Howard expected to win by exploiting latent hostility

Howard expected to win by exploiting latent hostility

On Nov. 10, Australians are going to vote to retain the
present Federal Government, or bring in a new one. Whoever is
going to win office will have to begin work on improving
relations with Indonesia, which are in all-time low at present.

Dr Robert Manne, Associate Professor in Politics at La Trobe
University, Melbourne, talked to contributor Dewi Anggraeni on
the background and the prospects for political change should the
present Coalition Party or the Labor Party win. His recent books
are The Barren Years, John Howard and Australian Political
Culture, and In Denial, both published this year.

The following are excerpts of the interview:

Question: Who do you think will win?
Answer: On balance, I think Coalition is more likely to win than
Labor. And because of the border control issue, it is not
unlikely that they'll win very handsomely, as some opinion polls
indicated. On the other hand, some opinion polls indicated that
it could be a close win for the Coalition.
Does that mean that most Australians agree with the Coalition
government's stance on border control?

If you look at opinion polls going back for 20 years, you'll
see that there has been unease about migration questions, that
is, the extent and the composition of migration. There is a lot
of hostility to certain parts of Aboriginal reconciliation.

So there has been a lot of potentiality for a long time for
political parties to take advantage of popular moods in regards
to immigration questions, and in relations to cultural things
like reconciliation.

But I think what has happened is that all governments from the
time of Malcolm Fraser (1975-1983, Liberal-National Coalition) to
the time of Paul Keating (Labor), realized that there was no
future for the country to try and stir up those latent feelings
of resentment and hostility to the outsiders.

And I think with the refugee questions the Howard government
has handled it in a way that it has stirred up those latent
feelings that have been there for 20 years or so.
Why did Kim Beazley (Labor Opposition leader) support the latest
Migration and Border Control Bills in September? Wouldn't you
expect him to be more sympathetic toward migrants and refugees?

I think by the time that it had all happened, on the eve of
the election, he probably didn't have any alternative if he
wanted to have any chance at all.

If the Labor Party had opposed those Bills, they would have
been used overwhelmingly and mercilessly by the Coalition as the
big issue of the election, to corner the Opposition. That is
what's so depressing.
So you think Labor was pushed into supporting the bills?

I myself think that Labor is to blame for being in that
situation. For two or three years they have been going extremely
softly on the questions of the refugee detention centres and the
breaches of human rights that I believe have been involved, in
the way that the asylum seekers have been treated.

And for two or three years Labor has in general underplayed
things like multiculturalism, engagement with Asia, and
Aboriginal reconciliation. By their silence, they've been rather
complicit for the build-up of the the atmosphere which has been
there, ready to exploit. I think they could have opposed the
cultural drift much more strongly.
Why have they been so reticent on those issues?

I think everyone in Australian politics got a shock, not only
when the (Paula) Hanson phenomenon began, but when (her) One
Nation Party did so well in the Queensland election in 1998, when
it got almost a quarter of the votes.

That probably gave both Coalition and Labor a big shock,
giving them a feeling that there was resentment and an ugly mood
in a part of the electorate, so they believed that they couldn't
win office if they alienated that part of the electorate.

My view is, that ever since that time, it has been common
wisdom on both sides of politics, that you have to appease, to
some extent, the mood of that part of the electorate. And they
think because of that the Coalition had been able to gain and the
Labor had been gradually losing. I think Labor has made a big
strategic miscalculation, thinking that they could sneak into
office without opposing the cultural drift toward greater
xenophobia, and greater illiberalism.
Relations with Indonesia are in the all time low at the moment.
Would a Labor government do better in terms of engagement with
Asia, particularly with Indonesia?

I agree entirely with you that relations with Indonesia are
about as bad as I can ever remember. John Howard would like to
say that it was entirely to do with East Timor. But I think
that's untrue. There has been a lack of understanding, and a lack
of ability to see things through the eyes of the Indonesian
government and people.
Indonesia sees Howard as being very off-hand about anything to do
with Indonesia. He says publicly what he wants Indonesia to do,
even before approaching Indonesia. Is this lack of respect in
relations to Indonesia obvious to Australians in general?

I know the history of Australia reasonably well, and I can say
this. We've never had a prime minister who has less understanding
of foreign relations or diplomacy. Never. There has never been a
leader so uninterested and so out of his depth, in foreign
relations.

Another thing is Australia has not got a well-developed
tradition of public discussions of foreign affairs. Our
discussion of economic matters is 10 times more sophiscated than
our discussion of foreign policy or foreign relations.

It is partly because we've been so isolated for so long from
most of the world. And for a very long time we rely on the
judgement of the British and later on, the Americans, for the
fundamental understanding of strategic situations.

We have a very under-developed capacity for foreign relations,
and also a very underdeveloped pulbic opinion. It's a terrible
combination. People like Richard Woolcott (former Australian
ambassador to Indonesia), or hundreds of other experts on foreign
relations with Asian countries, are appalled by what's happening,
but can't communicate effectively with the Australian people, to
give them a sense of how much damage has been done.

To the extent that John Howard for example, can deny the
significance of the cool relations with President Megawati at
APEC (the recent Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit),
blaming it on cultural differences. And the public are unaware of
how mendacious it all is.

I get the feeling that in relations to the recent boatpeople
issues, the Australian government is treating the Indonesia
government with incredible condenscension, without the slightest
understanding that it is a matter of showing respect when you
deal with another country. That comes from a country without the
rudimentary understanding of different cultures.
Would Labor do better in foreign relations, especially in terms
of relations with Indonesia?

I do think that because of the period of (former Labor prime
ministers) Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, Labor now has a tradition
in which it has a much more substantial relationships with
Indonesia. Though things have changed post-Soeharto, there are
memories, traditions and instincts to be drawn upon.

And the very fact that Labor did not associate itself with
Howard in these issues, opens the possibility for a fresh start.
And I think Jakarta would hope that a corner could be turned. At
least that is one area of foreign policy that is not consensual.
Labor has made it clear that relations with Indonesia have been
unnecessarily frayed.
What do you think of Beazley's stance on immigration?

I disagree with it entirely. But if he won the election, his
government wouldn't repeal the border control legislation, but
wouldn't necessarily use it. And I don't know what the chances
are of it happening, but I would have thought they would get rid
of the Pacific Island solutions. And I think they will make every
effort to have constructive discussions with Indonesia, and
realize that they have to make a generous offer about increasing
the number of intake of Afghan and Iraqi asylum seekers, and
overcome the people smuggler problems.
If you think the Coalition would win this election, what do you
think Beazley would have to do to make a big leap?

I don't think he could do anything now. As I said, it's a
strange election, because many of the most of the important
issues aren't discussed. The issues about the war and the asylum
seekers have now been put into a corner. They're overshadowing
the election but they're not really discussed during the
election. The other difficulty for the Labor Party is that,
because the Coalition has spent a lot of money on things like the
petrol excise, first home buyers' scheme, and subsidy to the
private health costs. Labor can't challenge those things without
losing public support. On the other hand they have no prospective
budget surpluses to make offers with.

By beating the nationalist drum, and by spending big in its
last year of office, the Howard government has been able to box
Beazley into a corner. That's why, I think, he can't speak about
issues such as foreign relations, or make any big offers. The
only thing he can hope for is an anti-Coalition resentment, which
has been neutralized by the border control issue.