There are two choices that help define the role of a state that aspires to have a meaningful sovereign role in the world. Governments must choose whether they subscribe to the ideal of a rules-based international order, or whether they merely pay lip service to this order, believing that the world is actually governed by competing powers? Following on from this, the question of how governments conduct their foreign policy — whether it is hegemonic, equal status, or in a tributary style — arises.
Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, are all 'smaller' states than Australia . Yet they exercise more international sovereignty than does Australia (I define sovereignty as the exclusive right of governments to exercise authority within their territory. The UN, as a rules-based international order, rests on the convention that all sovereign states, large or small, possess equal sovereignty) because they proceed from the ideal of a rules-based international order and because they conduct their foreign relations with all countries — large, medium or small — as formal equals within that order. They participate in the UN and its agencies, and have earned widespread respect for their independence and good international citizenship.
The other extreme was the communist regimes set up in Eastern Europe after World War 2. These were essentially tributary states. Though retaining some of the traditional attributes of sovereignty — parliaments, flags, anthems and armies, they were satellite states of the Soviet Union. While paying lip service to the UN ideals, they voted in the UN as directed by Moscow. These states had no faith in a rules-based international order — after all, the League of Nations had failed to protect them from Nazi aggression in 1939. These regimes, led by not wholly unpatriotic people, identified their personal and national destinies with Soviet power.
There is a fault-line between those who believe the last twelve years have been 'business as usual' in Australian foreign policy, and those who believe these have been years of growing foreign policy dysfunction and failure to defend Australian national interests.
Through the conceptions of international participation outlined above, the Australian government since 1996 can arguably be said to have ceased to believe in a rules-based international order and become increasingly cynical about the UN. It has instead moved towards coalitions with powerful world players with whom we are claimed to "share core values" — in particular, this has meant the United States.
The Federal Government has also moved from a foreign policy based on sovereign state