Subimperial Power: Australia in the International Arena

by Clinton Fernandes

A book to reshape Australians' understanding of their nation and themselves.

How does Australia operate in the world? And why? In this closely evidenced, original account, former Australian Army intelligence analyst Clinton Fernandes categorically debunks Australia’s greatest that of its own independence.

'This book is a bold and challenging interpretation of not only Australian Foreign Policy, but of the psyche of the nation itself. Fernandes gives us a fast-paced, thought-provoking interpretation which many readers may not like. This is what happens when someone shakes the foundations. But that’s the point. Fernandes's analysis will have forced you to ask and answer some profound questions about this nation’s place in the world, and the course its leaders chose to chart. Do not let the author’s brevity deceive you for this work is also an iceberg-you are reading the tip of a mountain of scholarship, knowledge and analysis that lies out of view. I wholeheartedly recommend this work to any and all with even a passing interest in foreign policy, the dynamics of power and the nature of contemporary Australia. Once you start you will not put it down, and along the way you might just have uncovered a new lens through which to see the world about you.' Professor Craig Stockings, Official Historian of Australian Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Australian Peacekeeping Operations in East Timor

Genres: Politics, Australia, History, Nonfiction, International Relations, Economics, Military Fiction

176 pages, Kindle Edition

Published October 5, 2022

Reviews

[Callum's Column · Rating 4 out of 5]

Australia is an imperial power. This has most recently been evinced with the signing of the Pukpuk Treaty with Papua New Guinea (PNG) that combines our two militaries. PNG only gained independence from Australia fifty years ago. They are once again Australia’s vassal (a more detailed analysis is forthcoming). However, Australia is not the regional hegemon—that is the United States of America. We host and support their military, much of our economy is underpinned by their capital, and we do their bidding on the world stage.

What explains our concomitant imperialism and seeming subservience to America? According to Clinton Fernandes, it is because Australia is a sub-imperial power. His thesis is aptly summarised with an analogy from chess:

Australia is not a pawn in world affairs. The pawns are vassal states like local clients in Papua New Guinea and elsewhere. Australia joins more powerful pieces on the chessboard in opposing adversaries, maintaining dependence among the pawns, and preventing the unity and cooperation among the Global South.

This argument is laid out over five main chapters. The first describes America as a global empire, and the second outlines Australia’s place within it. Fernandes then analyses AUKUS within this lens. The fourth chapter examines China being framed as an ideological, economic and military rival in a new era of strategic competition. The final substantive chapter asserts that Australia’s is not only a sub-imperial power but also has one of the most secretive foreign policies in the democratic world, which has muffled robust public debate on our role in the international system.

World-systems theory underpins Fernandes’ postulations. The world economy is argued to be composed of core powers, semi-periphery powers, periphery nations. Core powers dominate the system; periphery nations provide resources and labour to core powers; and semi-periphery powers are situated between the two. Fernandes argues that Australia pursues regional dominance in support of America—the imperial core. We are not fully independent, but much more powerful than our regional neighbours.

How does this work in praxis? Australia actively supports the US-led imperial order. Australia’s capitalist system is arranged to prioritise US capital, and public opinion is manufactured to underscore the sub-imperial status quo. Traditionally—until recently—we have not been considered strategically important geographically. Nonetheless, our oleaginousness toward the US imperial project has been demonstrated through “frequent military deployments, clandestine intelligence operations to support the US, hosting intelligence facilities, foreign policy mimicry, and so on.”

The rules-based international order is a euphemism. It is the third iteration of international order post-Thirty Years’ War. The first established sovereign states to splinter the power of the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire. The second secured monarchy at the expense of liberal revolutionism after Napoleon’s defeat. And the third—the first led by a liberal democracy, i.e., the US—established NATO to contain the USSR, and other international institutions to enable US capital flows and military operations to entrench US global supremacy.

Fernandes’ prose is sharp and to the point. The book is consequently quite short, at only ~130 pages. Perhaps it would be more appropriately classified as a long essay. Nonetheless, Fernandes’ prose is written to be accessible to the general public. Too often, international relations scholarship falls victim to esotericism. Fernandes underscores this position, stating that “no special qualifications are required to understand these topics…. Hard work is needed, certainly, but there is nothing in politics beyond the intellectual capacities of the average person.”

