Australia, New Zealand, & Pacific Studies (ANZP)

This course explores the burgeoning literature on migrant transnationalism and diasporas. Key themes include: how peoples' identities change as they migrate; how the politics of one country plays out in other countries through the agency of migrants and their descendants; the effects of “brain-drains” and “brain-gains”; the challenges that diasporas pose to conventional notions of citizenship, loyalty, and family; how states cope with conflicts between migrant communities; and the roles diasporas may play in the promotion of economic development, conflict, or peace through the transfer of remittances and human capital. Drawing on interdisciplinary social science literature, the course focuses principally on diasporic politics in the high immigration receiving states of Australia, Canada, and the United States with comparative reference to Europe, Israel, and Latin America.

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is amongst one of the greatest natural wonders of the world. It is roughly equivalent in size to Italy. A UNESCO World Heritage site, the GBR hosts a vast and diverse array of marine life. Visitors to the GBR generate an estimated $5.7 billion annually to Australia’s economy, and offer the equivalent 58,000 full-time jobs. In recent years, however, reports of coral reef bleaching suggest the reef is under tremendous stress. Climate change is driving ever warming waters through the GBR. Other stresses to the reef include farm run-off, shipping, and plastics. This course offers students with an introduction to the Great Barrier Reef, its biology, its place in the Australian economy, and efforts to more effectively protect it.

Migration is variously characterized as an important determinant of violent conflict and political instability, national power, imperial expansion, ethnic conflict, radicalism, terrorism, environmental degradation, and economic growth or stagnation. In high immigration receiving states such as Australia and the United States-among the world's most inclusive migrant incorporation regimes-immigration increasingly complicates foreign policymaking choices, and may present challenges to each host nation's internal cohesion. Issues such as dual nationality, social exclusion, multiculturalism, and fear of international terrorism-especially ina post-9/11 context-generate considerable political heat and public debate. This course will examine the migration-security nexus and the policy choices that Australia and the United States confront. Some of the fundamental questions that will be addressed include: What causes people to migrate across national borders and settle in foreign countries? How do Australia and the United States weigh the benefits and costs of migration? How do migrants in Australia and the United States maintain social and political relationships with those back in their home countries, and does this affect their sense of national allegiance and social integration into their host societies? To what extent do migrants and their descendants alter foreign policy considerations or affect international relations? And how do Australians and Americans cope with conflicts between ethnic or migrant communities when those conflicts originate, or are strongly fueled by, homeland conflicts?

This course surveys the origins and projection of national values and state institutions of settler societies, especially the United States, Australia, and Canada. Students will explore how people in these countries have defined their national identity, the relative salience of those identities compared to other beliefs, and the consequences of different conceptions of nationhood for defining interests at home and abroad. Key questions include: What is the role of myth in nation building? How do elites and institutions mold a sense of community? How do migration and sub-national identities shape efforts to define national interests? And how does national identity affect foreign policy making and practice. Comparison with the settlement and nation building experiences in Israel, New Zealand, South Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere will provide additional insight into how political traditions—transplanted over time through migration and enduring social, economic, and cultural ties—affect contemporary domestic and foreign policies.

This course will examine the strategic picture of the region, focusing on the issues which will make this region increasingly a critical factor in global stability. Some of the issues which will be analyzed will include: the on-going Indo-Pakistan rivalry; the growing Indo-Chinese competition in the Indian Ocean; increasing tension between China and Japan; the volatility of the Korean Peninsula; the competing maritime claims in the South China Sea; and the role of regional organizations. We will also examine the foreign policy of some of the key countries in the Indo-Pacific, such as Australia, Indonesia, China, Japan and India. Students will be expected to choose an Indo-Pacific country on which they will give a presentation as well as write an essay.

Not all states are built the same when it comes to peacemaking and conflict. Some, like the US, have extensive resources and are able bring to bear a wide range of resources and political influence. Most others, however, struggle to nurse limited national resources and limited political influence. These smaller states often utilize their limited resources in very clever and focused ways to deliver peacemaking outcomes. Often smaller states will fund the peacemaking activities of NGOs or financially support the peacemaking efforts of regional organizations. Of course, these states (great, medium and small) pursue peacemaking objectives in the name of their national interest (however that may be defined). Norway, for example, has supported peace initiatives in Guatemala, Sudan and Sri Lanka. While none of these countries had significant relations with Norway, the Storting (the Norwegian Parliament) funded these initiatives because they were deemed in the national interest. The same may be said of Japanese support for the Aceh peace initiative, as well as a host of others sponsored states around the globe. Arguably, no state is entirely dedicated to peacemaking along. In pursuing national interests some states may pursue peacemaking in one place, and conflict promotion in another. 

In this course students will have an opportunity to examine a range of case studies that illustrate the peacemaking efforts of smaller states. Cases might include peacemaking efforts in Aceh, Mindanao, East Timor, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Guatemala, and Colombia for example, and states acting as peacemakers include Japan, Switzerland, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Qatar and the Vatican. Of course in examining any of these cases it will be instructive to ask “what’s in it” for the given state. States do not pursue their international relations in purely cooperative terms and are not always benign. Indeed, some states may pursue peacemaking in a punitive or aggressive fashion.

