Strategic Culture: Historical and Geographical Rationalization in

Explaining Australia’s Current Immigration Policies

Fitra Shaumi Azzahra and Kezya Agustina Hananya

Universitas Airlangga

Keywords: Foreign Policy, Immigration, Strategic Culture, Region Security, Asia Pacific.

Abstract: During the twenty first century, the problem of immigration has become an indirect security concern that is

highly crucial for Australia. There is a plenty of phenomenon that show how the acceptance of immigrants

can pose a very serious threat to a nation's domestic stability. On one hand, this is due to the difference of

culture between the immigrants and local population which is exhibited through the phenomenon of

Cronulla Riots in 2005. On the other hand, the incapability of the immigrants to fulfill the competencies of

skilled labors also contribute to the rise of criminality in accepting countries. In turn, these two problems

create a paradox with moral values since refusing the arrival of immigrants will be viewed negatively by the

international society. Hence, there is a paradox between moral values and the problem of security in a

certain region that is hard to escape. An interesting case to prove that this paradox exists is when Australia

made a decision to refuse the arrival of immigrants that used boats in 2013 and built two detention centers

in Nauru and Manus under the administration of Tony Abbott. In order to explain this paradox, this article

will utilize the usage of Strategic Culture that can explain Australia's decision that has been mentioned

before. This article argues that Australia's decision to build immigration detention centers is the most

rational decision if viewed through the perspective of Strategic Culture although it creates controversies and

tensions among the other Asia Pacific countries such as Indonesia, Nauru, and Papua Nugini.

1 INTRODUCTION

Unlike other classic security problems states around

the world faces such as land disputes, war on

resources, domestic violence etc, immigration

problem cannot be defined bluntly only as security

issue. This is caused by the background complexity

that lies behind the whole process of immigration. In

most cases, immigration as a phenomenon do not

directly impose a threatening condition to state

actors. For example, in brief we can learn that

foreigners comes to host country to seek live

improvements or to seek refuge. The intention of

those individual were not aimed to cause chaos or

impose direct threat to the host country to begin with

but to seek for self-survival that they may not

receive from their countries of origins. Moreover the

causes of some immigration phenomenon such as

emerging waves of refugees and asylum seekers

comes from a more precise and justified security

threats where refugees fled to host country to escape

an already imposed self-threatening conditions such

as domestic violence that happens in their country of

origins. In this typical case, we can see that

immigration is a phenomenon that happens as the

effect of insecurities rather than as a cause of

insecurity and that the insecurity is felt by individual

rather than state actors. But in other cases, such as

the case we use in this article, immigration is seen as

a cause of insecurity which is then felt by state

actors who are trying to maintain stability within

their territories.

2 IMMIGRATION AS STATE’S

SECURITY OBSTACLES

There are three ways of seeing immigration within

security context (Dotty, 1998 in Lohrman 2000).

The first one (1) is to see immigration issue as a

national security, (2) as a societal security, (3) as an

individual security. This article aims to use the

national security point of view where immigration is

seen in a classical security logic rooted by the self-

othering pratices guided by the believe that people

302

Azzahra, F. and Hananya, K.

Strategic Culture: Historical and Geographical Rationalization in Explaining Australia’s Current Immigration Policies.

DOI: 10.5220/0010276300002309

In Proceedings of Airlangga Conference on International Relations (ACIR 2018) - Politics, Economy, and Security in Changing Indo-Paciﬁc Region, pages 302-308

ISBN: 978-989-758-493-0

who are not a part of a same cultural understanding

or thinking structure will cause more harm than

good due to the difference in how they perceive and

conduct ways of life. This point of view is alligned

by the fact that a more developed countries tends to

see immigration problems differently with a

developing third world countries. Third world’s

tends to see their material inabilities of handling

refugees as the main source of immigration conflict.

This is seen by their tendency of being more

cautious about how a big wave of migration coming

to their country will constraint their resources which

will eventually produce certain resentment. Other

than that, developing countries inability of creating

proper camps and rehabilitation centers for refugees

often leads to protest done by the refugees with a

chance of growing into an act of domestic violence.

