fleet of 1421 who had a look-in, trading a few trinkets with local Aborigines. Arab traders may also have ventured here in those centuries when they introduced Islam to Indonesia.

However - and it sets the starting-point of our Australian nation - it was the white man Cook who dragged the Old-Continent into modernity, claiming for Britain the East Coast as 'New South Wales'. By legal theory, the land was 'terra nullius', land without an owner. Britain took legal ownership. In Britain's action was the beginning not of a 'colony', but of a new nation and nationality.

Yet Australia's contact with other continents, went back long before the modern European claim. It is a history now being documented and which colours our Continent with a new sense of historical Time.

The history of the Pacific Ocean, 'Oceania', is now being probed for the existence of states and empires previously the subject of myth - or of theosophy. We are learning to see human cultural and political evolution and the secret history of the Continent.

The theosophists talked of Lumeria, a lost continent in the Pacific, occasionally called 'Mu', a mighty empire of sea-traders and warriors. It had all the earmarks of an Atlantis myth. It was, perhaps not a continent, but likely indeed - an empire. There are traces of an old culture in the Pacific. If these men visited Australia, they left, as far as we can see, no substantial marks.  (4)

In ancient times, it is reasonably thought that Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans saw the South Land, perhaps from across the empty expanses of the Indian Ocean. And the Pacific too in old times had its Libyans, its Celts in New Zealand, its Vikings. It is feasible that Sarina (in Queensland) has its wharf structure built by the Phoenicians (?) Yet all this shows us that Australia had an older history than many have hitherto supposed, that its story was part of a mythos of sea power and adventure.

Our historical survey tells us that Australia was the Terra Australis Magna Incognita (Great Unknown Land of the South), at first, a legend, an inspiring myth. Many had 'touched' it, but left no real depth of settlement. It was too harsh, too isolated, too untamed and difficult to exploit or to develop. In that sense we modern Australians have taken over the Continental legends from all humanity and made them our own; we find our sense of Place, not just from our modern European origin, but from the history of the South Land itself.

Yet, we are those who would discover our land from within. In doing so, we take over the mythos of the old Aboriginal peoples and the facts of other human habitation, for we also regard the differentialist aspects of our spirit (that is, those things which differentiate us from Europeans pure and simple) as establishing our native quality. If we dwell in this land and love it, finally asserting we have no other land, then its primordial 'dreaming' - is ours too.

 

2. The Idea Of Geopolitics In Australia

The principles of geopolitics can be now briefly explained. There is no room here for a learned exposition. We are providing the overview.

Geopolitics is a school of political-historical philosophy. It has had several prominent theorists of different nationalities, who down to the 1920's and 1930's, established it as a necessary study for statecraft.

In its original form, the school appeared in a Eurocentric form. Whomsoever dominated the Central Asian area, would dominate the world-island. Whichever power combined the resources of Europe with the areas of Eastern Europe (including Russia) could wage this politics and secure the economic futures of the European peoples - and some client peoples resident upon its space. With no natural barriers, this real Europe would stretch to the Pacific; within these spaces, an idea of power would reside to confront (when necessary) other peoples with other conceptions. Inside this living-area, philosophies like peoples, would reconcile. The broad school had both a 'Western' European and an 'Eastern' European formulation. The Russian intellectuals called it 'Eusasianism' and centred it on Russia's unique position straddling the two continents.

The Second World War period brought geopolitics some 'disrepute', given that some theorists of fascism employed its arguments, but that does not detain us here. We may argue that some communists did likewise from the time of Stalin onwards - until finally the idea of 'Eurasianism' in the post-1991 Russian Federation would replace the communist vision itself.

Jean Thiriart, the Belgian Euro-nationalist theorist, wrote in the1960's of a grand Europe arraigned against the sea powers, of the spirit of life against the spirit of commerce. His works never lost their lustre and found themselves popular again in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. For Thiriart, the enemy of freedom lay in the capitalist model of endless consumption headquartered in America. This America had to be isolated to its North American Continent-base. His ideas are today wielded by Alexander Dugin, a theorist who influenced President Putin, Russian nationalists and ex-communists. For Dugin, Eurasia must become a 'reality' that inspires the future multi-polar world.