In recent years economists, political scientists and international development professionals have pointed to the relationship between extractive industries (oil, gas and mining) and violent conflict. Over the course of the past two centuries the link between extractive industries and violent conflict has been manifest. Labor unrest, community conflict, and warfare have all featured in the tremendous growth of the extractive sector. Today, many think of mines as violent places. What are the stories of violent conflict and the extractive industries? What are the underlying dynamics of these conflicts? What methods have been developed to help better manage and resolve these conflicts? This class draws on history, political science, development studies and conflict resolution to investigate the relationship between violent conflict and extractive industries.

The course will examine the various tracks to achieving economic integration through a region-wide free trade agreement, the geopolitical issues that will have to be addressed in the process, and why this is important. Starting with how to define Asia-Pacific, its importance to the United States, and Australia’s and New Zealand’s Asian-Western identities, the course will consider the region’s post WWII history and alliances and the more recent political architecture such as APEC, ASEAN, and the East Asia Summit. The course then will focus on the global post-WWII trading system and the range of free trade agreements among countries in the region, with an intensive examination of the origins, prospects and goals of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and how that possible track to a region-wide agreement such as FTAAP compares to a broader Asian track that includes China and perhaps India. Finally the course will consider security and political challenges to regional integration, how cooperation on a range of science, technology, and transnational issues may affect the outcome, and what is possible versus what is likely in pursuit of a transformational 21st Century goal.

The Center for Australian, New Zealand, and Pacific Studies courses. Please review the section text for course descriptions.

This course examines the history, evolution and contemporary challenges in the Australian-American relationship. In broad terms, both Australia and the U.S. share a language, many cultural forms and traits, and a deep commitment to democratic ideals. Today, both share many common interests and challenges. Both have deep interests in Asia, which today drive their deep strategic relationship embodied in the ANZUS Treaty. This course focuses on the evolution of the Australian-American relationship from shared cultural and political ideals through to the evolution of the strategic alliance formed in the aftermath of World War II and deepened in the ensuing years.

Competition for strategic influence in Oceania is becoming as crowded and complex as it was in the 19th and 20th centuries. While the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and France remain the dominant regional powers, China has poured in aid and investment dollars in recent years—and Russia, Indonesia, Japan, and India also increasingly seek to advance their interests among Pacific Island countries (PICs). The rivalry produces “strategic anxiety” even as it empowers PICs with greater choice of partners to help them meet pressing demographic, economic, environmental, and regional security concerns. Through a mixture of readings, guest lectures, and seminar discussions, this course explores the drivers behind international security politics in the Pacific from both extra- and intra-regional perspectives, including assessments of the extent to which traditional concepts, legacy agreements, and historical relationships remain useful for both PICs and external powers.

Permission of CANZ office required.

Course Title: The Five Eyes Alliance: History, Strategy, and Challenges This course explores the history, operations, and challenges of security and intelligence agencies among the Five Eyes member countries – Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Students will compare the intelligence agencies' roles within their national security frameworks, examine shared analytical methodologies, and develop insights into core intelligence skills. The course also traces the evolution of these organizations and their interactions within their societies. By the end of the course, students will be able to identify the intelligence agencies of Five Eyes partner nations, explain their structures and historical developments, analyze their roles, strengths, and weaknesses, and assess their significance in an era of great power competition.

Not all states are built the same when it comes to peacemaking and conflict. Some, like the US, have extensive resources and are able bring to bear a wide range of resources and political influence. Most others, however, struggle to nurse limited national resources and limited political influence. These smaller states often utilize their limited resources in very clever and focused ways to deliver peacemaking outcomes. Often smaller states will fund the peacemaking activities of NGOs or financially support the peacemaking efforts of regional organizations. Of course, these states (great, medium and small) pursue peacemaking objectives in the name of their national interest (however that may be defined). Norway, for example, has supported peace initiatives in Guatemala, Sudan and Sri Lanka. While none of these countries had significant relations with Norway, the Storting (the Norwegian Parliament) funded these initiatives because they were deemed in the national interest. The same may be said of Japanese support for the Aceh peace initiative, as well as a host of others sponsored states around the globe. Arguably, no state is entirely dedicated to peacemaking along. In pursuing national interests some states may pursue peacemaking in one place, and conflict promotion in another. In this course students will have an opportunity to examine a range of case studies that illustrate the peacemaking efforts of smaller states. Cases might include peacemaking efforts in Aceh, Mindanao, East Timor, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Guatemala, and Colombia for example, and states acting as peacemakers include Japan, Switzerland, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Qatar and the Vatican. Of course in examining any of these cases it will be instructive to ask “what’s in it” for the given state. States do not pursue their international relations in purely cooperative terms and are not always benign. Indeed, some states may pursue peacemaking in a punitive or aggressive fashion.