Canberra, KL and much ado about ASEM<\/p>\n
Exclusion from ASEM will disadvantage Australian diplomacy in
\nthe Asia-Pacific, says Milton Osborne.<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE: Malaysia's decision to exclude Australia from the
\nnext Asia-Europe summit (ASEM), due to be held in London in 1998,
\nhas evoked a range of reactions in Australia. While the Foreign
\nMinister, Alexander Downer, has suggested the issue is not of
\ngreat importance, other commentators have argued the matter is
\none for real concern.<\/p>\n
Professor Stephen FitzGerald, the Director of the University
\nof New South Wales' Asia-Australia Institute and a former
\nAustralian Ambassador to China, has spoken publicly of the
\nMalaysian decision as a serious political act. A similar point of
\nview has been expressed by Greg Sheridan, The Australian
\nnewspaper's respected foreign editor, who has written of the
\nrebuff as being \"part of a trend of Australia being excluded from
\nnew East Asian regional groupings\".<\/p>\n
The government's desire to minimize the significance of
\ncontinuing exclusion from ASEM is understandable, not least in
\nterms of Australia's recent failure to get elected to the United
\nNations Security Council despite widespread expectations that
\nthis goal would be achieved. After a period of difficulty in
\nrelations with China and the fall-out associated with Pauline
\nHanson's anti-Asian remarks, the last thing the Howard government
\nwants to emphasize is a further difficulty on the diplomatic
\nfront.<\/p>\n
This concern also explains the readiness with which government
\n\"sources have been eager to publicize the fact that Australia was
\nnot without friends at the Singapore ASEM meeting in February.<\/p>\n
In particular, attention has been drawn to the role played by
\nJapan during the summit, and to the fact that a further six of
\nthe Asian participants at the meeting were in favor of
\nAustralia's admission to the group.<\/p>\n
Additionally, Australian officials insist, those countries
\nthat did not favor admitting Australia to ASEM at this stage,
\nChina and Brunei, in addition to Malaysia, were not speaking
\nagainst Australia so much as against enlarging the number of non-
\nEuropean participants. But the fact remains that the key Asian
\nvote against Australia's membership came from Malaysia and this
\nraises a number of questions, not all of which can be easily
\nanswered.<\/p>\n
First, is the question of whether Dr. Mahathir Mohamad's
\nrejection of Australia's strongly expressed desire to join the
\nASEM process should be viewed in essentially personal terms? Is
\nit credible to suggest that Dr. Mahathir's current policies are
\ndictated by memories of past Australian ham-fistedness and
\nthoughtless comment?<\/p>\n
Could it be that the Malaysian Prime Minister still harbors
\nresentment at the sudden withdrawal of an invitation to visit
\nAustralia in the early 1970s and former Prime Minister Keating's
\ncharacterization of Dr. Mahathir as \"recalcitrant in 1993?
\nWithout being privy to his innermost thoughts, it is nonetheless
\ndifficult to believe these concerns determined Dr. Mahathir's
\nthinking.<\/p>\n
After all, and following the meeting, brief though it was,
\nbetween Prime Minister Howard and the Malaysian leader last year,
\nit appeared there was a real improvement in relations between the
\ntwo countries after what had been, without doubt, a period of
\ndistinct coolness. It is now clear that approval for Australia's
\nparticipation in ASEM has not been part of that improvement.<\/p>\n
A more convincing explanation for what has happened, and for
\nAustralia a more worrying one, is that Dr. Mahathir remains
\nunconvinced of Australia's claim to be an integral part of the
\nAsian region, even if it is not, by any reasonable set of
\ncriteria, an Asian nation itself.<\/p>\n
The Hanson affair and allegations of racist behavior against
\nMalaysian students in Australia are likely to have confirmed his
\njudgment.<\/p>\n
Australia's promotion of APEC, particularly by Paul Keating,
\nwas clearly seen as a challenge to Dr. Mahathir's concept of an
\nEast Asia Economic Caucus. More damaging for Australia, Keating
\nopenly expressed his doubts about ASEM's importance, a view, it
\nshould be said, his Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans, did not
\nshare.<\/p>\n
More recently, the Howard government's commitment to enhancing
\nties with the United States, appears to have reinforced Malaysian
\ndoubts as to where Australia places its interests. While
\nMalaysia's relations with Washington have improved in recent
\ntimes, there remain doubts in Kuala Lumpur about the extent to
\nwhich the U.S. is sufficiently alert to the interests of Asian
\nnations, not least in relation to human rights issues.<\/p>\n
In short, and quite apart from personality politics, there are
\nenough basic policy differences between Australia and Malaysia to
\nexplain what happened in Singapore, so raising the most vital
\nquestion of all. Is Malaysia likely to change its position in the
\nfuture?<\/p>\n
Prediction is always risky, but it is clear there will have to
\nbe a substantial change in Malaysian attitudes for Australia to
\nbe admitted to ASEM. For the moment, all that can be said with
\ncertainty is that the Howard government has a difficult task
\nahead of it and one which, if it does not succeed, will leave
\nAustralia seriously disadvantaged in the region it sees as vital
\nto its future and within which ASEM seems set to be an
\nincreasingly important forum.<\/p>\n
Dr. Milton Osborne is a freelance writer and consultant on
\nAsian issues based in Sydney and a former senior Australia
\nintelligence analyst.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/canberra-kl-and-much-ado-about-asem-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}