Australian geopolitics is in shadow. In the 1920's efforts in some returned- soldiers' organizations, saw the works of American Lothrop Stoddard widely distributed. Stoddard believed that an open struggle of the Asiatic races against the European races was a likely event and that Australia was a prize of this struggle. In that way at least, a discussion of Australia's strategic placement took place. Australians were encouraged to look to Place as determinative of their politics and reject that they were some outpost in the intra-European power struggles.

In the 1930's, Percy Stephensen advanced his own theory of geopolitics which was quite revolutionary. For Stephensen, the idea of the antipodes, was the province of those who thought Australia far from their home-continent of Europe and therefore it was that fact which made them nostalgic for 'home' ('home' to most of these persons meant Britain) and fearful for the protection of their Motherland. For Stephensen, it was on one level - the other way around! He understood the function of airpower in fighting navies and considered it the military basis of independence; Stephensen was neither nostalgic for 'home' nor so fearful of the future that he required protection from an Empire headquartered at the other end of the earth. Hence Stephensen quipped that for Australians - Europe was the antipodes! Geopolitically, allowing for the hyperbole in the formulation - that is correct. It was thence little accident that in his key work on the development of Australian culture, The Foundations Of Culture In Australia, Stephensen demanded of us that we recognise our position in Place and Time. Although Australia could benefit from the arrangements of forces and balances in the global geopolitical situation elsewhere, an Australian geopolitical policy meant that the survival-factors were more localised: this would be the third principle of our geopolitics.

The long suburban-consumer sleep in Australia, the Menzies era (Prime Minister Robert Menzies, 1949-1966), encouraged only dependence. Once again, Australia entered into an imperial alliance. Our concerns became those of the alliance. Only in one regard did this alliance have a basis in fractured reality. Many Australians confused American anti communism with an awareness of the 'Yellow Peril'. There was a slight overlap in practise; yet, the American policy inevitably integrated Australia's affairs with those of Asian capitalist governments, a fatal position in the era of the internationalisation (then globalisation) of capitalism. Under the impress of the new superpower master, the White Australia Policy was abandoned. The consumer age demobilised Australian national consciousness. The country, without a voice for identity and independence, had a new awareness of Time and Place - as an export platform serving the Western Alliance. (5)

Nicholas Lindeman, a self-taught theorist, advanced a thesis in the 1970's that suggested the re-emergence of a Japanese threat to Australia. For Lindeman, it was Australia's wealth and its spaces that could lure the Japanese into a new imperial crusade. Perhaps it might no longer be a Japanese threat but a Chinese one which we need to face, yet his precepts had a particular validity: sea power was the key; Australia had commercial worth and was an essential block in empire-building; Japan was a small country in need of living space and resources. Lindeman too, maintained that the ideological-thinking of the anti communist era was inappropriate to a period when it was resources and space that were at issue. (6)

Sir Philip Baxter, a key player in Australia's original nuclear program, wrote the preface to the Lindeman book. Baxter reasoned in the 1970's that Australia was likely to be the victim of a refugee invasion caused by overpopulation in the Third World. Baxter regarded Australia as a "lifeboat" which might be "swamped" in this new century. He saw the invasion as one partly organised by neighbours and partly the spontaneous reaction of those desperate-for-life. For Baxter, Australia was a piece a valuable real-estate and despite its unsuitability to mass settlement, it was mistakenly seen by the poor of the earth as a land of milk and honey. He recognised no ally as a permanent fixture. He asserted by implication, a continental approach to survival by the rich, Australian Continent. He urged an aggressive defence that used our advantages, up to and including, the use of tactical nuclear devices on our soil - so as to disperse enemy lodgements. Baxter was arguing that a crisis-period would require a crisis-solution. (7)

