If tennis can have rules, why not the world's countries?

Here’s the problem. No true democrat likes to see countries ravaged by the acts of dictators. Human rights and economies are inevitably destroyed. Will Zimbabwe ever truly recover after the excesses of Mugabe? Have either Russia or Germany emerged from the legacies of Stalin and Hitler? We know all too well what has been required to remove the world’s most evil leaders from countries.  In the shadows of World War 2, and even further since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the world’s nations have sought to develop a rules-based order centred around international law.

At the heart of international law is the sovereignty of nations, their right to have self-determination and to be free from the unilateral use of force by other nations, except when approved by the United Nations, being the world’s international parliament. Witness the UN endorsed operation to liberate Kuwait from Iraq in 1991.

You can see where I am heading- once gain we are reminded of the inevitable “between the ideal and reality lies the shadow” dilemma of international politics.

Since America, emerged from World War 2 as the world’s undisputed superpower,  its reputation and political destiny has been shaped by its role in determining the fate of lesser nations. President Truman announced to Congress in 1946 his eponymous doctrine, promising that America would come to the aid of any nation threatened with “subjugation”. The Marshall Plan of 1947 was the doctrine’s financial encore. This commitment gave birth to the Cold War where America’s desire to contain feared expansion of communism by the Soviet Union led to a bi-polar conflict that lasted for close to five decades.

For America’s post-war Presidents, the desire for America to act as the world’s policeman led to overt and covert deployments in conflicts- most of which involved Australians in support- in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Central American nations including Nicaragua and Grenada, Iraq, and Afghanistan to name a few.

For its supporters America’s actions were and are seen as honourable commitments to either defending democracies or usurping unjust rulers.

America’s critics see it as a wilful destroyer of international law, whose foreign interventions are rarely altruistic, but are typically based on raw economic and strategic self-interest.

Trump’s actions in 2025 to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity was met with approval by many states. Even his traditional critics could not deny the benefit of Iran having its potential to develop nuclear weapons destroyed, and gave tacit approval to Operation ‘Midnight Hammer’.

Fast forward to recent days and America’s actions have been overwhelmingly condemned, both for reasons of principle and concerns about their practical consequences.  Brazen and brusque, President Trump has placed Colombia’s President on notice.  Not to forget Greenland.  Denmark, and many European leaders, see Trump as a potential wrecking ball . All in a week’s work!

Venezuela now joins the list of nations subjected to an American foreign intervention.  The extraordinary removal of Venezuela’s President has startled most. Just when everyone thought Trump could not play another extraordinary unilateral card, he has.

Those who decry Trump’s unilateralism are matched by in number by  Venezuelans who are elated at the removal of Nicolas Maduro, a man who has been accused of a typical smorgasbord of despotic political offences- rigging elections, executing political opponents, corrupting the independence of the judiciary and economic ruination.

Is it just me or does the crestfallen Maduro look uncannily like the haunted Saddam Hussein after the overthrow of his evil regime in Iraq at the behest of an American led war?

Clashes between a nation’s self interest and the interests of the greater world community are perennial and often insoluble. Would Australia be a better world citizen if it walked away from the hundreds of billions it will pay under the AUKUS defence agreement and committed such money to foreign aid to poorer Pacific nations?

In domestic politics conflicts between the immediate imperative and loftier ideals are no less pressing. Realpolitik is usually the winner.  For example,  it may be that Australia’s Prime Minister reverses his opposition to a Royal Commission into the outbreak of Australian anti-semitism.  Under growing pressure from a range of people to call a Royal Commission Mr. Albanese must be concerned that any perception of strength and authority that he had in the aftermath of the Bondi massacre has turned into a perception of weakness and cowardice. As the quintessential politician, Australia’s Prime Minister will consider how best to staunch any electoral haemorrhage to his and the government’s standing. This is one issue which will not be evaporated in the public’s mind over enervating summer days.

In a matter of days tennis players from many nations will be competing for their stamp of authority in the tennis world. Currently, national teams are participating in the United Cup. Individual tournaments are and will take place in Brisbane, Hobart, Adelaide and Auckland as players warm up for the year’s first Grand Slam. Brisbane offers the chance of a fascinating female final between Sabalenka and Rybakina and/or Anisimova.

Even if the international rules-based order is fracturing, you can rely on the Australian Open to deliver its staple preliminaries. Novak Djokovic, still searching for the Holy Grail of a 25^th Grand Slam title, has sought to draw negative attention to himself. As always. This year it is his decision to split from the Professional Tennis Players’ association, a group he founded in 2020, accusing it of poor governance and a lack of transparency. He has just withdrawn from the Adelaide International saying he is not “physically ready.” No fox like an old fox. Mind you it would be hard to match his ‘Novax’ deportation of 2022!

The other certainty is that the press will be transfixed by another quixotic quest by Nick Kyrgios to claim the title. First, he has to obtain a wildcard to play! Let’s not forget that it is fifty years since the unheralded Mark Edmondson, ranked 212 in the world, defeated defending champion John Newcombe at Kooyong in 1975. Little did he know that he would be the last Australian male to win the title.

It is unlikely that Australia’s highest ranked male player, Alex de Minaur, will relieve Edmondson of his unenviable burden. The stability of the male tennis world order, with Alcaraz and Sinner seemingly a cut above the rest,  is also unlikely to be seismically shifted. Who would bet that neither is in the Men’s final?

As for the Women’s championship, Sabalenka will be seeking to avenge her surprising loss to Keys in last year’s final; however, there will be worthy challengers in Swiatek, Rybakina and, maybe, Gauff. Can Anisimova, humiliated in last year's Wimbledon final and a valiant runner-up to Sabalenka at the US Open, win her first Grand Slam title? The recently married Venus Williams has been granted a wildcard to play in the Open at the spritely age of 45.

If a week is a long time in politics, what then is a fortnight at a Grand Slam tournament? Well, even the two week tradition of Grand Slam tennis has been altered. The Australian Open has incorporated its qualifying tournament into its official schedule making for a three week tournament that begins on Monday 12^th January and concludes on Sunday 2^nd February.

Who knows what political rackets President Trump will have instigated by then?