In most cases too, such as the ones in southeast asia,

refugee camps that are less regulated and less

supervised due to the lack of financial support often

time become main bases of emerging terrorist

groups and other extended problem such as

environmental disruptions (Freilich 2006). Whereas

first world countries that are financially capable sees

cultural differences as the main source of

immigration conflict. There are prejudicial

stereotyping of the proneness of immigrants towards

crime and deviant behaviour. Other than that society

of first world country are threatened by the open

possibilities of their lifestyle getting swamped by a

big wave of immigrants who have different ways of

thinking and different cultural behaviour (Freilich

2006). Taking account that immigration problem in

first world countries are associated with cultural

issue, this article will show that Australia’s

experiences and history in handling migrants and

refugees that are part of their ‘otherings’ and other

factors such as racial problems in the past shapes

how Australia sees foreigner as a threat and explain

that current Non – Caucasian sentiment that are

being brought up as a implicit migration policy is the

product of those experiences and history governing

or ordering their ways of thinking while doing a

decision making processes.

3 AUSTRALIA'S RACIAL

PROFILING IMMIGRATION

POLICY

Immigration has become one of the most widely

contested issue in Australia. The country never had a

uniform official immigration policy until 1901

which became the Australia White Policy.

According to Mence et al (2017), Australia's

immigration history can be traced back to before

1788. The first people who landed their feet on

Australian continent were Australian Aboriginals.

Mence et al (2017) believed that Aboriginals came

to Australia at around 40,000 and 60,000 years ago.

Before the European settlement, their numbers were

believed to reach around 1,5 million (Mence et al

2017). In 1770, James Cook arrived in Australia and

eventually claimed the whole east coast area for

Britain, naming it New South Wales. Despite this

claim, around 250 tribes of Aboriginal Australians

were still there with their own customs and

languages (NSW.gov.au n.d). The arrival of British

was seen with suspicion from Aboriginals Australia

and often caused clashes between the British and

Aboriginals Australia. Six years after the first arrival

of Britain, the first conflict between Aboriginals

Australians and European settlers occurred. No clear

motives were evident, however, some researchers

noted that the motives ranged from revenge to

opportunity (Wahlquist 2017). In years that

followed, more massacres happened that mostly

killed Aboriginals Australia and non-white

immigrants.

According to The Center For 21st Century

Humanities under the University of Newcastle

(2017), there were more than 150 identified

massacres that were committed by European settlers

from 1784-1930. These massacres were rough

estimates, and researchers stated that there must be

more but was kept in secret under the code of

silence. Until 1901, the Aboriginals Australia

decreased and only reached 94,000 (Mence et al

2017). The relationship between Aboriginals

Australia and European settlers was rather hostile,

and it was almost the same with other people from

different races. The year 1820 was regarded as a

year in which Britain started to encourage

immigration although was still limited to British

people. The immigration of free settlers brought

economic changes to Australia, with farming and

pasturing of cattle and sheep (Geyl 1963). This also

marked an expansion and exploration of areas that

were deemed inhabited. In 1851, the discovery of

gold marked an upsurge in number of immigrants.

Geyl (1963) noted that the gold rush in New South

Wales and Victoria brought 600,000 immigrants

from outside Australia. The highest percentage of

immigrants was Britain, followed by Europeans

particularly Germans and Chinese. These

immigrants settled in the predominantly gold rush

area and worked as labors with contracts. The

Strategic Culture: Historical and Geographical Rationalization in Explaining Australia’s Current Immigration Policies

303

following year also marked immigration from

Pacific Islands, Japan, and Malaysia to work in

sugar plantations and pearl industry (Mence et al

2017).

Nonetheless, even with a quite high number of

immigrants, Britain claimed that it still wanted to

make Australia a cultural and political frontier for

Britain. Therefore, Britain did restrict immigrants

who were not British to settle in Australia. This was

particularly evident in a speech from James Stephen

who worked as a Head of Colonial Office in London

(1841 in Soutphommasane 2015) that stated English

race shall not be mixed with any lower caste. This

was transferred to public place, and eventually

caused a series of race riots, particularly targeting

Chinese people who came during the gold rush.

Soutphommasane (2015) wrote that race riots

erupted in goldfields, such as Hanging Rock (1852),

Bendigo (1854), and Buckland River (1857). The

anti-Chinese immigration argued that it would bring

unfair competition to the European workers.