E.F. Azzopardi in the 1970's was familiar with Lindeman and Baxter and he advanced a new synthetic theory which built upon these Australian contributors. He definitely saw Australia as a 'lifeboat' (an idea he borrowed freely from Sir Philip Baxter) in a world of overpopulation and food crisis. He predicted climate change, global warming and enviro-refugees. In his vision, the crisis was rendered apocalyptic through the contentions of powerful states, anxious in any case for Australian resources and global advantage. For Azzopardi, the new innovation involved a recognition that the then Soviet Union was no ideological or national enemy, but a conservative state locked in its own struggles with the Third World and China. There was the likelihood of Northern Hemisphere nuclear engagement which would, of necessity, establish the Southern Hemisphere as suitable real estate. In that scenario, an Australian geo-politics would extend to a hemispheric proportion. Azzopardi broke with any idea of Australian dependence on American imperial alliances, indeed any alliances fashioned by the notion that we were owed survival courtesy of a powerful friend. He would drive "this continental chariot" to build a "new civilization" to rival "the legendary Atlantis". Azzopardi grasped the idea that the Continent's sheer wealth could ground Australian independence as much as lure others (chiefly in Asia) to steal it, that these riches could sustain a new Australian people's social and economic order. (8)

Today, we are witnesses to the essential validity of the opinions of Lindeman, Baxter and Azzopardi, as shall be discussed below. We are indebted to their vision.

Time has moved on since the 1970's. We saw a temporary collapse of the centre of Eurasian power - Russia. We witnessed the birth of central-world-island forcse in a revitalised Islamicism and the continued growth of the Asian powerhouse, with the Chinese superpower at its centre.

As noted, the fight waged by European nationalist forces today, has witnessed geopolitics return as a major area of study. They speak of a Eurasian revolution which will interlink the countries of Europe into a new bloc. With Russian resources and western European technology, the American regime can be excluded from Eurasia. This power bloc would necessarily defend the common European Culture from any threat from without. Nonetheless, we are aware these theorists write as Europeans, not simply in the 'racial' sense, but in the capacity of their geographic placement.

We are 'Europeans' only by our ethnos. We must write as Australians and in so far as we read this literature, we must interpret its theoretical bases to our own requirements - and/or follow its logic as aspects of our appreciation for our own survival. Essentially, however, as Stephensen put it, we Australians "will defend ourselves" - and do so from our own specifications.


3. Australia's 'Foundation' And Early History Were Governed By Geopolitics



The settlement of Botany Bay in 1788, was not simply a reaction to the social tensions within the Britain of the early industrial revolution. Rather, we can appreciate the British imperial logic which saw France as a European - indeed world - rival. One year before the French Revolution, Britain looked to building naval base, store and pivotal point for control of the vast seas of the South Pacific. Even decades later, Western Australia was proclaimed as a colony to ensure French interests stayed off the Continent.

So it was. Although Australia was regulated as a prison, it was strictly administered in a manner which defied the development of a new area of mass British and European settlement. Crown lands were closed and grants were large and offered to 'reliable' persons. The economy was groomed for the export of primary products and industry curtailed. Essentially, Australia's vast continental wealth and geographic position were pawns in a wider chess game. The British imperial position altered after the gold rushes from 1851, but in direction, if not in substance.

Around this time, the 'Russian scare' operated in colonial life. Colonial Australians considered themselves under the Russian gun. Russia's wars in Afghanistan in the 1860's were considered a threat to British India - and ergo a threat to the survival of the Australian colonies. Australian freedom was considered by the bunyip aristocrats challenged by Russia, simply because Russia challenged the British Empire in Asia.

The Federation movement however, discounted such a threat. It looked to Australia's position near Asia as determinant of the country's foreign policy needs. The Federation movement was torn, between its understanding of the Australian future and its place within an Empire. Within the embrace of the alien Empire, a new spirit of Place was emergent.

The opposition to the imperial vision centred on Australian continentalism. It was no real accident that the Fathers of Federation considered confederation with New Zealand; the Tasman Sea presented no great barrier to close relations and the fate of the two countries was linked. The two countries bonded in new ways as the Twentieth Century unfolded, until we can no longer consider ourselves foreigners to each other. We share the ANZAC mythology. The two countries share a destiny and will suffer the same fate unless a commonality of purpose prevails. The geopolitical argument would have both countries in a con-federal bond. Their confederation would add geometrically to the strength of the whole and is entirely natural.

