Australia in Asia
Cutting the old ties and making new ones
Australia’s geographic location has provided many benefits to its population over a long period of time. With the Indigenous occupants having lived in almost total isolation for over 60,000 years, they managed to develop a unique culture with far less available resources than their neighbors to the north. This has meant that the Australian continent remained an island both literally and figuratively for this period. With the rise of naval exploration and empires, Australia found itself now being part of an empire controlled from the other side of the world. These ties would remain in place for around 200 years as a type of parent/child relationship existed between colony and master. With the inevitable rise of many Asian nations, particularly since the end of World War Two in 1945, Australia has slowly turned more to the region it occupies in a geographic, and not just a cultural sense. This essay will discuss what factors have led this to occur in the last 40 years and what actions have been taken with different foreign policies by successive Australian Governments to expedite this.
Following the widespread devastation of Europe in World War Two, and the demise of the United Kingdom as an economic force, Australia need to look elsewhere for trading partners. Although already trading with Asia and the United States, these two regions became target destinations for Australian produce and minerals. Australia’s post war Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, has been viewed by many as having a negative attitude towards Asia. However, the actions of the Menzies Government do not fully support this claim. During his term as Prime Minister, 1949–1966, trade with Asia increased and Australia supported this by establishing eleven new embassies or high-commissions in the region to foster better relationships with Australia’s closest neighbors. This was further highlighted in 1950 by the then Foreign Minister, Percy Spender, that there was a need for Australia to “orientate its foreign policy towards Asia’. This is somewhat in conflict to the ‘White Australia Policy’ for immigration at the time that promoted a European centric culture.
Despite the efforts of the Menzies Government, there has been a strong dependence by Australia to support Britain and Europe when it comes to security as these nations have been powerful regarding global politics. This doctrine seems particularly evident when it comes to the Australian conservatives, the Liberal Party. Even with Menzies pragmatic approach to new opportunities in Asia, there has been evidence of the following Liberal leaders looking to solidify relationships with traditional partners. This is through the ongoing support of ANZUS alliance. John Howard was critical of previous Labor Governments and their foreign policies that he felt focused too much on Asia. Howard then further exacerbated the issue by damaging Australia’s relationship with Indonesia by taking part in the East Timor trouble and stating that Australia should be prepared to act as the United States “deputy sheriff” in the region. As an astute leader, Howard was tapping in to the public sentiment about the need for the US alliance. A Lowy Institute poll showed that 70% -87% of the Australian public believed the alliance was a foreign policy priority for the country. Tony Abbott did reverse some of this trend by making his first as Prime Minister to Indonesia and then attending an Asia Pacific Economic Forum (APEC) meeting in Bali.
The above gives some context to how Australia has viewed its location in Asia and as part of the ‘Western World’. To discuss further the foreign policies of different governments, it’s relevant to look at other background issues. Australia’s approach to its northern neighbors can be viewed as quite progressive in the context of the inter nation relationships between many South East Asian states. Many postcolonial Asian leaders had little interest in dealing with their neighbors and only through continued economic growth did they start to see the benefit of developing closer links. Not that Australia is to be having altruistic concerns in its foreign policy development though. There has been a steady stream of politicians and diplomats that stated that Australia’s foreign policy is driven by self-interest and to promote national interests. However, the evolution from an Anglo centric culture and society that was more focused on inward looking policies to that of a more collaborative nation within the region has occurred over the past decades. The challenge for Australia has been to separate this more open approach from one that is still viewed as being of self-interest regarding security and trade, to one that is seen as culturally interested and keen to be part of the region.
There has been ongoing desire by some Australian states to have a greater focus on Asia as a trading partner and make sure the relation is binding through foreign policy action. The resource rich states have seen increases in demand from China and this has fueled development in these states and also for the mining companies that benefit. On the downside though is the impact that opening up of trade with Asia has had with manufacturing sector. Managing the needs of the country as a whole is the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Any attempt to deal with foreign states is handled by them make sure that no foreign policy is compromised through internal discord.