Nevertheless, the reason was not only economic but

also in terms of race, the Chinese were regarded as

beneath the English. The Chinese were pictured as

uncivilized, so they were unable to mix with English

and the white people who were pictured as racially

superior (Soutphommasane 2015). The belief that

white men were far more superior than other races

were evident in media, particularly in The Bulletin

which was Australia's first newspaper. The

newspaper published that other races could not be

Australians, and political liberty only belonged to

the white people (Soutphommasane 2015).

When Australia became a federation in 1901, the

issue of immigration remained important for the

parliament. The belief that white race was superior

than the other races still resonated which was

evident in three important laws on immigration.

These three were Immigration Restriction Act,

Pacific Island Labourers Act, and Naturalization

Act. These three laws represented what is now called

as White Australia Policy. Immigration Restriction

Act was a law that prohibited the entry of people

who failed their Dictation Test. According to Jones

(2017), a Dictation Test is a test in which a person

would be asked to write 50 words in various

European languages. Further, in 1905, the law was

amended and gave the officers who conducted the

test more power to exclude undesired people (Jones

2017). Pacific Island Labourers Act was an act that

intended to prohibit people from Pacific Islands

entering Australia from 1904 onwards. The people

from Pacific Islands who had already entered

Australia were forcibly repatriated (Federal Register

of Legislation 2018). Naturalization Act was a law

that stated naturalization could not be done on

people from Asia, Africa, and Islands of the Pacific.

Further, non-Europeans could not bring their

children or spouses to Australia (Mence et al 2017).

These laws were seen quite effective, seeing that

people were reluctant to migrate to Australia.

According to Jones (2017), only 2,000 people took

the Dictation Test from 1901 until 1958.

Australia started to change its attitudes towards

immigration in 1958, but this was because Australia

needed more labors to reconstruct Australia's

economy after being attacked by Japan in World

War II. Further, Australia had also sacrificed its

people at a high number that reached 4 million

people (Jupp 2007). The term 'populate or perish'

was created by Arthur Calwell to address this

problem. Australia started to open its doors, but the

numbers of people who entered were still dominated

by British and followed by people from Europe who

were displaced. The White Australia Policy was

officially dismantled in 1973, and Australia was

seen ready to accept more immigrants that were

categorized as highly skilled. However, White

Australia as a mindset remained intact. Jupp (2007)

noted that this was evident in public support for

Pauline Hansen when she gave her first speech in

Parliament in 1996. Hanson believed that Australia

is being swamped by Asians and refused the policy

of multiculturalism which was evident in her speech

(Sydney Morning Herald 2016). Her party, One

Nation, won nearly 23 per cent of the vote. Jupp

(2007) also noted that her party was doing great in

New South Wales and in federal election in which

her party received one million votes for the Senate.

When the Tampa Affairs happened in 2001, Prime

Minister Howard refused to receive the refugees and

received public support which enabled him to

become prime minister again.

Until now, Australia remains committed to its

refusal on irregular immigration including refugees

and endorsed a refugee settlement programs as close

as possible to the refugee's home country (Foreign

Policy White Paper 2017). This strong position has

been defended by Australia, who claimed that they

are not obligated to accept refugees for resettlement.

Today, Australia's immigration policy is focused on

people who are experienced and highly qualified to

work in Australia (Department of Home Affairs

2018).

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

304

4 AUSTRALIA’S GOVERNMENT

ACTOR’S POINT OF VIEW IN

SEEING IMMIGRATION

PROBLEM

Just as stated in section one, we can see that

Australia, as a country that can be categorized as

developed or First World’s country had been

familiar in experiencing riots as a cause of accepting

immigrants from the very beginning of their

existence as a state. It can be seen from section two

that there had been attempt made by Australian

government to accept refugees and immigrant

repetitiously by two main factors and motives that

are (1) to cover the demand of hard – skilled labor

and (2) as a respond to minimize international

spotlight given to them as a country who has not

been very friendly in increasing immigrant quota.

