Aussies 'outsiders' despite new foreign policy?<\/p>\n
By S.P. Seth<\/p>\n
SYDNEY (JP): Australia's first foreign policy white paper was
\nissued recently in Canberra. It sets out the priorities and goals
\nof its foreign policy over the next 15 years.<\/p>\n
The obvious question is why now?<\/p>\n
Because the present Australian government, with John Howard as
\nprime minister, has created doubts and question marks about where
\nAustralia is headed. The white paper is an attempt to restate
\nAustralia's Asia-Pacific priorities.<\/p>\n
The Pauline Hanson phenomenon, which has become synonymous
\nwith racism in Australia, has seriously dented Australia's
\nregional image. Hanson is scapegoating Asians for all Australia's
\nreal or imagined evils; its high unemployment, crime, diseases,
\nracial imbalance and so on. And sees in all this an
\nAsian\/international conspiracy to destabilize and destroy
\nAustralia.<\/p>\n
If Hanson were just a solitary politician, it wouldn't matter.
\nBut opinion polls favor her views against Asian immigration by
\nover 60 percent. Even Howard felt that she was reflecting the
\nAustralian mainstream on the Asian question.<\/p>\n
Not surprisingly, the Hanson phenomenon has upset the
\ncountry's Asian neighbors, though their governments have
\nhesitated to criticize Canberra loudly. But Howard's response,
\nstressing Australia's commitment to racial equality and
\nengagement with the Asia-Pacific region, lacks the passion and
\nconviction of former prime minister Paul Keating.<\/p>\n
Howard believed his predecessor, Keating, was way out of step
\nwith Australian people in his advocacy of Australia's Asian
\nconnection. His \"rhetoric\" had created confusion and insecurity
\namong Australians about Asia.<\/p>\n
Therefore, people needed reassurance that Australia wasn't
\nbeing pushed into uncharted waters of Asia, with which they had
\nno particular empathy. Howard has, therefore, been keen to
\nemphasize that Australia did not need to choose between its
\nhistory (European origin) and geography (Asian location). He said
\nthis during his Indonesian visit. And it is reiterated in the
\nwhite paper.<\/p>\n
In other words, Howard believes that Australia can remain
\nlargely unaffected as a society and culture while still making
\nthe most of its economic integration with Asia. Or Australia can
\ndictate the terms on which it will engage with Asia.<\/p>\n
Paul Kelly, a prominent columnist, wrote in The Australian
\nnewspaper: \"It's a new form of political correctness. We are
\nsupposed to pretend that engagement with Asia is not a
\ntransforming process ... .\"<\/p>\n
It is based on \"John Howard's blinkered view of Australia\",
\nwhich says that \"Australia must maximize its economic integration
\nwith East Asia but it is a vacuum on the people-to-people
\nengagement needed to achieve this.\"<\/p>\n
The white paper nominates Australia's core relationships, with
\nthe United States, Japan, China and Indonesia. The primacy of
\nAustralia's relationship with the United States is self-evident.
\nThe two countries are security partners in the Australia, New
\nZealand, U.S. (ANZUS) alliance.<\/p>\n
Their security relationship was further upgraded after the
\nelection of the Howard government in 1996. According to Professor
\nPaul Dibb, who heads the Strategic and Defense Studies Center at
\nthe Australian National University, \"ANZUS has both a deterrent
\nrole, including an extended nuclear deterrent role, and it has
\ntangible military and intelligence benefits that are a force
\nmultiplier for the Australian Defense Force in changing strategic
\nbalance.\"<\/p>\n
As for Japan, it is vitally important both for economic and
\nsecurity reasons (Australia and Japan are the United States'
\nclosest security allies in the region).<\/p>\n
China is both an opportunity (with Australia's expanding trade
\nties) and a potential threat to regional stability and security.
\nBeijing was very upset when the Howard government decided to
\nupgrade Australia's defense ties with the U.S. It regarded this,
\nas well as similar moves to further strengthen U.S.-Japan
\nsecurity partnership, as part of a U.S.-led pincer movement to
\nencircle and contain China.<\/p>\n
Canberra has since taken corrective political measures to
\nmollify Beijing. It has significantly muted its criticism of
\nChina's human rights and started high level dialogs and exchanges
\nbetween their defense establishments.<\/p>\n
But China remains wary and critical. Commenting on Australia's
\nwhite paper, The People's Daily (as quoted in the Australian
\npress) deprecated Australia's tendency to rely strongly on the
\nUnited States.<\/p>\n
In the process, it \"not only exaggerates the importance of the
\nU.S. military presence in the western Pacific, but it also
\nsupported enhanced defense cooperation between the U.S. and
\nJapan.\"<\/p>\n
This revealed \"the two basic orbits of foreign policy of
\nAustralia: In economics and trade, it faces towards Asia, but in
\nsecurity, it relies on the U.S. and Japan.\"<\/p>\n
The Chinese paper added: \"This shows that although Australia
\nhas continuously expressed the idea of getting involved in Asia,
\nit lacks confidence that the members of the region can solve
\ntheir own security issues through dialog and consultation.\"<\/p>\n
Indonesia, another core Asian country nominated in the white
\npaper, is Australia's nearest northern neighbor. It has generally
\nbeen regarded as a potential security threat. Now that the two
\ncountries are joined in a defense pact, this fear is not so
\npronounced. It hasn't disappeared though.<\/p>\n
In any case, Indonesia simply doesn't have the military
\nwherewithal to even contemplate such an adventure. And it will
\ntake Jakarta two decades to even put together any such force, if
\nit were at all possible.<\/p>\n
However, the white paper does worry about possible political
\ninstability in Indonesia, in the context of succession to
\nSoeharto's long political reign. Which could affect its foreign
\nand defense policies.<\/p>\n
As for the region in general, Australia's assessment of its
\nfuture economic growth is positive. The white paper does,
\nhowever, acknowledge problems from worsening current account
\ndeficits, high debt levels, weak financial sectors (as dramatized
\nby the recent currency crisis), uneven regional growth and so on.<\/p>\n
All in all, Australia is right about identifying its future
\nwith Asia. But it is wrong about Howard's approach of selective
\nassociation -- opting for economic integration while shunning
\ncomprehensive engagement.<\/p>\n
Dr. Stephen Fitzgerald, a prominent expert on Asian affairs,
\nsaid: \"In Australia's case, the fundamental problem is that while
\nwe may have come to make the sentiment of belonging to the
\nregion, we have done too little to belong in human terms or to
\nmake the necessary intellectual adjustment ... and for as long as
\nwe continue in this mode we will always be outsiders, however
\nmuch we may participate in the formal institutions of the
\nregion.\"<\/p>\n
The situation has only worsened since the Howard government
\ncame to power. And the white paper on foreign policy doesn't come
\nanywhere near addressing the important question of comprehensive
\nengagement with Asia.<\/p>\n
The writer is a free-lance journalist based in Sydney.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/aussies-outsiders-despite-new-foreign-policy-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }