To be fully accepted in the Asia-Pacific region Australia needs a new foreign policy and a cultural change in the community. This will require a change in government.
The Australian Government faces one of the most crucial phases in modern history. As international relations shift apace, driven largely by the economic rise of China, India and other Asian nations, Australian foreign policy must change. Not only that: Australia’s people must undergo a cultural change. To maintain the status quo will ensure that Australia misses the boat to a secure, friendly and prosperous position in the world.
Australian foreign policy changed direction greatly following the election of John Howard’s Coalition Government in 1996. His predecessor, Paul Keating of the Labor Party, had vigorously tried to bring Australia and Asia closer together. Howard’s successes in 1996 and later elections were partly due to his appeasement of anti-Asian sentiments still lingering in a significant portion of the electorate since the days of the White Australia policy which ended in the early 1970s.
Howard made much of “Australian values” and a commonality of values that bound Australia to the rest of “Western civilisation” – particularly to the Anglophonic nations. The Howard approach to Asia was based on the notion of mutual respect and shared interest. In Beijing in 2000, Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer made it clear that Australia would cultivate “practical regionalism” with Asia but not “emotional regionalism”. He said that the latter was impossible for Australia because it had historical and ethnic and cultural differences with its neighbours.
This dogged aloofness towards Asia, coupled with Howard’s boots-and-all support for the leadership of the USA in the face of terrorism and the Iraq War, earned Australia the label of George Bush’s Deputy Sheriff in the region.
Cultural Change for Australia?
With a federal election due in late 2007, the Howard government is under serious challenge by the Labor Party under a new and highly popular leader, Kevin Rudd. This is immensely significant for international relations.
Howard has publicly espoused the notion that Australia should be a bridge, in foreign relations terms, between China and the USA. Rudd replies that this cannot be realised unless the culture in Australia changes radically. Understanding of Chinese culture and skills in the Mandarin Chinese language in Australia must become far more widespread.
Apart from English, study of any language in Australia has never been popular. In the 1990s under Paul Keating’s leadership considerable funding went to Asian Studies and Asian languages in education. The number of academics specialising in Asian Studies and enrolment in such courses rose significantly. In the Howard era, however, that trend was reversed.
Kevin Rudd, himself fluent in Chinese language and well-versed in Chinese history, now promises a new policy approach to education in languages other than English. The aim is to make them universal and effectively taught in schools while also ensuring those students with high ability get the chance to excel. In particular Rudd asserts that he wants to make Australia the most “China-literate” country in the western world and to extend this to understanding of other Asian nations.
US Vice-President Dick Cheney would have Australia, USA & Japan ally with India to “control” China. In contrast, the East Asian Summit in 2005, in which Australia participated, proposed an “East Asian community” rather similar to the European Union. It seems likely that Australia under Rudd would, while remaining an ally of the USA, encourage such a multi-lateral grouping that includes both China and itself.
Rudd’s proposed mind-shift within the Australian community through education – if successful – would help to support such a move on the international front. This will not occur under Howard, who continues to play Deputy Sheriff for the USA and portray Australia as an alien among northern neighbours.