The ANZAC confederation would - again - demonstrate the importance of sea-power, as a challenge and as a defence.

Yet, it is a contradiction of our nature that, founded by sea power as our country was (and the New Zealanders too), the Australians have failed to become a maritime people. Was it that we thought ourselves a branch of an Empire which had a great navy and merchant marine such that we could ignore our needs? Was it that we were willing to pay the price of protection by offering land armies for slaughter? This contradiction must be settled. It could be historically settled in antithesis: whereas the Australian people look inwards for the reserves of their identity and strength, they project outwards a sturdiness and vitality founded upon genuine sense of trade for advantage and fraternal intervention in common human culture, politics and other endeavours, to create around us a quilt of free peoples who look to Australia as their friend against all hegemonism and imperialism. (9)

The inherent quality of our continentalism is rejection of the politics of adventure and war; continentalism imposes a defensive and otherwise peace-seeking quality to our nationalism - a firm rule of our geopolitics.

4. The Ongoing Revolution In Asia-Pacific Politics



The Asia-Pacific region has been a new focus of world-politics since the clash of Russian and Japanese arms in 1904-5. Indeed, it was this defeat of the white power by the yellow power, which revolutionised the politics of the day.

It was the Asia-Pacific region that took on the challenge of rivalling the great European world-island powers. The sea powers like the United States and Japan contended over the high-population areas and the sparsely populated islands amidst the seascape. Each sought to build resources to interfere on the Asian continent.

Another rule of our geopolitics: the primary threat to Australia can only come from Asia.

The defeat of Russia encouraged the formation of a national militia, universal arms training and the foundation of an Australian Navy. The new enemy in the national mind became Japan, despite the existence of an alliance between our imperial overlord and Japan. Indeed, the important political book The Australian Crisis, (1909) predicted a Japanese organized 'refugee invasion' of the Northern Territory and the temporary loss of part of the Continent thanks in part to betrayal by the Empire.

The dependence of Australia upon Great Britain, which took Australia into a denial of her geopolitical and national interests during the First World War, validated (without anyone knowing for decades) Australia's suspicion of Japan. During the war, Japan intended a sneak-occupation of Australia whilst our troops were overseas.

The inability of Europe to guard Australia from Japanese imperialism was a fact not lost upon Australians - even when they professed imperial loyalties. It compelled a sense of localist nationalism and an awareness of our geographic place. This awareness extended into the era when Australia's interests merged into those of the American superpower which straddled the Pacific.

The economic transformation of Asia over the last four decades, in league with the American superpower (first under the guise of the anti-communist crusade and later under the form of liberal globalisation), has once again highlighted Australia's dependence. The Continent has become an export platform, a military base, a factor in the economic development of Asia, its borders broken open and its pretension to sovereignty cast aside. Australia is conceived as part of Asia because we are adjacent to it and our economic wealth of service to its development. Indeed, the political class has staked Australia's future upon submergence into Asia (sic).

Australia appears to be a small power. But possession of a Continent placed as it is, makes of us a potentially 'larger' power. It is a perversity of thought-process that causes the political class to see Australia simply as a place 'at the end' of a chain of Asian islands. It went so far that one journalist, waxing lyrical, described Darwin as a "south Asian town".

The former land-bridge that brought the old races to the Continent (now the Indonesian archipelago and which 'points south' towards us, such that Asianisers announce the Continent 'part of Asia'), is by reverse logic a sphere in which Australia has keen interests apposite to the survival struggle.

A national revolutionary war against Indonesia might be inevitable. Australia and Indonesia are always enemies. Only shallow seas separate the two countries. A singular geographic reality, a continental shelf line rich in oil, is deeply contentious. Indonesian colonialism in New Guinea is a direct threat to Australian security as much as any Australian plan to play a role amongst Pacific and Melanesian peoples threatens the stability of Indonesia. Indeed, geopolitics demands Australia seek the fragmentation of the present Indonesian state. Interestingly, a national revolutionary war with Indonesia, which covets northern Australia in any case, might induce deep social and political change in our country whereby war-measures-logic would allow a new State to cut deep into the underpinnings of the old-regime. In that sense, such a war may have that 'revolutionary' quality.