But just as they are open to such attempts, sets of

tragedies like riots between the Chinese people and

the Australian people that are mostly Caucasian that

happened in 1851 occurs and had impose a

significant security alert to the government and the

people of Australia itself since the riot has

contributed in a large amount of casualties records

along history too. Similar cases happens after 1851

even until now repeating the same cycle all over

again, the Cronulla riots for instance in 2005 is also

a riot that comes out of unsynchronized cultural

harmony between the local Australia people and

those from outside who’s not under the European or

western identity. Researches by social scholars had

stated that in most cases these kinds of riots appear

out of identity base fear reasoning that comes out

from economic anxieties where the local people are

threatened by the existence of either soft-skilled or

hard-skilled labor foreigners who might seize

native’s work field or work opportunity. Or in other

words, there are competitive attempts from both

migrants and natives in the host countries market

too.

Until this point, it can be argued that the

reduction of migrant and refugee quota that

happened currently in 2013 right after Australia had

made a slight period of a bigger quota just before

2013 is a rationalization made by decision makers

taking account their historical experiences of

handling refugees in the past which often times ends

up with another riot and other domestic security

alerts. To then point out and prove whether

Australian people does have uneasy tendencies

towards ‘others’ that are not part of the western or

European culture we can reflect back onto how

Australia has made Immigration Restriction Act

(1901) that requires immigrants to take tests to

determine whether an immigrant or refugee had any

similar cultural understanding of certain issue so to

be easily accepted within the society or how in the

process of visa granting the first thing that the

Australia’s immigration officers do is to see the

applicant’s race and origins. Other than seeing the

tangible tendencies, statements made and discourse

happening around Australian’s officials could also

show how Australian governement take race and

origins seriously in determining which immigrants

or refugee should stay on their lands.

In national level, we can see clearly that

imigration problem is very consequential to

Australian goverment just as how consequential the

issue of counterterrorism is for United States. This is

shown in how Australia’s Annual White Papers,

their main guidlines for allignment and strategic

decisions had always put immigration as their main

agenda or national interest. Allign with this interest,

are the politicians, officials and authoritarians point

of view in seeing immigrations as a security issue

that needs handling. Almost all politicians even from

different parties both agreed to the reduction of

immigrants especially those coming from Southeast

Asia and Middle East countries. In 2015 Prime

Minister Malcolm Turnbull had release the

‘Australia First’ policy to cut down around 457

Visas of people that mostly comes from China and

other Southeast Asia countries. Along with that the

Prime Minister had set a tougher english

requirement test and other cultural test requirements

up to a more advanced level. He stated that:

“We will no longer allow 457 visas to

be passports to jobs that could and

should go to Australians. We’re

putting jobs first, and we’re putting

Australians first.” (Turnbull in Clark,

2017)

Along with his statement, Dan Engels the

Managing Director of Visa Solution then point out

what this policy means to Australia and the workers

originating from China and other Southeast Asia

countries. In one of press interview Engels stated:

“For the impact on China and Asia

more generally, past the English

language requirements it does send a

message that we are increasing the

barriers to the movement of people

and especially if you don’t look and

speak as we do here in Australia.”

(Engels in Clark, 2017)

Strategic Culture: Historical and Geographical Rationalization in Explaining Australia’s Current Immigration Policies

305

From behavior performed by the Prime minister

and interpretative statement made by Engels above

we can see that there are efforts made by Australia

to do ‘self – othering’ practices where the ‘self’ here

is perceived as Australian people or ‘those who

speak as we (Australian) do’, this article takes

language as a part of cultural tools, thus, this

statement also ‘others’ those who do not have the

ability to perceive the cultural understanding of

Australian people. This two statements also validate

the fact that developed countries sees cultural factor

as the main source of immigration conflict as stated

in the second section of this article. Other than the

Prime Minister and his officials, ministers that are

assigned in the ministries directly related with

immigration issues such as Peter Dutton, the

minister of Immigration and Borderline Protection

which has now been change into the ministry of

Home Affairs. In one of his speeches for his

campaign he stated:

“We have to try and encourage people

out into regions, we have to reduce the

numbers where we believe it’s in our

national interest. It’s come back

considerably and if we have to bring it

back further, if that’s what required

and that’s what’s in our country’s best

interests ... that is what we will do.”

(Dutton 2016).