I have had similar thoughts about Australia’s role in America’s empire and have written about this previously. Fernandes provides a cogent theoretical explanation for how Australia operates within the international system. Even Whitlam—whom I recently mused may have been above the fray (I was corrected by a scrutable reader at the time)—turned a blind eye to Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor because America did not want to intervene. Fernandes compellingly explains such actions, and numerous others, within this model.

Fernandes’ argument is contested by scholars. Hugh White, in his recent Quarterly Essay, Hard New World: Our Post-American Future, asserts that Australia has both the agency and the imperative to prepare for a new world order. It may not be in the national interest to maintain our sub-imperial status quo; becoming a more independent actor may better serve Australia’s long-term security. Moreover, due to its brevity and the broad conclusions drawn, others have critiqued Fernandes’ book as being too superficial given the weight of its claims.

What both Fernandes and White have in common is a critique of Australia’s suppliant foreign policy to America in an international system that is in a state of flux. As American power declines—turbocharged by a vacuously incoherent Trump administration—Australia is at a critical juncture in its history. Do we continue down the sub-imperial path that Fernandes describes, or do we assert our agency as White proclaims. At present, I believe we are continuing down the path of the former. Only time will tell if this is the right choice.

Subscribe for free to receive new book reviews and political analyses directly: https://callumscolumn.substack.com/

[John Davie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Australia benefits from being a subimperial power along the lines of Israel. The population, in return for contributing to US Imperial hegemony (rules based order) gets a part of the loot, particularly in terms of brain drain and exploitation of immigrants.

Australia really is a country with no history. It has only ever been an imperial lieutenant. First to Britain, now to the United States, broadly speaking the misery it has dealt abroad in Imperial ventures, and against its own Indigenous population, are proportional to the living standards of its white population.

But with the obvious deep and irreversible decline of this imperial hegemonic US system Australia faces a big dilemma. What place does it have it a genuinely democratic and multipolar world system? It does not really have a developed economy at all, relying primarily on raw material exports to China which it is doing its best to antagonise.

Australia must totally reinvent itself for this new global system. Paul Keating stated the obvious when he said that Australia must find security in Asia not from Asia. Unfortunately it has taken the complete opposite path. The crazy AUKUS plan is proof of an absolute refusal to see reality and a crazed commitment to an Imperial system which falling apart.

[S · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book centres on a fascinating argument; it's such a shame the argument is poorly executed.

Let's start with the positives. This book is short, targeted and clear in explaining what it's trying to do. It makes a specific argument about how Australia should be understood in the world. At just over a broadly spaced 100 pages, it's digestible and the pages turn quickly. And the chapters devoted to it's core argument - Chp 1, 2 and the first half of 3 - make that argument in an inviting and clear way.

It's just a shame how the argument is executed! The author makes the argument by analogy, by quote, and through historical example. The range of sources are diverse and the examples interesting. But often the examples are poorly explained, given cursory treatment, or made without link or reference to the point being made. The footnotes are useful, but I often found myself wondering if they really supported the footnoted claim. On a few occasions, I found myself flipping to the footnote, only to discover it didn't support the whole sentence, or supported only half of it, or really didn't have anything to do with the point being made. My final gripe is the final few chapters. They're a collection of cynicism and arguments that aren't well integrated into the main argument. I didn't get them. I didn't get why they were included.

These gripes aside, my major frustration with the book is the lack of a 'so what'. The point of the book is to persuasively argue Australia is a subimperial power. I get that. And it's not the point of the book to draw normative conclusions or implications. I also get that. But it was frustrating nonetheless.

Should we be concerned that Australia is a subimperial power? The subtext of the book is yes. But if that's the author's point, why not include that argument explicitly in the text!! In places, the book comes tantalisingly close to drawing this conclusion and making recommendations - I could taste it when, at one point, there was an offhand reference to Australia and armed neutrality as one way to escape this. So why not develop that further!!

All in all, it was a worthwhile read. As someone predisposed to understanding the US as an empire, I found it persuasive. But, is this the argument that will convince the non-believer? Probably not.

