on the Iraq question, Rudd hasn't scheduled a 'cut-and-run', he's promised a withdrawal of all 'combat' troops. this involves leaving australian personnel in Iraq who are involved in the 'rebuilding' process (if we can actually believe building of anything but oil infrastructure is taking place).

so by taking this action, Rudd is effectively acknowledging that combat troops are there on false pretences, something the rational part of the world came to terms with a long time ago. but by leaving non-combat forces there he is signalling that he would like to see the damage our despicable coalition has done reversed. it's quite a humane response, rather than merely wiping our hands of the mess.

to describe the Iraq situation as 'encouraging' is quite a stretch, and merely relative to the peak of the carnage. just because less 'friendly's' are dying doesn't mean anything except the fact that they've started thinking for themselves and stopped actively seeking combat.

Tony, Sydney, Australia

I agree basically what you say except this busibness about the Asian Model. Looking at the Asian countries around, most of them, except India have democratic deficit,. As a person of Indian extraction in the UK I cannot understand what Mr Rudd will gain from reaching out to India or even for the matter China. These two countries are hungry for raw materials which Australia has plenty and Mandarin -speaking Rudd should t pause and think what is best for his country before signing away the copper and iron ores to China and Uranium to India. Surely Chin ese dictatorship and corrupt Indian politics cannot do much by way of cooperation. Kyoto is meaningless as long as China and India are galloping fast consuming the resources of the planet. Mr Rudd should ensure that the characteristics of Australia as it is today is maintained. Mass immigration of Indians, Chinese and indonesians can only produce problems later.

Rober Shah, LONDON,

I don't think Australians generally see the country as an Asian nation, or that Asian countries view Australia that way. As mentioned, that was a theme during the Keating years but rather fizzled. It's more accurate to describe Australia as part of the Asia Pacific region, and whose primary interests are in the region. Being known as a US ally can have both a plus and negative side in the region

Australia is developing a relationship with China which has the potential to go beyond the commercial, and this may be where Rudd's experience as a diplomat in China might be put to good use

rosemary, sydney , australia

Australia is welcome to join the pax-ASIA in future trade and political talks. As long as it is speaking with the best interests of Australians and the Asian continent at heart. Not the interests of Eurocentrics throughout the world. Australia will have to lose it's belief in its identiity being white, European and "Western" in order to stake claim to its place as an equal trading partner and political ally with India, China and other Asian nations.

Lin Lei, Guangzhou, China

I agree with David Williams. Most Asians do not see Australia or New Zealand as part of Asia, but rather as an American ally in the region. Not that Asians think or care too much about the UK though.

John Rivers, London, UK

Australia has tried to look to Asia before during the Keating years. The problem is not that Australia refuses to think of itself as Asian, many, largely on the left, do. The reality is that Asians do not in any significant number see Australia as part of them and are unlikely to do so for a long-time yet. Trade may swing this way and that but culturally and politically Australia is an English speaking white majority nation and the Chinese, Japanese and Indians therefore see it as a partner to the U.S. and U.K. not them.

David Williams, Beijing, China