If we are to look at the Labor Governments of the past forty years, there is evidence that suggests a far greater desire to steer Australian foreign policy towards Asia. Whether some of this foresight is due to the growing economies in Asia and uncertainty about possible militarization or just the greater need for continued trade to benefit Australia. At the 1973 Tokyo Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Australia reduced its tariff rate by 25% and started to assist accelerating the opening up of the Australian economy. This move signaled to the region that an Australia with a foreign policy in line with the region was keen to be a part of and influence development. As the region gained further momentum and the reduction of tariffs for goods to Australia, there was an increase in more imported finished goods. These included cars, electrical goods and electronic products. This greater industrialization in Asia resulted in more countries in the region improving their product offerings as they acquired greater technology.
The Labor Governments of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, realizing what was happening in Asia, took steps to make sure that Australia was to be a part of this regional growth. One of the foreign policy initiatives included was the Button Plan, aimed at the automotive industry and the removal of protective tariffs. A program was initiated in Australian schools that was designed to help future generations become more culturally aware towards Asia. This was the National Asian Languages Study in Australia (NASLAS), one that was ultimately abandoned by the Howard government. It was during this period that Australia proposed the setting up of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) for the promotion of free trade throughout the region. The 1995 signing of the Indonesian Security Agreement demonstrated a further commitment to our closest neighbor. It was during this time that Australia’s Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans, worked tirelessly to promote the governments initiatives and policies in the region. There is no doubt that the above actions taken by Hawke and Keating were a deliberate and overt attempt to shift the thinking of Australians from being a British colony, reliant on an alliance with the US, to one that accepted its geographic location and could build an identity based on integrating with Asia neighbors.
There has been some resistance within the region to Australia projecting itself in to Asia. The Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamed, worked against Australia’s efforts to participate in a number of regional institutions, these included the East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC) and being excluded in the Asia-Europe summit meeting in 1996. His main opposition to Australia was its association with Britain and the US. This coincided with some domestic resistance from the public to be more integrated with Asia and resulted in the election of John Howard as Prime Minister, who then set about unwinding many of the initiatives that had been implemented. It would take another Labor government to be elected in 2007 under Kevin Rudd before closer bonds with Asia were once again part of the foreign policy mandate. A broader issue in the region is to do with the decolonization of many Asian nations from the past. This may be a factor that influences how Australia is viewed by Asian states who have re-established their own cultural identities and see Australia, in its recent historical form, as a reminder of previous colonial masters.
As can be seen from the above discussion, much of Australia’s foreign policy can be summed up as being formed around economic interests, security and identity. These factors are what drove Australia to be involved in the peace process in Cambodia in the 1980’s, It’s leadership role in the East Timor crisis, involvement in the Asian financial crises. The 2004 tsunami was also a major step for Australia in demonstrating to the region the willingness to support its neighbors, even when the Howard government that had stepped back from the region. There is a history of also encouraging regional support through APEC, under Hawke, and involvement with ASEAN, which goes back to the Whitlam government of 1974.
There is little doubt that Australia has made an effort to be seen as member of the Asian community through several foreign policy initiatives over the last 40 years. Even as far back as the Menzies government, there was a recognition that the region offered an opportunity for Australia economically. Our geographic location has meant that it is only natural for us to foster and support growth in the region. There has been a shift in global security in the past few years as terrorism becomes a major factor in foreign policy development and I have not ventured in to how this has been managed but it must be acknowledged that the current Turnbull government has shaped some of their foreign policy around this possible threat. The rise and rise of China and other nations within the Asia region will require Australia to maintain a dynamic foreign policy agenda to be agile enough to respond to any changes that occur in the region. It is fair to say that the unwinding of the ‘White Australia Policy’ has seen the cultural and ethnic mix within Australia become very cosmopolitan and supports our place as part of and within Asia.