[Kosta · Rating 5 out of 5]

Easy to read and comprehensive analysis of Australia's role in the world. The title says it all really. Striking how much an academic who has worked with the Australian government sounds like an anti establishment radical just by being honest about the situation.

[Philip · Rating 3 out of 5]

This controversial book argues that Australia is an active and enthusiastic supporter in the US-led rules-based order. The author defines the rules-based order as a 'hierarchically structured imperial system, where [the US] can control the political sovereignty of many countries without annexing them.' In other words, Australia has willingly relinquished sovereignty in support of a US-centric international system.

The author makes several points to support the argument. One that caught my eye relates to the structural dependency of Australia's economy on US power. Australia has the lowest economic complexity in all the OECD countries due to its focus on exporting raw products (e.g., iron, coal, gold, gas, wheat). All the value-adding to Australia's exports is done by foreign owned companies in other countries. Given that the majority of the largest ASX companies are primarily owned by US investors, Australia's economic interests (and therefore foreign policy) are subject to 'the auspices of the US to create an integrated global economy that offers a benign environment for international investors as well as the specific needs of key Australian corporations.'

The second point I found interesting is that 'Australian military strategists have not focused on developing an independent military strategy.' Rather, Australian defence policy is aimed at ensuring US military engagement in the Indo-Pacific region. Accordingly, Australia has willingly become part of an 'unbroken chain of US-armed sentinel states' designed to contain and confront an increasingly powerful China. In effect, Australia has outsourced its defence to the US, which in turn means that Australian foreign and defence policy is subject to decision-making in Washington (this poses the question: is it possible for Australia to not militarily support the US in a war over Taiwan?).

The third and probably the most controversial point that caught my eye is that Australia's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan was not really about fighting terrorism (particularly given that, as noted by the British Government, the 'war on terror' actually increased the threat of terrorist attacks). Rather, Australia went to war primarily to show relevance to the US. If this is the case, Australia's war aims were met despite the fact that Iraq was overrun by ISIS within months of withdrawal and Afghanistan is again ruled by the Taliban.

I gave this book three stars because, while I like provocative arguments, the topic really needs more than a cursory discussion in such a short book. It felt half-baked. For example, the author could have outlined alternatives for Australia's foreign and defence policies. The underlying message is that Australia being a 'subimperial power' is a bad thing. But given this has ensured Australian wealth and security (as the author points out), then perhaps we can argue that being a 'subimperial power' has historically been good for Australia even if it may not continue to be in a future contested by China.

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very honest look at Australia's foreign policies. Australia often describes itself as a middle power which stands up for the "rules-based international order" which the author argues is a euphemism for a Sub-imperial Power which supports the rules of the American Empire. We constantly offer up support to the American empire, chiefly by sending soldiers to their wars but also by doing some of their spying for them and generally bending over backwards for them - sometimes before they even ask. We are pathetic.

[Joachim Zerelli · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really bleak and logical analysis of Australia’s foreign policy and defence policy. The prose was easy to follow whilst maintaining the detail expected from an academic.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant. Pair with Humphrey McQueen’s A New Britannia to extend the argument. An interesting theoretical grounding, mostly Chomsky I’d think (based on his previous work with him), but also of relevance in combatting the New Left claims of dependency without referencing them directly.

[Erin Cook · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interestingly, this book does a good job of laying out why certain people don't like it. That gets an extra star from me!

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

I cannot recommend this book enough. If you live in Australia or any colonised country you MUST read this book.
It focuses mainly on Australia but has amazing insights into the current geo-political workings of the world.

I thought it was generally known that Australia is the lap dog to the US, but I didn’t know the severity.

The fact that the military alliance between Australia and the US is for recognition of Australia’s contribution is just so sad. The section about Pine Gap was terrible, the fact that Australian parliamentarians can’t visit our own backward or know what a massive fucking American spy-base is doing in the centre of our country is so scary.

Fernandes’s point that the occupation of Timor-Leste is the equivalent of the American sponsored overthrowing of the democratically elected communist government of Chile in 1971 is so telling and I wish it was explored more. Also the conflict between East and West Papua is so unknown to the general public that I got excited when it was mentioned.

The discussion of how the Australian media controls what we think about was amazingly well explained. The examples given about the dog in Afghanistan and the privilege of conformity perfectly illustrated the flaws of political knowledge in Australia and how uninformed we really are.