From this statement we can also see the minister

Dutton’s effort in bringing up how the limitation of

immigrants had always been brought up in the past

and was effective therefore essential to do today in

order to meet their national strategies. Although

there has been sets of serious ambitions coming

from Prime Minister Turnbull in his previous

electoral campaign, the practice that goes on until

now are still alligned with Australia’s needs of

securing they’re lands from indirect threats such as

the rising of immigrants in their big lands with very

little ammount of natives. Preassumably this could

happen as an effect of other consequential

authoritarians such as Petter Dutton to who counters

Turnbull’s anomaly Ideas and behavior in trying to

make Australia a more migrant friendly country.

Thus, we can see that there has been an attempt to

change the way Australia sees immigrants but had

not been a success at the end of the day. This shows

that the historical pattern had been consequential in

today’s decision making process.

5 AUSTRALIA’S STRATEGIC

CULTURE: GEOGRAPHIC

AND CULTURAL

SIGNIFICANCE

From the historical background above we can see

Australia’s domestic tendency when it comes to

handling immigrants. In international strategic

studies we could also see that the racial and cultural

tendency does not only occur within Australia’s

domestic dynamics but is also shown on how

Australia acts and reacts towards the states that

contain people’s who’s race and culture are less

favorable to the Australian people. For instance, how

Australia had always show its tendencies to counter

Southeast Asian countries policies and behavior.

This, however is also due to geographical conditions

and features Australia is bounded with. As can be

seen from the historical facts above, we can assume

that Australia is in a way more of a West European

or British culture – colored rather than eastern. This

automatically became a paradox with its

geographical condition where Australia’s geography

is not any near with countries that shares similar or

close cultural relation with Australia but the

continent is placed among Asian countries and other

eastern – colored countries such as Japan, Indonesia,

Vietnam, Philippines, Myanmar, China etc (Evans

2006). Taking geographical considerations into

account we can see that the racial profiling policies

are more and more rational to Australia seeing the

fact that Australia had such big land and see

territorial with big resources to govern and to take

advantage of but less native population to do the

governing. Thus, the immigration phenomenon

could be seen as diaspora threat to the natives of

Australia. The example of how this cultural

constrains in immigration security context can be

seen in how at 2011- 2015 Australia under Tony

Abott’s government Australia had been throwing

‘boat people’ originating from Myanmar but are

mostly muslims to Indonesia and Malaysia which

are the states perceived by Australia as more

culturaly suitable for the Rohingyans. As a strategic

choice of keeping up with their national stability and

completing moral tasks at the same time, Australia

thinks that it is rational for them to spend extra

money to help Indonesia and Papua Nugini to build

camps, detention and rehabilitation center in Nauru

and Manus, an island not far away from their land

territories but not under their legitimate jurisdiction

rather than having to accept those refugees intheir

own place. Due to their need to secure their

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

306

geographical territory, Australia also take big

concern in how Southeast Asia goverments respond

and react to immigrant issue. Australia had been

playing active role in influincing the ASEAN

community to reconsider their immigration policy

since the more immigration allowance made by

ASEAN country the bigger the risk of insecurity for

Australia’s territory too since they are

geographically bounded. Last example can also be

seen in how Australia had also recently stop

immigrant originating from Middle Eastern

countries such as Lebanon, Syria and Afghanistan

but has not done anything to limit immigrant coming

from England, New Zealand, Ireland, United States

and other European countries combined.

6 CONCLUSION

Australia’s Strategic culture among scholars was

known to be quite ‘protective’ in securing their

national territories rather than taking extra concerns

in the high political intervenstionist behavior that are

mostly performed by other european and western

countries. This behavior is caused by two main

factors (1) historical dynamics and (2) geographical

constraint. Seeing from the historical approach we

can see that Australia had always been a country

who made attempts in trying to accept immigrants

just to be let down by the migrants who caused riots

that ended up as domestic insecurity. The effort to

then keep the immigrant quota low was a

rationalization that comes out of the realization of

social protest done by the natives or their own

society of the economic anxities that often occurs as

the cause of Asian and Middle-eastern diaspora

taking the native’s jobs field in Australia. Thus,

racial profiling for immigrants is perceived

mandatory for Australi’as security. In geographical

approach, Australia’s dilemma in being the only

‘western/eruopean’ cultured country that sits among

‘asian or eastern’ cultured country had forced them

to take deep concern in ASEAN’s countries decision

and behavior in handling immigration problem since

their choices would implicate Australia’s security

too. Although here has been trials of changing how

the Australia should perceive the immigrant made by

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, the practice done

under his administration had not shown any

significant change in Australia’s immigration policy.

