Expressions of dissatisfaction with American culture are not rare or new. Yet, since World War II, Australia has been one of the great consumers of American culture, and, through strategic alliances such as the ANZUS pact, one of the great followers of American foreign policy.
Owen Harries’ Benign or Imperial tackles the issue of Australian national identity through an examination of the emergence of the United States as the world’s sole superpower, and Australia’s relationship with it. The text itself is a transcript of the 2003 Boyer Lectures. Harries brings to the debate a formidable pedigree, including stints as director of policy planning in the Department of Foreign Affairs, senior adviser to Prime Minister Fraser, and Australia’s ambassador to UNESCO, as well as numerous publications on the issues of foreign policy and international affairs.
Harries’ analysis essentially operates on the macro level: namely the international relations of the United States and Australia. Though Harries questions the importance of the ‘soft power’ of cultural imperialism, his analysis contributes to the question of Australian national identity by examining Australia’s relationship with its main point of identification and differentiation: the United States. Harries provides an interesting and enlightening historical context, arguing that we are at a unique juncture in world history, in which the US has became the first ever ‘global hegemon’. In Harries view, this is a position that the US attained by default, with the rapid collapse of the USSR leaving it in a position of unprecedented global power. Harries claims that the sheer speed of events meant that the usual historical process of determined opposition did not take place. Nor was the US itself ready, and despite strong economic growth and continued expansion of its military, it failed to capitalise on, or indeed recognise, its new position.
Harries argues that the US did not define or enact a clear vision, and that it wasn’t until September 11 2001 that the US gained a ‘clear purpose, (or) central organising principle’, namely, the ‘war on terrorism’. Forced to act in the interests of national defence, the Bush Presidency initially focused on the protection of the nation and the destruction of terrorist organisations. However, this initial response quickly morphed into something far more expansive. A year after the attacks, ‘The National Security Strategy of the United States of America’ was published, which Harries claims is ‘the most important statement about American foreign policy since the