Looking back on the book after finishing it showed me that the book wasn’t meant to be split into chapters of separates chunks of information. The underlying flow of information intersects all chapters of the book, allowing the reader to come to the final conclusion that Australia is a sub-imperial power.

[Michael Halpin · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 ⭐️

Little bonus review while I'm making my way through that big ol' Madox Ford book. This read more like a quarterly essay than a standalone book and nor did it have enough substance to be one. Basic gist of it is that Australia's foreign policy is at the behest of the USA, who is the imperial power. It's not a groundbreaking concept, its discussion ignores the realities of the modern Western world - ie the entire thing is US-centric for every nation - and it doesn't provide any reasonable alternative to the status quo. I feel like Albo and Penny Wong would not substantially change their approach if they were to read this.

[Paul Harrison · Rating 4 out of 5]

A nuclear sub imperial power?

This is a somewhat new left/dependency theory/Chomsky propaganda model account of Australian foreign policy. It breaks some new ground by proposing the term "subimperialism", which is used to criticise "middle power" concepts. But its chief virtue is to point out that the world is organised by an empire run out of Washington, and that our policy is to make us an "indispensable friend". The "Israel"of the Indo-Pacific.

[Jacob Ritz · Rating 5 out of 5]

When compared to Australian popular opinion, this short book is simply mind-blowing. Otherwise, it is a sober and detailed exposition of the 'sub-imperial' character of Australian foreign policy. It must be read by any Australian who wishes to understand Australia's (and their own) place in contemporary global society.

[Anet · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reviewing a non-fiction book is sometimes challenging, because not only are you reviewing the book on the quality and engagement of the writing, but the strength and execution of the argument. In the case of Sub-Imperial Power, the former is excellent, but the latter suffers. The writing is clear and engaging, and is evidently accessible to a broader audience not just a niche epistemic community of foreign policy wonks. However, the conclusion of the book was not wholly supported by the arguments made throughout the book.

At the outset I want to say I appreciate what Fernandes is attempting — I tend to agree with Fernandes' assertion that Australian foreign policy scholars and practitioners rarely question the fundamental assumptions underpinning Australia's policy choices, resulting at best, in a lack of creativity and ambition, and at worst, choices that actively endanger Australia's national interest. The book starts to ask these questions, and consequentially forces the reader to engage with broader questions such as why does Australia uncritically support some governments in the Middle East, and what would Australia do in the event of a war with China over Taiwan.

However, as other reviewers pointed out, the ambitious conclusion the book seeks to reach cannot be made in so few pages. Even in such limited space, the book often detours into seemingly loosely related topics. For example, I found myself reading pages and pages delving into great detail about the international patent system, but only a few paragraphs dedicated to Australia's AUKUS agreement.

For some reason the book also seeks to refute other IR theories, such as Middle Power Theory. I have to admit that I am partial here a little as my own work focuses on middle power theory, but there simply is not the space to critically engage with these theories in such a short book, and as such, attempting to discredit these theories cannot be done in good faith.

If this book were longer, maybe 300-400 pages, with a targeted conclusion and focused arguments, it could have been one of the most thought provoking Aus FP books in recent years.

[Kate Schroeder · Rating 5 out of 5]

please read this, it’s important

I have never been privy to such information from newspapers or the government. It’s an interesting world that we live in, better to see the way it really works than hear the garbage the government feeds us. Excellent book

[Natalya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Must read

[Adam Lines · Rating 5 out of 5]

A short primer on Australia's place in the world and the purpose of our foreign policy. It highlights largely unacknowledged yet clear aims of our policies.

[Louis Devine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Most commentary on Australian foreign policy is woolly, dewy-eyed bullshit. It speaks in euphemisms, using phrases like the so-called ‘rules-based international order’, ‘shared values’, and a ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’. Clinton Fernandez’s brilliant book, Sub-Imperial Power, exposes the crock of nonsense that mainstream commentators peddle. ‘Rules-based international order’ is a euphemism for an US-led imperial order. Australia is not a ‘middle power’, it is a sub-imperial power; its chief foreign policy objective is to uphold an order which privileges Western economic interests. If you think “Western economic interests” means the economic interests of the Australian people, you’re wrong. Corporations, not citizens, are the chief beneficiaries of US and Australian foreign policy.