The Asian states to our north are diverse and hardly likely to remain friends in the era of the emergence of Chinese imperialism. Australia should, rightly, fear this 'Asia'. However, like Indonesia, Asia generally is a patchwork of peoples imprisoned inside states whose boundaries were formed in the era of European imperialism. Australia, rightly, would welcome popular struggles to break up these states, or to federalise these states. That discussion takes us beyond our subject, except to note that: crisis could produce refugee floods and stimulate Chinese hegemonist activities, issues which return us to the discussion of geopolitics. The ongoing revolution of Asian life is a direct challenge to Australian survival.

5. Australia's Geopolitical Advantages And Disadvantages In The World Struggle



In securing Australian independence, we must take full stock of the geopolitical situation in plus and minus.

Australia is an island. It can only be approached by sea. The threat could materialise courtesy of the naval forces of the American superpower or of the naval power of the rising Chinese superpower, via climate refugees, or unarmed 'asylum-seeker' invaders, or by the infiltration forces of weaker states like Indonesia. This is all bad enough; however Australia can be struck at from far away by missiles, by aircraft and now by the fallout of nuclear, chemical or biological engagement.

Because Australia can mobilize fully, because Australia is one of the few states which can employ in the most extreme circumstances even tactical nuclear warfare on its own soil to destroy an enemy lodgement or invasion armada, because Australia has food supplies in abundance and other economic resources, conveys to the defence a massive advantage over an enemy who tries to affect lodgement and who thus relies on supplies from far away. We have considerable defensive advantages because it is essentially beyond our national purpose to engage in aggressive conduct.

The idea of continentalism compels Australians to the strategic defensive: a firm military rule arising from geopolitics.

Of course, our long coastlines present problems of surveillance and wide opportunities for lodgement. The Arnhem Land and Cape York areas - and possibly the Kimberley region - are vulnerable points. The use of modern rocketry and other invasive techniques threaten us by assisting lodgement.

We are by virtue of these geographical facts in difficulty against unarmed invasion. We cannot predict the necessary and harsh means by which such an invasion would have to be repelled. Our humanity may recoil at the methods, but our sense of the higher good would impel us.

The Continent is large and inhospitable. The potential for warfare on this vast space is untested. Reasonably, we would expect clear advantages over an enemy who must come from far away. However, such an enemy may not plan full subjugation, but have the intention of seizing and keeping only a parcel of our land-space.

For us, the idea of space, no less than for the Russian of 1941-2, offers us a powerful lever to defeat an enemy.  Being able to trade space for time, to ravage our space and operate from it, would be one additional military expression of our geopolitics.

Our politics must necessarily look towards the peaceful resolution of population problems, of building a cordon of friendly states between ourselves and potential aggressor states (where necessary favouring the break-up of Indonesia and other post-colonial states), of having useful alliances amongst the Pacific and Melanesian peoples.

6. The Vision Splendid. Australian Continentalism And The Idea Of Eurasia: The Complementary Ideas Of Economic Freedom And Sovereignty In Trade And Development Between Blocs.



If there was a Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, a great political revolution that unites Europe and its 'Asian' territories in Russia, a grand Europe from Galway to Vladivostok, we would see a bloc of such economic and political power that the American superpower would be excluded from much of the world-island. Such a bloc could confront Chinese imperialism. It could successfully defend itself and project its power. It could preserve the patrimony of Indo-European culture.

All this is a matter of no minor significance. European politics lurches slowly towards this mighty possibility. From within the depths of the old regime, integrative measures occur through historical forces that foreshadow the future. We have seen this in the binding of the European economies, the creation of European defence forces, the making of European pacts to develop Russian resources and with European opposition to some of the politics of America/Zionism in the Middle East. However, we must understand this in still superficial; Europe is still liberal, capitalist Europe, while Russia is still in transition and is necessarily guarded in its dealings with bourgeois Europe. Overall, pan-European policies are cast in the politics of the local West European bourgeois elite operating occasionally against its Atlanticist allies. But history runs deep and compels players to act against their wills.

