The Island Pacific, and especially Papua New Guinea (PNG), occupies an important place in Australia’s international relations. In part this flows from geographical proximity and historical linkages, and considerations of security, trade, and investment. But in addition the Island Pacific is perhaps the only part of the world in which Australia can hope to exercise a significant influence over events, and in which it is generally regarded by the international community as having a responsibility for promoting political stability and economic progress. Australia’s regional responsibility was explicitly recognised in the 1997 foreign policy White Paper, In the National Interest. Yet while the importance of the region is often recognised in the rhetoric of public statements, and concretely in levels of development assistance and defence cooperation, mention of the Pacific frequently comes only at the end of foreign policy and defence analyses, and it is difficult to discern a coherent, long-term policy framework in Australia’s dealings with the Pacific Island states.

Chapter 1 provides the theoretical premise to explain the formation of identity-based hierarchies to justify social exclusion. Bilateral relations between India and Bangladesh and differential neoliberalism in the two countries reproduce a social hierarchy that serves to socially exclude Bengali Muslims. This exclusion, the chapter contends, can be explained by analyzing how neoliberal ideas shape identity markers – religion, language and culture, geographical importance, and their intersection – which in turn affect biopolitics. In tandem with the fact that Bengali Muslims share cross-border ethnic ties with the majority of Bangladeshis, the minority-migrant complex turns the Bengali Muslim into a group that can be strategically excluded, included, scapegoated, or rendered invisible. In turn, it reveals the contradictions in society: scapegoating is an inward-looking, nationalist, and state-centric strategy because it is geared towards maintaining government control and popularity (albeit based on a constructed foreign threat); neoliberal policies are outward-looking and "decentralized" because of the rhetoric of open markets and individual freedom. Their easy co-existence effectively privatize violence, as emboldened non-state actors turn into purveyors of oppression in response to neoliberal shifts.

China’s policies and measures could also be thought of as a continuation of those in the Cold War period, and that an analysis of Sino-Swiss relations in the Cold War can help our understanding of China’s relations with Western nations today.