Both "history" and "geography" have always played highly significant roles in shaping Australia's foreign policy. The interactive quality between them has also been a main theme in Australian foreign policy, and results in two frequently incompatible traditions regarding Australian foreign affairs. If the distinctive history resides deeply in the minds of Australian elites, that is, they view Australia as a somewhat isolated bastion of Western civilization far away from "home" and the alliance, then the fact that Australia is close to Asia, which they knew little and basically cared less about indeed produces anxiety in them. Therefore, they argue that Australia definitely needs a "great and strong" friend to ensure its security and maintain the stability in the region of which Australia has been a part. However, the "tyranny of distance" can be replaced by the "prospects of proximity". Simply put, adjacent to Asia, Australia can be relatively easy to engage in an economically fast-growing Asia and benefit from this process. In short, both traditions accompanied with the complex interaction between "history" and "geography" exert different impact on Australian foreign policy in various issues and periods. Even as "Asia Century" is unfolding, the dilemma between "history" and "geography" remains. Indeed, Australian elites have spared no efforts to adopt "Asia-Pacific" narratives in order to reach a reconciliation between "history" and "geography", nonetheless, such efforts still have a long way to go. In this sense, it is to infer that Australian foreign policy may not change substantially whether Labor or Liberal-National coalition holds power in the future. Put it another way, the Australia-United States alliance is the strategic bedrock of Australia's foreign and security policy. Australia, meanwhile, delivers its commitment to pursue positive engagement with Asia economically and socially. <<