This thesis argues that the Australian military intervention in East Timor in 1999 was motivated primarily by the need to defend Australia’s own strategic interests. It was an act of Australian imperialism understood from a Marxist perspective, and was consistent with longstanding strategic policy in the region.¶ Australian policy makers have long been concerned about the security threat posed by a small and weak neighbouring state in the territory of East Timor. This led to the deployment of Australian troops to the territory in World War Two. In 1974 Australia supported Indonesia’s invasion of the territory in order to prevent it from becoming a strategic liability in the context of Cold War geopolitics. But, as an indirect result of the Asian financial crisis, by September 1999 the Indonesian government’s control over the territory had become untenable. Indonesia’s political upheaval also raised the spectre of the ‘Balkanisation’ of the Indonesian archipelago, and East Timor thus became the focal point for Australian fears about an ‘arc of instability’ that arose in this period.¶ Australia’s insertion of military forces into East Timor in 1999 served its own strategic priorities by ensuring an orderly transfer of sovereignty took place, avoiding a destabilising power vacuum as the country transitioned to independence. It also guaranteed that Australia’s economic and strategic interests in the new nation could not be ignored by the United Nations or the East Timorese themselves. There are therefore underlying consistencies in Australia’s policy on East Timor stretching back several decades. Despite changing contexts, and hence radically different policy responses, Australia acted throughout this time to prevent political and strategic instability in East Timor.¶ In addition, the intervention reinforced Australia’s standing as a major power in Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific. The 1999 deployment therefore helped facilitate a string of subsequent Australian interventions in Pacific island nations, both by providing a model for action and by building a public consensus in favour of the use of military intervention as a policy tool.¶ This interpretation of events challenges the consensus among existing academic accounts. Australia’s support of Indonesia’s invasion and occupation of East Timor from 1974 was frequently criticised as favouring realpolitik over ethical considerations. But the 1999 intervention, which ostensibly ended severe violence and secured national independence for the territory, drew widespread support, both from the public and academic commentators. It has generally been seen as a break with previous Australian policy, and as driven by political forces outside the normal foreign policy process. Moreover, it has been almost universally regarded as a triumph for moral conduct in international affairs, and even as a redemptive moment for the Australian national conscience. Viewing the intervention as part of the longstanding strategy of Australian imperialism casts doubt on such positive evaluations.

[Truncated abstract] This thesis focuses on human rights in Australia’s foreign policy from 1991 to 2004 taking East Timor and Papua as case studies. It encompasses the Paul Keating years (1991 to 1996) as well as John Howard’s three consecutive terms as Prime Minister (from 1996 to 2004). As a consequence of events unfolding in this period of time, the thesis does not consider Australian foreign policy towards East Timor beyond the 1999 referendum that resulted in the separation of East Timor from Indonesia and focuses on Papua until 2004. The primary empirical aim of this thesis is to compare and contrast the two administrations’ approaches and responses to human rights abuses in East Timor and Papua. Drawing upon a variety of theoretical concepts in human rights and foreign policy, this thesis shows that incorporating a concern for human rights in the foreign policy making process is problematic because the promotion of human rights often comes into conflict with other foreign policy objectives . . . The two case studies on human rights abuses in East Timor and Papua reflect the tensions between concepts of realism and idealism in Australian foreign policy. However, the situation of East Timor shows that public pressure is required to balance the disparity of national interest and human rights. The role of public pressure has been largely absent in debates on human rights and foreign policy. While this study focuses on East Timor and Papua as case studies, the discussion of the findings has far reaching implications for Australian foreign policy and international relations, especially concerning the scholarly debate over the place of human rights in foreign policy.