Foreign policy tasks for next Australian govt

Tony Kevin, Member, Labour Party, Australian Federal Parliament, Part 1 of 2

The present juncture in Australian foreign policy is vital, but the issue for us is not the present U.S.-led anti-terrorism campaign. That is running itself, and except in our own inflated self-image, we are on the periphery. Our military role in the Indian Ocean is constrained because most of our Navy is otherwise engaged, rounding up pathetic boatloads of asylum-seekers and ferrying them 4,000 kilometres to Nauru.

And we seem to have no real diplomatic role in building the global coalition. When George Bush sought Megawati Soekarnoputri's understanding and support, he did not ask John Howard to help. We were not asked to help bring Japan or China on board either. It's worth thinking about -- why?

The incoming government next year -- whichever party it is -- will face major foreign policy challenges, of philosophy and of policies. The main areas of challenge remain what they have been for the past 55 years -- our region, and our role in the international system.

Rich and powerful states have less incentive to mediate their sovereignty than smaller and poorer states. Before Sept. 11, the United States was reluctant to compromise its sovereignty in international cooperation. Now it may be re-assessing its former exceptionalism, at least in the international security and justice areas.

Since 1945, Australia stood firmly on the internationalist side of this argument. Our leaders understood that as a small power, we benefited from strong, fair and reliable international regimes -- e.g., in trade, arms control, human rights, refugee movements. We accepted the constraints of international regimes, which we helped to negotiate, in order to persuade others to accept them also. This attitude -- and that the fact that we rarely if ever misled others in our international dealings -- made Australia a respected and influential player in the United Nations and its agencies.

But since 1996, we have progressively run down our credit. In the months leading up to the 1999 East Timor referendum, we misinformed and manipulated the UN. Since that vote, while we were quick to invoke the UN Charter and the Security Council's powers to mandate an international peacekeeping force, the Australian government has vehemently asserted its sovereignty when criticized for human rights abuses of aboriginals and asylum-seekers, and has claimed exceptionality on the Kyoto Convention.

When states claim exceptionality too often, they lose credibility and capacity to persuade others to accept constraints on their sovereignty. The counter-claim, of hypocrisy and double standards in the UN, misses the point. It is precisely because Australia seeks to improve international observance of liberal humanitarian codes of behavior, that it should, as a country that is affluent and socially advanced, set a good example to others.

It will be hard to rebuild Australia's global standing and influence, because negative images -- like our self-centered exceptionalism over Kyoto, and our administrative harshness and misrepresentation of the Tampa crisis -- will stick in international memories.

In our Asian region, it is a similar, though more complex, story of underperformance. Perhaps there was some excess of zeal in our diplomatic style in the late 1980s and early 1990's, that struck some Asian countries as inappropriate. Yet our foreign policy activism helped achieve much good -- especially, in the Cambodian peace settlement and the building of Asian regional institutions APEC and the ASEAN Regional Forum.

When our government changed, our foreign policy style retained what was worst -- the desire to manage agendas, the complacent belief that Australian models are best for everyone -- and lost what was best -- the idealism, the genuine keenness to engage as equals in an expanding sphere of regional possibilities for cooperation. An incoming government needs to review the basic assumptions and objectives of our regional policies in Asia and the South Pacific, if it is not to go on making the same mistakes.

Looking over the past 55 years as a whole, there is still a feeling in the region that Australia has been a good neighbor. We have helped build the independence, security and prosperity of the region. Our foreign policies have been part of a larger positive engagement of Australians from many walks of life in the Asia-Pacific region. One saw this strongly in Cambodia and East Timor, in the fine work of Australian aid non government organizations.

Mostly, Australia has come to Asia as a helper and partner, not as a colonialist or military destroyer. We are still a valued member of important NGO networks in our region. Intangible assets of goodwill though neglected since 1996, remain strong. There is scope for the next Australian government to rebuild our regional standing and influence quite quickly, if it sends the right signals and sends them early.

This article is excerpted from a speech delivered on Sept. 27 at the Asia Link Center, Melbourne University, titled: "Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next Australian Government".