Perhaps the most important thing about Fernandez’s book is how his deeply evidenced and common-sensical analysis strikes us as radical and controversial. He doesn’t draw on obscure or esoteric sources. Fernandez cites current and former military officials, intelligence analysts, and reports from US intelligence agencies. Sub-Imperial Power presents the geopolitical and strategic facts before they get filtered through the lens of mainstream, acceptable opinion. The fact that many people will regard this as radical only proves just how obfuscated Australia’s actual strategic policy is.

If you read most international relations commentary, you’d be forgiven for thinking that geopolitical conflict takes place on an exclusively immaterial plane. Pundits and commentators produce articles which are creative reorganisations of the same words and ideas. They are basically fighting amongst themselves to see who can produce the best rhetorical restatement of well-worn ideas. Sub-Imperial Power will be resisted because it actually seeks to educate the average Australian about what their government does abroad in their name. As Fernandez points out, political concepts are not beyond the comprehension of ordinary people. Experts, to quote Henry Kissinger, are people skilled in “elaborating and defining” the consensus of the powerful. It is remarkable how those on the left and right share a clear-eyed view about the realities of political power, while the confused centre babbles on about “shared values” or some other confected ideological construct.

Sub-Imperial Power is replete with examples that demonstrate the real purpose of Australian foreign policy. Most readers will already be familiar with how the Australian Government spied on Timor-Leste in order to screw them out of their own natural resources. Less common is the knowledge that in 2009, the Australian (Labor) Government rejected a proposal to produce generic pharmaceuticals in Australia. A domestic industry of this kind would have given Australia a share in a $150 billion global market and diversified our economy to boot. Instead, the Australian Government preferred to adopt US intellectual property rights in order to ensure the negotiation of the Australia-US free trade agreement. Australia’s foreign policy debate is an intellectually barren place. People who reject the assumption that we should unquestioningly follow the United States as it enters a period of self-inflicted political decline are mocked and their arguments ignored. If boxing has taught me anything, it’s that pulling your punches and fighting defensively guarantees that you will lose. So here I am, joining Fernandez in not pulling any punches.

[Mr Man · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book presents a convincing argument that Australia's primary international policy is to assist in upholding the US-led international order, and that Australia does this by acting within the Asia-Pacific region as its own (sub-)imperial power.

I just wish Fernandes had dedicated a chapter or two to postulating in detail about the exact inner-workings of this subimperial relationship. Compare, for example, with Manufacturing Consent where Chomsky and Herman were able to identify wealth as the exact source of media disinformation, and were able to describe in detail the exact method by which the wealthy are able to influence the media. Subimperial Power is somewhat lacking in the sense that Fernandes seems to blame Australia's subimperial tendencies very generally on the Australian government, which makes it difficult for activists to pinpoint the source of all the trouble.

This book is no Manufacturing Consent, but it is still a must-read for all politically active Australians.

[Jorian · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent and revealing take on Australia's place in the global arena.

Fernandes basically lays out why Australia, despite popular belief, is not an independent middle power. Rather, Australia primarily functions as a subordinate to the big players. The main goal is to maintain the current "US led - rules based order" which aims to keep the global advantage in our masters' favour (US/UK and foreign investors)- and subsequently, in ours in the short term - even if it's at the expense of jeopardising our own sovereignty (not to mention the sovereignty of other nations), and long term economic wellbeing.

Australia has entrenched itself into this lap-dog strategy, operating with a tone of secrecy, disclosing very little to the public about its deep alignment with U.S. strategic and economic interests.

The chapter on free trade agreements and how the underlying mechanisms are tied to an imperialist vision (ISDS) was especially interesting.

Highly recommend.

[John · Rating 1 out of 5]

Occasional moments of insight punctuate what is otherwise a sea of undergraduate leftist assertions. Inconsistencies abound: the "rules based global order" is criticised as an illusory and dishonest vehicle for Western power in one breath, with US violations of "global rules and norms" criticised in the next. War to defend Taiwan from invasion would constitute imperialism, but so too Australian refusal to defend East Timor from invasion supposedly evidenced our imperial domination of the region. We are told that Israel is responsible for the global spread of Wahabism, and that China's history is free of colonialism, war and slavery - both extraodinary stretches.

