Since the end of the Cold War, a new confusion has crept into world politics. Imperialism, once clearly recognised as such, has sheltered behind the United Nations. Campaigning journalist JOHN PILGER explains his views on imperialism, Australia and the republican debate to Green Left Weekly's Frank Noakes in London.
"I think those who are confused were confused to begin with, because foreign policy that creates imperial conditions runs in a straight line. There is very little change in US foreign policy; it's not changed at all, in principle, since the end of the second world war. There's a pattern and it's often predictable; it shouldn't confuse or surprise anybody. The first thing is for people to understand that imperial states and imperial institutions act in the way they were intended to.
"When some people want to grant the United States the Florence Nightingale award for turning up in Somalia, then they're being less than naive", Pilger declares. "They're being stupid.
"The UN Cambodian peace plan is imperial intervention. It is the child of the United States and China and is legitimised by the permanent five of the Security Council. Most things that the United Nations does these days is, at the very least, with Washington's approval. If you look at the pattern of United Nations interventions, you see how selective it is.
"There is no intervention, for instance, in Haiti, where a democratically elected and very popular leader was overthrown by a military coup. Not only is there no intervention by the United Nations, there is intervention by the United States in stopping refugees on the high seas and turning them back. There is no intervention in Indonesia and there's no intervention against Israel; both regimes have contravened UN resolutions and ethnically cleansed a minority within their borders.
"So we have to look very carefully at why the UN then chooses to intervene in certain countries. In Cambodia, of course, it is driven by US and Chinese policy. These two governments have been the driving force behind the international Cambodian policy since the late '70s."
John Pilger's latest television film documentary, Return to Year Zero, exposes the UN's complicity in strengthening the position of the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
According to Pilger, in Cambodia the Australian government is simply following its "traditional sub-imperial role". The peace plan was "dressed up to make it appear that the UN operation in Cambodia is as a result of some bold Australian initiative. This is not the case.
"There were suggestions put forward by the Australian government in 1989, which really came on the back of American-Chinese intentions for a 'comprehensive peace settlement'. Australia offered a few suggestions; the most creative was that the Cambodian seat at the United Nations be no longer occupied by the Khmer Rouge and be declared vacant, which was rejected by the United States. Really the Australian peace plan in Cambodia is an American-
Chinese peace plan."
This Cambodian role, says Pilger, "follows the rather melancholy historical pattern in Australia, whereby we declare politicians to be statesmen by the way they're regarded by, and to the degree to which they serve, foreign interests. Australians ought not to be misled into thinking that their government has discovered an independent foreign policy. It hasn't. It follows very closely what the Americans do and usually doesn't do what the Americans don't want it to do. That's always been the case, and it's the case now.
"Australia could make a very significant contribution to peace, fair trade and stability in its own region — if it did have a fair trade policy, if it didn't allow a superpower to define its foreign policy. New Zealand showed that by rejecting the entry of nuclear warships into its waters.
"That had a very positive ripple effect throughout the world. If Australia had backed New Zealand, instead of opposing them as the Hawke government did on behalf of the United States — a very destructive role — Australia and New Zealand together, pursuing this enlightened, positive policy, could have led to all sorts of things. It could have brought pressure on the United States to stop using the Pacific, and the French to stop using the Pacific for nuclear testing, and might have led to other regional arrangements that suited the people of the region and not the superpower."
And what of the moves towards creating a republic in Australia?
"On one level it's a joke. You say to people here [London] that Australia is considering becoming a republic and they say: 'Why isn't it one already?'."
Pilger laughs. "They're bemused when you tell them about the various 19th century rituals that go on: that until recently immigrants from the non-English speaking world had to swear allegiance to her majesty the queen. They find this bizarre.
"That should have changed a long time ago. I think it's such a basic requirement for the country to be a republic and to shake off these absurd trappings because, if nothing else, the country's self-image is important to the non-English speaking immigrant who will one day become the majority, or their descendants will become the majority.
"I've always found the most hopeful vision of Australia is to be discovered at a naturalisation ceremony, on any Friday night, at any town hall throughout Australia. There's this rich variety of nationalities, lining up all wanting to be Australians.
"In my lifetime, Australia has changed from a second-hand England and Ireland to the second most multicultural country in the world, and that's all been achieved without any blood on the streets. There have been difficulties, there's been discrimination, but generally speaking, it's happened peacefully,
almost by default. That's a very considerable achievement."
But Australian politics "are still dominated by the old Anglo-centric and Irish elite. One day that will change, and one can only hope that this extraordinary mosaic of people, who are now a very large minority, will produce politicians who bear no likeness to the dullards that run the country today.
"Republicanism is just tidying up — an important tidying up, but it won't change the foreign policy of the country and it won't change the economic policies of the government. But it will influence the self- image of the country, and that's terribly important for people who come to Australia because they see it as an independent country."
Are there signs of hope for a better future? Australia is one, says Pilger.
"Australia provides a peaceful environment for people. I always look at Australia as providing a small beacon of hope. That often goes unrecognised."
Eritrea is another: "Eritrea has just got its independence. It was besieged by all sides in the Cold War and by several Ethiopian regimes; I never thought I'd see the day when it would emerge as an independent country. I have great admiration for the people who built a society in extraordinary conditions of impoverishment and war."
More generally, Pilger insists: "People are never still; there's always momentum, always change. People are becoming more aware, I think. Consciousness has been raised among many people across the world. The great cycle of human change doesn't stop. We're not living in a particularly positive time at the moment, but that will change."