Yesterday we looked at Australia's White Paper on the Asian Century. We
present another view.
The Australian Prime Minister
Julia Gillard Sunday released a long-awaited white paper, Australia in the
Asian Century, which has mostly been praised extravagantly by the Australian
media. The white paper basically affirms that Australia's future lies with Asia
and that consequently immense economic opportunities exist to grab.
The paper hinges the nation's
strategy of becoming a competitive force within the region through skills
development, innovation, infrastructure, the tax system, regulatory reform, and
environmental sustainability.
However, before a nation can
become a competitive force, it must have an accepted place in the region. On
this key strategy the White paper does little more than make a rally call to
Australians to come out and make it happen. The paper also reeks of
Austrocentrism, in which most of the points made are written with the
expectation that Australia will win from closer ties with Asia without
necessarily giving much back in exchange - such as Australia having closer ties
with Asian universities in order to attract students and skilled workers.
Rather one-way to say the least.
The Australian China-US dilemma
Not surprisingly, the document
still reaffirms Australia's loyalty to the United States. This could be seen as
Premier Julia Gillard's metaphoric statement of "all the way with
LBJ".
Historically the US is seen as a
savior from invasion by the Japanese during WWII and consequently there has
been a total commitment to US foreign policy from successive Australian
governments through the cold war until the present time. The ANZUS Treaty that
embodied these commitments has brought many foreign policy mistakes to
Australia and probably cost Australia its own persona in Southeast Asia.
In addition, although Australia
could be considered a richly multicultural society today, many Asians still
have a negative impression because of the old white Australia policy, its
treatment of indigenous people, the race-baiting politician Pauline Hansen and
the latest policies on boat arrivals of asylum seekers.
In contrast, although China is
now so important for trade, investment and tourism that Australia is
unconsciously niggling China with its staunch loyalty to the US. China saved
Australia from a deep recession with demand for minerals whereas the US brought
the Australian government nothing but headaches over involvement in Iraq and
Afghanistan. In addition, it appears the US had a different rule for Australia
from other allies. The Australian government has been expected to follow US
foreign policy unquestioningly. Each prime minister since John Curtin during
World War II has kowtowed to the US, seeking a close presidential relationship
in the belief that this was in the best domestic and foreign interests.
Certainly a close personal
relationship with the incumbent US president has been regarded important.
Conversely, Kevin Rudd's prowess at speaking Mandarin was not good enough to
develop the China relationship, as the relationship is much more complex than
mere small talk.
China would prefer to deal with
an Australia with a mature and independent foreign policy rather than an
enthusiastic supporter of US foreign policy. Precedent shows that China does
not necessarily expect blind allegiance but would like to see Australian
decisions more in line with its own realities rather than someone else's.
However looking today at both major parties in Australian politics this is
highly unlikely. In addition the punishment dished out by the US government to
the David Lange government in New Zealand in the mid-1980s is a deep lesson
about what happens to the disobedient.
From the US perspective,
Australia is a nice ally to have, one it can rely upon on the international
stage, which will be important as Australia takes up a temporary security
council seat at the UN. With the Obama visit to Canberra and Darwin last year
and the stationing of troops in Australia, the country has some importance to
the US until it can establish more substantial bases closer to China.
China as an ally presents less of
a dilemma than the US, as China has historically always allowed some deviation
from official Chinese foreign policy. For example China does allow Australia
and other nations to have separate relationships with Taiwan and different
approaches to regional issues without making these differences major. Maybe
Australia can learn from the Indonesian approach of dynamic equilibrium, a
doctrine in which Washington and Beijing would agree to co-exist rather than
compete for supremacy in the region.
Australia is also finding it
difficult to accept that there are other views in the world other than the
occidental position on detente and human rights that it expects within the
region. Many Australians cannot understand why so many Chinese so strongly
support their government’s position on many issues like Tibet, and how people
can accept a communist system.
Australia's relationship Asia
After decades of successive
government foreign and trade policy, Australia still does not have an embedded
position within Asia. It has been historically viewed as occasionally
condescending and arrogant with its attitudes towards human rights when its own
practices in matters like the detention of boat people are regarded by some as
hypocritical.
