Australia's protracted ASEAN teething problems

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.