Luckily this book is quite short, unencumbered as it is by nuance, though it could have been shorter still - a simple "death to America" would have captured the core thesis of the work in a much more concise format.

[Aidan Reidy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clinton Fernandes delivers a powerful analysis on Australia, and whilst the book focuses on its foreign policy, its shows how this position affects every aspect of Australian life. Being a sub imperial power from creation, first for the English, and now for the US, is how you get the least economically complex economy of any OECD nation, whilst supporting virtually every action made by America. If Australia supports the unjust capitalist order spearheaded by America, we will be rewarded. The only price is our independence. I rated this book 4 stars instead of 5 due to the fact that the author suggests peaceful reform to curtail this problem, which runs directly contrary to the facts presented in this book showing America’s willingness to brutally overthrow any attempts that threaten the capitalist global order. This book helps to reaffirm the need for revolution. I recommend this book.

[Ali Khan · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a first-generation migrant trying to make sense of Australian politics and foreign policy, I often feel like I’m navigating a maze. Australia’s foreign policy, in particular, can be puzzling and sometimes even baffling. So, when I picked up this book, I hoped for some clarity—and it didn’t disappoint.

The author digs deep, grounding arguments in evidence and facts, and puts forward a compelling take on what really drives Australia’s stance on the world stage. You might not agree with everything (I didn’t!), but that’s part of the appeal. We need more books like this to spark debate and keep our democracy vibrant.

If you’re curious about Australian politics or the country itself, this book should be in the list of must-reads.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. A short book (that can be read on a flight between Melbourne and Dili) that is packed with information and thought. Much of the info you may already know, but Clinton puts it altogether to make sense of Australia’s policies and behaviours. If you feel that Australia’s actions in regards to foreign policy, military affairs and the economy, sometimes make little sense, you may find this book enlightening, as it offers a lens through which these things make sense. Very thought provoking but be aware the thoughts won’t be the comforting BS you usually get fed.

[Elizabeth · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book reads like a young student’s view of the world or at least, someone blissfully unaware of anything the late John Pilger has ever written.

Most of all, It doesn’t seem to have anything new to say and is scant on analysis.

Whereas Australia’s poor treatment of Timor Leste is included, there is precious little about Australia’s relationships with South Pacific neighbours.

There is not much in this book that any Australian with even a passing interest in current affairs wouldn’t know, or suspect, already.

[Maha · Rating 5 out of 5]

Utterly depressing and, in some places, eye-opening. Most of it I knew already. But, as I’m a glutton for punishment, I felt as though I HAD to read this book.

I kept thinking about how sad it is that such candour and depth of analysis exemplified in this book is not apparent in our national journalism and media outlets. Australian government secrecy does not “protect” the Australian public, it insulates the government’s practices from robust, evidence-based debate… which does not provide national security in any meaningful sense.

[Kieran Bennett · Rating 5 out of 5]

What is Australia in the world? Independent state? Puppet of the US? Fernandes says neither, Australia is instead both beneficiary and supporter of the US led imperial system, it's ability to dominate a smaller neighbours in this small corner of the globe depends on the maintenance of the wider imperial system. W was telling the truth when he described Australia one of the US' Deputy Sheriffs, or what Fernandes terms a sub-imperial power.

[Jule · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good, high level outline of Australia’s role in the international arena. But that’s what it is. High level. It gives a broad, general overview of several issues and aspects of Australia’s policies and alignment with the US and therefore sacrifices depth, which is admittedly exactly what it said it would do. In any way it is a very enjoyable read with lots of food for thought about how Australia conducts its foreign policy.

[Stanley Xue · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting and revealing framework to view Australia's international relations and lays a lot of criticisms on this model. Doesn't really explore solutions or pathways out other than sharing this framework publicly. Maybe will look into this democratic equitable international order movement. Overall would recommend reading this.

[Daniel Castle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read in just a few hours. It is a concise, reality check of Australian strategy or lack of strategy outside of being a subordinate of the US. Some negative reviews of this book seem to be made on the incorrect assumption that Australia is independent and only acts in our own interests...