This is because, there are structured understanding

among internal security decision makers in seeing

immigrants and Australia’s history with the

immigrants. Turnbull’s attempt in increasing the

quota cannot be successfull because of the other

decision makers who are not in favor with accepting

more ‘eastern/asia’ immigrants.

REFERENCES

Clark, Helen. Australia First: What New Visa Policy

Means For Chinese, Asian Immigrants.

South China Morning Post. This Week in Asia [online]

https://www.scmp.com/week-

asia/politics/article/2094990/australia-first-what-new-

visa-policy-means-chinese-asian [Accessed in 12 July

2018]

Dotty, R. L. 1998. Immigration and The Politics of

Security. Security Studies, 8 (2-3): 71-93

Dutton, Peter. 2016. Peter Dutton Calls for Migration Cut:

‘We have to Reduce the Numbers’.

Australian Immigration and Assylum. The Guardian

[online] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-

news/2018/feb/15/peter-dutton-calls-for-migration-

cut-we-have-to-reduce-the-numbers [Accessed in 12

July 2018]

Evans, Michael. 2006. Island – Consciousness and

Australian Strategic Culture. Review – Institute of

Public Affairs, 58, Issue 2.

Freilich, Joshua D and Rob T, Guerrete, 2006. Migration,

Culture Conflict, Crime and Terrorism. Burlington:

Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Lohrmann, T. 2000. Migrants, Refugees and Insecurity:

Current Threats to Peace?.International Migration, 38

($): 3-22

Mence, Victoria et al, 2017. A History of the Department

of Immigration: Managing Migration to Australia.

Department of Migration and Border Protection.

NSW.gov.au, n.d. European Discovery of Australia

[online].

http://www.schoolatoz.nsw.edu.au/homework-and-

study/other-subjects-and-projects/history/discovery-of-

australia [Accessed on 11 July 2018].

Wahlquist, Calla. 2017. Map of Massacres of Indigenous

People Reveals Untold History of Australia, Painted in

Blood [online].

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-

news/2017/jul/05/map-of-massacres-of-indigenous-

people-reveal-untold-history- of-australia-painted-

in-blood [Accessed 10 July 2018].

The Center For 21st Century Humanities under the

University of Newcastle, 2017. Colonial Frontier

Massacre in Central and Eastern Australia 1788-1930

[online].

https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/intro

duction.php#f7 [Accessed on 10 July 2018].

Geyl, W.F, 1963. A Brief History of Australian

Immigration, International Migration, 1 (3): 157-166.

Soutphommasane, Tim, 2015. I'm Not Racist But... 40

Years of the Racial Discrimination Act. New South

Wales: UNSW Press.

Strategic Culture: Historical and Geographical Rationalization in Explaining Australia’s Current Immigration Policies

307

Jones, Benjamin T. 2017. Australian Politics Explainer:

the White Australia Policy [online].

https://theconversation.com/australian-politics-

explainer-the-white-australia- policy-74084

[Accessed on 9 July 2018]

Federal Register of Legislation. 2018.Pacific Island

Labourers Act 1901 [online].

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C1901A00016

[Accessed 11 July 2018].

Jupp, James, 2007. From White Australia to Woomera:

The Story of Australian Immigration. Cambridge

University Press.

Sydney Morning Herald, 2016. Pauline Hanson's 1996

Maiden Speech to Parliament: Full Transcript [online].

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/pauline-

hansons- 1996-maiden-speech-to-parliament-full-

transcript-20160915-grgjv3.html [Accessed 12 July

2018]

Australian Government, 2017. Foreign Policy White

Paper: Chapter Five [online].

https://www.fpwhitepaper.gov.au/foreign-policy-

white-paper/chapter-five-keeping- australia-and-

australians-safe-secure-and-free [Accessed on 8 July

2018].

Department of Home Affairs, 2018. Fact Sheet- Abolition

of the White Australia Policy [online].

https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/corporate/infor

mation/fact- sheets/08abolition#f [Accessed on 12 July

2018].

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

308