When will and vision unite, we would have a different combination. That 'revolution' is being prepared in the patient labours of the Euro-nationalist forces in both Western and Eastern Europe. When it will come, we cannot say.

It is reasonably the case that the idea of Eurasia signifies a recognition that planet is multi-polar. The Eurasian system would be one of a number of systems: a Moslem bloc, an Indian sub-continent bloc, an Asian zone under Chinese hegemony, a North American system and so on. States and peoples would gravitate towards where their ethnic or spiritual allegiances compel them. Such a world would belie the New World Order imperialism of globalist capitalism. It is noted that in 1997 Russia and China signed treaties that recognised the idea of the "multi-polar" world.

Australia's ability to impose order in the South Pacific indicates a fraternal future for its peoples. Australia's role in rescuing weaker peoples from the crises of population and environment would establish a strong base for Australian trade and naval-mercantile activity, although this would not be done via any transmigration. An Australian Pacific regionalist policy would assist Australia in closing the South Pacific to imperialism. Australia can build on the former achievements of British and French activity in the South Pacific unilaterally and within the pattern of a Eurasian relationship.

An independent Australian Continent-nation allied with New Zealand and active in the South Pacific presents a mighty opportunity for appropriate trade with Eurasia and for a strategic friendship of value to both. Australian power exercised anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere, would complement the great Northern Hemispheric power of Eurasia. It could only give a firmer basis to the dealings of European peoples with the peoples of Asia. It would also add weight to the forces that must guarantee the continuity of the Indo-European patrimony.


7. Multipolar Cultural Sovereignties: The Moral Underpinning Of Australian Continentalism


The geopolitical theory all but presupposes that within particular zones, particular peoples and cultures hold sway.

The real idea of 'diversity', so often touted as a multiculturalist slogan in Australian politics, has no other meaning for us than as the proper way to describe the planet - and not one's suburb. In that regard, diversity is the rule and the goal.

The existence of different human cultural zones is a positive thing and one sure to blossom up from under the concrete pavements of modern globalist capitalism. As peoples reject the loss of identity implicit in globalisation, they re-form around eternal ideas like ethnicity, territory and culture. In that regard, a true world revolution is coming.

When the former Bulletin magazine proclaimed "Australia For The White Man" on its masthead, it announced that a particular ethnos would occupy a Continent. It is a stand to which we adhere. It is a position that does not threaten others. However, it is the case our right must be defended.

The de-globalisation of nation-states presents the chance for peoples to co-exist in peace. Whilst we recognise several intersecting crises in the foreseeable future - and while we can see a period of war soon to break - we reason these things foreshadow a better era. The transition from one epoch to the next is not a dinner party. Yet the result guarantees genuine diversity and human advancement.

The multipolar vision is the only option for peoples to counterpose to globalisation. It possesses a moral power which can be employed in the Australian struggle against the internal liberal-globalist enemy. It suggests that in an era of great-space thinking, the Australian Continent has been acquired by a group which intends to maintain its culture and physical presence there, a continuity that reaches back into earlier ages.

8. Australian Independence And Southern Hemispheric Geopolitical Facts


It is also obvious that Australia 'sits' in the Southern Hemisphere. The main problems of over-population sit on the world-island, but the main dangers of thermo-nuclear warfare are in the Northern Hemisphere. It is equally true that the Southern Hemisphere provides vast areas of real estate of great allurement to the burgeoning masses of the Third World's poor (including masses of Southern Hemisphere poor). These masses need not be animated by war, but could become restive through factors related to the crisis of food and population or climate change and environmental destruction.

In asserting a hemispheric dimension to our geopolitics, we necessarily escape from a concern only with the seas and lands adjacent to us and take on a still wider position.