The influence of Australian
business and financial institutions in the region is minor, nowhere near the
critical mass needed to become a competitive force. Australia at this time has
only a very low profile in the Asian banking and finance sector. The only
exception is in the mining sector, which to all intents and purposes has made
the Australian economy very dependent upon Asian demand, particularly China.
Back in the 1990s, the then Prime
Minister Paul Keating stated that Australia is part of Asia and together with
the then foreign minister Gareth Evans made a concerted effort to embed
Australia within the region. This had some positive effect with Indonesia,
Cambodia, Laos, and East Timor with Australian policy working towards enhancing
peace and prosperity. But they had their setbacks over remarks about Malaysia's
former Premier Mahathir Mohamed which soured relations with that country for
years. However perceptively, all these gains were lost when John Howard came to
power in 1996, reaffirming the Canberra-Washington link, earning the label for
Australia as the US's deputy sheriff in Asia.
Australia needs the region more
than the region needs Australia. The Australian market is small compared to
other markets and of little interest to regional exporters who prefer to put
their efforts into the larger markets of China, Japan, EU, and the US. Other
hubs in the region are more conducive to becoming corporate HQ hubs than Sydney
or Melbourne. The only real interest Australia has for Asian investors been in
rent-seeking activities like real estate. Australia is the gateway to nowhere,
so cannot play the role as a hub like Singapore and Hong Kong have done.
Although the concept of Darwin as a gateway to Asia has been formally
recognized it remains to be seen what will actually be done about it.
With the rapidly changing nature
of the region and the shifting balance between the US and China within Asia,
the Austro-centric view of the region needs urgent revamping. Though the
country has deeply historical links with many parts of the region due to heroic
actions during the Second World War and the Malayan Emergency after that,
tragically these opportunities to further develop relationships were not
capitalized upon. White papers aside, it will be action and not words that are
important and China and the region will be surprised to see any real change,
although the intention and realization of the need is present within the
foreign policy Australian agenda.
However with Australia, old
habits die hard. It will take much more than a massive investment in skills and
education to be able to engage the region, let alone be competitive. One of the
paramount barriers Australia has to overcome is the deeply-set belief that its
own cultural values are not necessarily universally accepted across the region.
It's not about learning Asian languages but about understanding different points
of view, approaches and mindsets. Austrocentrism must take a back seat in
relationships around the region for Australia to be seriously considered.
Currently it's not.
The white paper is still haunted
by Australia's past. Maybe it's time for Australia to release the US security
blanket a little and become a mature and independent nation. However one fears
with the promise of a rise in real incomes from the Asian Century initiative
that the whole thing is just a pander to the domestic electorate. As the report
itself aspires, Asia is seen only as a means for Australian incomes to become
one of the top 10 per-capita ones in the world.
Rather, Ken Henry, the principal
author of the white paper appears to have placated the government's wishful
thinking for a positivist instrument that could be sold to the electorate,
which he may have done well. The paper has turned it into a promissory note for
a better future within Australia based upon the misconception that internal
capacity building will make Australia more competitive in Asia, being too
"fuzzy" about developing a real strategy to engage the region.
Building up capacities are only building capabilities. They are not strategies
within themselves.
On initial reading of the 312
page report there appears to be little new in it, and one could argue that
existing policy was used as a template. If this is correct then it will be
difficult for this white paper to garner bipartisan support, and it may be
fated to become another relic of a former government tossed out of office.
Presence and accommodation of
Asia to what Australia really has to offer is the vital key. This implies
showing the region that an independent Australia is truly willing to put its
lot in with Asia and not with the US. It is highly doubtful if anybody in the
region is looking at Australia with any more interest today.
Murray Hunter
Business & Investment Opportunities
YourVietnamExpert is a division of Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd, Incorporated in Singapore since 1994. As Your Business Companion, we propose a range of services in Strategy, Investment and Management, focusing Healthcare and Life Science with expertise in ASEAN. Since we are currently changing the platform of www.yourvietnamexpert.com, you may contact us at: sbc.pte@gmail.com, provisionally. Many thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment