Australia's protracted ASEAN teething problems

By Dewi Anggraeni

MELBOURNE (JP): Australia, it seems, will have long and protracted teething problems in its integration into the region. The occasional race debate is only one manifestation of a number of problems dormant (or seething, as the race case may be) under the glossy wallpaper. Persistent, albeit gradually decreasing, racist sentiment in Australia is often compounded by the different ways countries of the region read a political situation. The current race debate, initiated by offensive utterances of federal independent member of Oxley, Pauline Hanson, clearly illustrates this picture of cross-purpose interpretations.

After Australia's long honeymoon with Asian countries under the Keating government, the race debate must have jolted and reminded many Asians, in the government as well as in the community at large, that racist views in Australia are still alive and well. These Asians followed with incredulity the reports of Pauline Hanson's maiden speech in parliament last month, accusing the government of pouring unproportionately large funds into Aboriginal communities, and calling on the government to stop Asian migration. Hanson claimed that the country was going to be swamped by Asians, which she tagged with unflattering adjectives, using data so inaccurate it would be embarrassing to quote in this article.

As if that were not bad enough, there was no immediate rebuke or repudiation from Prime Minister John Howard. Cries of outrage came from Aboriginal and Asian communities. The only official rebuke, and a mild one at that, was from Deputy Prime Minister, who is also minister for trade, Tim Fisher. Fisher warned that Hanson's inflammatory comments could damage trade relations with Asian countries. However Fisher did not receive support from Howard, who even said that his government was for freedom of speech, and would discourage accusing those who spoke their opinions of being "racist bigots".

It is also a fact that repudiation did not come immediately from Labour opposition leader, Kim Beazley, either. It is possible that both Howard and Beazley realized that racism was not as insignificant an issue in the political arena as many had begun to believe. Rather, it is a boil under the skin waiting to surface, which could become a festering sore growing out of control. So they waited, foolishly it seems, hoping that the Hanson outburst would quickly blow away and be forgotten. When it instead grew into a series of debates, more emotional than rational, they began to assess and try to control the damage, not very successfully.

Another factor that may have caused this reluctance on Howard's part is his own record. Ten years ago Howard publicly supported Professor Geoffrey Blainey's views that Australia's Asianisation should be checked, and that there should be a major reduction in Asian migration. He has tried to redeem himself since then. In his pre-campaign campaign late last year, Howard admitted that he had been wrong, and that he now had different views about the contribution of Asian migrants to Australia. However, being basically a conservative and honest man, Howard would feel uncomfortable affecting a complete U-turn. He still maintains that Australia does not have to downgrade its relations with Europe while engaging with Asia. This unfortunately projects to Asians a leader reluctant to commit his government to full engagement with Asia.

So Howard's belated repudiation of Hanson's parliamentary remarks has not helped rectify this image. While individual countries in Asia show differing degrees of disappointment, they have one thing in common. They all believe that if the government were genuine about valuing its relations with Asian countries, Hanson's remarks would have been repudiated immediately by the person holding the highest political power, namely John Howard. In the meantime Hanson, while being isolated in the parliamentary circles, gathered support in the populace. She has tapped the fear and insecurity of disenfranchised people in Australia. The fact that what we are seeing is the consequence of the world economic restructuring, too complicated and generally too distant to grasp. The politics of scapegoating is not the monopoly of any particular nation. It is easy and instantly gratifying. There are particular groups to blame, targeting especially visible ones in the community.

The damage to trade relations may not have been serious, because business entrepreneurs are pragmatists. They have no doubt included racist attitudes in their risk assessments. Few things surprise them. The same cannot be said about Australia's export in education services. For parents thinking of spending large sums of money sending their children to Australian schools and universities, these racist elements in the country are much more immediate and relevant. Who would want to pay to send their teenage children to a place where they may be exposed to stress caused by racist attitudes? Why send them to this place when there are other places competing for their money?

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Trade Minister Tim Fisher may have a difficult task in their damage control trips to Asia, but Education Minister Amanda Vansione's job is certainly tougher.