Asia Times: Australia's foreign policy bankruptcy


	September 13, 2001	atimes.com

Oceania

Australia's foreign policy bankruptcy

By Purnendra Jain

ADELAIDE - These are days of tremendous diplomatic fallout for Australia across the globe. Prime Minister John Howard and his Foreign Minister Alexander Downer have reminded Australian citizens countless times that the federal government's actions in relation to the 430 plus asylum seekers aboard the Norwegian vessel Tampa were in the national interest. Yet neither minister has explained what they identify as Australia's national interest.

"In the National Interest: Australia's Foreign and Trade Policy White Paper", launched by the present government in 1997, set out this government's view on the country's most substantial national interests. These lie in maintaining strong relations with four nations in the Asia-Pacific - Indonesia, China, Japan and the United States - nations which as key allies and supporters could be expected to offer their assistance to Australia during this refugee crisis. So how helpful have these nations, supposedly Australia's "best friends", been and what lessons can Australia draw for its security and foreign policies?

Last month, Howard travelled to the Indonesian capital Jakarta to reciprocate a visit by former president Abdurrahman Wahid. After meeting with his replacement, Megawati Sukarnoputri, the Australian premier described the relationship as one of "positive realism" underpinned by openness and candor. But events of the past week indicate clearly that this term and the accompanying flowery language come nowhere near describing the absence of cooperation - indeed, the outright tension now undermining the relationship.

When all other levels of diplomacy failed between Indonesia and Australia in relation to the fate of the asylum seekers, Howard attempted to speak to the Indonesian president for help in breaking the impasse. But he was badly snubbed. Megawati did not even bother to return his call, let alone provide help of any kind. Last week, Australia's foreign minister, defense and immigration ministers travelled to Indonesia to seek assistance with regard to asylum seekers, but the troika returned empty-handed.

China has, of course, been out of this picture since it is not, apart from North Koreans, a destination for people fleeing political persecution and human rights violations. Indeed, China itself generates a huge number of people who flee the country to seek asylum elsewhere. India is host to many thousands of such people, including the Dalai Lama. The flow of Chinese asylum seekers continues as human rights violations in China remain unabated. Who can forget the television footage of then prime minister Bob Hawke's tears at the time of the brutal state attack on thousands of Chinese people demonstrating against the government in 1989 and Australia's acceptance of more than 20,000 Chinese who at the time were living temporarily in Australia?

Although currently in economic turmoil, Japan is the world's second largest economy and Australia's largest trading partner. Apart from a bilateral relationship of "complementarity", and "creative partnership", the two countries have been at the forefront of establishing and strengthening regional institutions such as the Asia Pacific-Economic Cooperation forum and the ASEAN Regional Forum. But these linkages appear to concern only economic interests. Despite their declaration recently to improve capacity to respond to crises, apparently Australia did not even consult Japan for relief on the Tampa crisis.

Why is the world's second largest economy and Australia's key regional partner out of the loop in such a key area of regional and global, concern? It appears that the imperatives were there for Japan to step in willingly. Japan has a poor record on immigration policy and has accepted only a handful of refugees, so this could have been an ideal situation for its government to improve its track record through diplomatic means, if not through accepting the asylum seekers.

Japanese national Sadako Ogata until recent years served as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and one could assume an ongoing interest in this issue. Furthermore, Japan seems to have a constant need to demonstrate to the world that it is willing and able to go beyond a narrow mercantilist policy to win international recognition, especially to help secure the permanent position in the United Nations Security Council that it particularly covets. But not even these imperatives could force a significant Japanese contribution to resolving the Tampa crisis, let alone the desire to help out a close "strategic partner" and around 430 people on board the Tampa.

And the fourth of Australia's four important allies, the United States? Australia is one of the few nations that has agreed to support and participate in President George W Bush's National Missile Defense (NMD) program. While security against missiles is important to secure a country's territory and sovereignty, it is not clear that Australia even confronts a missile threat. Drug trafficking, terrorism, and as the Tampa debacle demonstrates, human trade confront Australia's security more than missile and rocket attacks. How much help did Australia receive from the US as its principal ally and security partner? None, going by media reports. Instead, the American media have been highly critical of the Australian government's handling of the crisis.

The main purpose of Howard's visit to Washington this week was to secure a free trade agreement between Australia and the US. While he reiterated his commitment to support the NMD and provide facilities in Australia, he could secure nothing for Australia. It is interesting to note that the premier did not even bring the issue of people smuggling to the attention of his US counterpart.

International organizations have responded with opprobrium to the Australian government's handling of the Tampa crisis. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan observed "this is not the way to handle a refugee situation" and UN High Commissioner for Refugees Mary Robinson has been scathing. Indeed, across Europe, and particularly Norway, condemnation of Australia has rung loudly.

The Howard government will be grateful - and obligated - to New Zealand for agreeing to accept some of the asylum seekers and Papua New Guinea and Nauru for their assistance with processing these people's applications. But how these deals are going to address the issue in the medium to long term is unclear. What is clear, though, is that the Australian government now plays chequebook diplomacy since it has agreed to bear all financial costs associated with transshipment, processing and resettlement of the asylum seekers in third countries.

Above all, this event has demonstrated the bankruptcy of Australia's foreign policy and the government's misguided understanding of our national interest. Australia is today a lonely country in search of good friends, and apparently with chequebook in hand if all else fails. New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and the tiny Nauru came to the rescue of Australia not because they are Australia's strategic partners or serve its national interest. New Zealand wanted to fill its annual quota of refugees and the two impoverished countries were promised huge economic assistance.

Australians will now learn the hard way the lessons of international diplomacy, and how crucial it is to assess accurately where Australia's national interests really lie. The country will also learn, at considerable financial and diplomatic expense, that good friends cannot simply be bought.

Purnendra Jain is a professor at Adelaide University's Centre for Asian Studies

((c)2001 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)