Foreign policy tasks for next Australian government

Tony Kevin, Member, Labor Party, Australian Federal Parliament

In recent years, Australian foreign policy-making has been increasingly dominated by economic and political rationalism: The cold calculus of national advantage, what's in it for us, why should we sacrifice ourselves to help others?

We've lost sight of the importance of human empathy in international relations. Ministers may at times pay lip service to these principles, but decision-making belies them: our Kyoto stance, our vindictive, costly and pointless banishment of asylum-seekers to the far reaches of the Pacific, our declining interest in South Pacific concerns, the wind-back of Radio and TV Australia.

This government's foreign policy rhetoric sends similarly unfriendly messages. We recall Alexander Downer's insensitive and profoundly mistaken proposition that Australia's common interests with the region are mainly commercial and economic, because we are culturally and historically so different. This was as damaging in its own way as was John Howard's triumphalism about superior Australian values after East Timor.

Then there is (Immigration Minister) Phillip Ruddock's language: Illegals, queue-jumpers, rich people cannot be real refugees, evil people-smugglers, traffickers in human cargo. Is anyone thinking at all about how this kind of rhetoric from Australian government ministers affects the way Australia is viewed in our region?

An incoming government needs to re-discover that in much of the world, including our region, economic rationalism is not the dominant value system. There remains a large place for courtesy, accommodating differences, a breaking of bread together, cherishing strong values of family and friendship.

So long as we project ourselves as hard-headed pursuers of national commercial advantage on what we choose to call "level playing fields", we will choke off much of our potential to build meaningful relationships with our neighbors. In a word, feelings matter: We need to bring humanity and mutual consideration back into our style of diplomacy. This is not dewy-eyed sentimentalism: It is the only real way to get things done in our region.

The recent proposition by John Howard -- just one day before the terrorist attacks -- that our country's most important and most natural affinities are with the United States -- did not sit well with the work Australia must do to rehabilitate the regional relationships that matter so much to our country's security.

It looked, again, like running away from our Asian region in which the U.S. rightly expects us to be the local experts. "It's your backyard", as Colin Powell pointedly reminded us a few months ago.

But clearly, John Howard's and Alexander Downer's personal comfort zones lie with societies that seem to them more like our own. However, this is a wrong-headed basis for Australian foreign policy. We are not cushioned in North America or the middle of Western Europe. Australia is a medium-sized country in the Asia- Western Pacific region.

We have our own story to write. We should recognize who we are, and not sentimentalize a claimed political or strategic identification with the U.S. We are a good friend and ally to the U.S., as the U.S. is to Australia.

But many countries -- all of NATO, and the Rio treaty members -- can say the same. The events of Sept. 11 remind us starkly of our common goal: to be part of an international community of nations at peace. To claim that Australia has a unique security relationship with the U.S. may be shrewd domestic politics here, but outside Australia it looks like a pathetic cop-out.

o Our relationship with Indonesia remains damaged by the fallout from Australia's role in the East Timor transition. Australia's peacemaking achievement in Interfet was marred by ineptitude or indifference to Timorese lives -- it is still not clear which -- in our pre-referendum diplomacy. We have begun to bury this troubled past. We have not resolved it. I believe that a truth and reconciliation process, also involving East Timor, will finally be needed if Australia-Indonesian relations are to be put on a healthy basis.

Australia continues to display megaphone diplomacy and cultural arrogance in its relations with Indonesia, as seen most recently over boat people. We should not ask Indonesia to lock up fellow Muslim refugees in detention centers in Indonesia, funded by Australia. Our language and argument -- seeking to criminalize a problem of human suffering -- is lacking in humanity. It comes back to the need for better manners and better empathy with Indonesia's situation and sensitivities.

The next Australian government should move to a more sensitive approach, built around generous Australian funding support for expanded UNHCR voluntary processing facilities in Indonesia, faster processing of refugees, and -- crucially -- generous Australian acceptance of significant numbers of people determined in those UNCHR facilities in Indonesia to be refugees. We should not punish refugees with second-class Temporary Protection Visa rights for getting to Indonesia under their own steam, and then going through UNHCR processing there -- we should be giving them incentives to do so. And we should not victimize Indonesian crews -- this could blow back on us in a big way.

o As Australia becomes more enmeshed in globalization and regionalization, foreign ministers need to show knowledge-based leadership in fostering a less fearful community dialogue on Australia's foreign engagements. It should not all be left to the Treasurer.

Neither Labor nor a new coalition government would find it easy to rebuild a larger national vision of foreign policy. Only a strong foreign minister could convince colleagues of the importance of this now sadly diminished portfolio to the national interest. Manifest institutional weaknesses in Australian foreign policy making include: Failure to educate the public on the real importance of foreign policy; the shrugging-off of expertise about countries that matter to us; the devaluation of professional skills in foreign policymaking and diplomacy.

This article is excerpted from a speech delivered on Sept. 27 at the Asia Link Center, Melbourne University.