We recognise the importance of New Zealand (as above) and the European-ethnic-based nations of the Hemisphere to our cultural and economic future. We assert the rights of all in the Hemisphere to independence from imperialism, particularly in the case of all South Americans, from American imperialism. But we desire too the survival of those peoples related to us. We balance the two commitments. By uniting with all nonetheless, we undermine the position of American imperialism. We contribute to isolating the American regime. This could only work to bolster our South Pacific position.

The Antarctic Continent should be secured as a biospheric sanctuary and be protected by the Australian and South American states. Development (sic) must be excluded. This happy eventuality can only be achieved by united action. Such action would show Australia to be a responsible state. The potential of Antarctica for scientific and similar purposes cannot be underestimated. Such an eventuality would provide further significance to the relationship with a future Eurasia.

It follows too that parts of the Southern Hemisphere do not yet suffer the full effects of environmental degradation. We would intend to keep it that way. Such 'bio-politics' must look towards the management of the environment to stave off human conflict in the zones around us, yet of course - any success attracts invaders from elsewhere. It would also encourage the spirit of defence!

Conclusion:
The Call To Struggle For Australian Independence



We European-Australians are the stewards of a biosphere. We are the upholders of the Indo-European ethos. Yet, we are a new nationality with its greater story still to be written.

We stand astride a Continent wracked by the scars of exploitation, yet still a cornucopia of wealth. It is our Commonwealth upon which we can build the social-republic out of the dreams of our labour movement of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries.

In this time of strife, we take up the words of national poet Henry Lawson and "look to our own" in the time when, "the South must look to the South for strength in the storm that is yet to break." (10) We are prepared to "write in the book of fate", "our stormy histories". We are "the Outpost of the White", but also as a new nationality we will play a liberating role in our geopolitical zone for weaker peoples. In an ANZAC bond, we also ensure the future of the European in the South Pacific and in the Hemisphere.

Australian independence from the New World Order system is the beginning of a truly great project in nation building, a small aspect of the development of a multi-polar world. We shall complete the Promise of the Nineteenth Century. Implicit in the idea is the call to arms for we may need to fight a national revolutionary war in our defence and address other just-as-real threats. We are a Continent for a Nation and a Nation for a Continent. We have advantages in this quest for identity and independence.

In thinking geopolitically, we unite Time and Space. We appreciate our potential to become a significant force in our region, indeed in the Southern Hemisphere generally. We intend to survive our time. We have a new tradition of spatial thinking to embrace. The harsh Continent may yet breed, in Percy Stephensen's terms, those "crude men" who will save "White Australia".


____________________________________________________

 

1. Tom Gjelten, “Pentagon, CIA Eye New Threat: Climate Change”, at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121352495 (April 5, 2011).

2.  Mungo Man :  Turning Evolution Upside Down”, at http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm  (April 1 2011). The reader should note that Australia’s bio-antiquity is a subject fought over in Gramscian culture wars.

3. Rex Gilroy, “Carving out a New History Ancient engravings found near Botany Bay suggest that Spanish explorers  reached the famous inlet two centuries before Capt. Cook.” http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/carving_a_new_history.html  Internet: April 1 2011

4. Williams, Mark R. In Search Of Lemuria; The Lost Pacific Continent In Legend, Myth And Imagination.  Golden Era Books: 2001.

5.  I discuss some of these themes in Jim Saleam: “The Other Radicalism: An Inquiry Into Contemporary Australian Extreme Right Ideology, Politics And Organization 1975-1995”,  PhD Thesis, University of Sydney, 1999 – especially in Chapter 2.

6. Lindeman, Nicholas. Japan Threat: Australia And New Zealand In The Coming World Crisis. Armidale: 1978.

7. “Sir Phillip Baxter”, Advance, No.3, December 1977, p2.

8. Jim Saleam, passim.

9.  A secret document prepared by Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Evatt on the matter of the trusteeship of dependent territories, 4 April 1945.

John Curtin Prime Ministerial Library. Colonial policy 1945. JCPML00869. Courtesy National Archives of Australia:

A1066, P45/153/2 part 2

10. Henry Lawson, Australian national poet and political thinker 1967-1922.

 

 

 



Homepage