IS KEVIN Rudd biting off more than he can chew with his idea to establish a European Union-type organisation in Asia? Is the Prime Minister hoping Australia becomes a leading player in any new forum?
If so, do we risk stretching ourselves diplomatically too thinly as we establish ourselves, according to Rudd's own agenda, as a leading middle power?
His Labor predecessors Bob Hawke and Paul Keating (both heavily engaged with Asia as prime ministers) are certainly sceptical. Yet Rudd, in some ways, is merely following a long foreign policy tradition among Labor PMs.
Labor has a proud history of engagement with Asia, and especially China, stretching back to John Curtin's concession that only the United States, and not Great Britain, could assist Australia in the Pacific War.
The ALP, in opposition in the 1950s, soon called for the recognition of mainland China as the legitimate government of all China, including Taiwan. But this was when prime minister Robert Gordon Menzies saw Asia as just a stopover on his way to watch the Ashes at Lord's, and when the Western world shunned the Peoples Republic of China as a communist Red Menace.
Gough Whitlam soon took up the China cause and, on winning the 1972 federal election, established diplomatic relations with the PRC and much of the eastern European bloc.
Hawke continued Labor's love affair with Asia when he established the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum. But it was Keating who fine-tuned this relationship, with a special emphasis on Indonesia.
The point is, these developments in the Australia-Asia relationship were cultivated over a long period of time and after much deliberation.
By contrast, it appears Rudd's plan for an Asian Union was thought up and announced so quickly, and without wide consultation, that even revered ex-diplomat Richard Woolcott, given the task of leading the plan, apparently was given just a few hours' notice.
Is this indicative of how Australian foreign policy is now formulated? Or, indeed, does Australia have a single foreign policy direction at all? Remember, this announcement comes just months after the new PM launched Australia's bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Just where is Australia's foreign policy focus?
But if Rudd's rapid delivery of new ideas has caused consternation at home, his apparent pre-occupation with China causes more worry abroad.
Rudd, of course, was built for China. His university studies majored in Chinese, and he served out a good part of his diplomatic career in Beijing. He is lauded in international circles as the only Mandarin-speaking Western leader, and he is naturally venerated by the Chinese who even bestowed an affectionate Chinese nickname, Lu Kewen.
But it's just as natural other Asian nations, including Japan, should wonder if Australia's new PM is a little blinkered.
Rudd assures us Australia's relationship with Japan is in top shape. But, after Rudd's alleged snubbing of Tokyo during his first major international trip this year, some aren't so sure. Watch out for some quick and fancy fence-mending over the next couple of days.
We've already seen, for example, Rudd moderate his language on how the international community should deal with Japan's whaling interests.
Closer integration in the Asian region is as commendable as it is inevitable.
But is the EU model right for the antipodes? Probably not. European members share much in common including – at least among some – religion, borders and a commitment to liberal democracy. These similarities have created sufficient certainty and familiarity among member states to introduce free trade, freer movement of peoples and a common currency.
Cultural and, more critically, political differences between Asian states would make the EU model unworkable, at least in the medium term. Can Australia really see itself in a close political relationship with, say, Burma?
Rudd must resist the temptation to fly new foreign policy ideas even before the ink on previous plans has dried. His Government must settle on a single path and stick to it. A government with an international reputation for skittishness does itself no favours at all.
If so, do we risk stretching ourselves diplomatically too thinly as we establish ourselves, according to Rudd's own agenda, as a leading middle power?
His Labor predecessors Bob Hawke and Paul Keating (both heavily engaged with Asia as prime ministers) are certainly sceptical. Yet Rudd, in some ways, is merely following a long foreign policy tradition among Labor PMs.
Labor has a proud history of engagement with Asia, and especially China, stretching back to John Curtin's concession that only the United States, and not Great Britain, could assist Australia in the Pacific War.
The ALP, in opposition in the 1950s, soon called for the recognition of mainland China as the legitimate government of all China, including Taiwan. But this was when prime minister Robert Gordon Menzies saw Asia as just a stopover on his way to watch the Ashes at Lord's, and when the Western world shunned the Peoples Republic of China as a communist Red Menace.
Gough Whitlam soon took up the China cause and, on winning the 1972 federal election, established diplomatic relations with the PRC and much of the eastern European bloc.
Hawke continued Labor's love affair with Asia when he established the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum. But it was Keating who fine-tuned this relationship, with a special emphasis on Indonesia.
The point is, these developments in the Australia-Asia relationship were cultivated over a long period of time and after much deliberation.
By contrast, it appears Rudd's plan for an Asian Union was thought up and announced so quickly, and without wide consultation, that even revered ex-diplomat Richard Woolcott, given the task of leading the plan, apparently was given just a few hours' notice.
Is this indicative of how Australian foreign policy is now formulated? Or, indeed, does Australia have a single foreign policy direction at all? Remember, this announcement comes just months after the new PM launched Australia's bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Just where is Australia's foreign policy focus?
But if Rudd's rapid delivery of new ideas has caused consternation at home, his apparent pre-occupation with China causes more worry abroad.
Rudd, of course, was built for China. His university studies majored in Chinese, and he served out a good part of his diplomatic career in Beijing. He is lauded in international circles as the only Mandarin-speaking Western leader, and he is naturally venerated by the Chinese who even bestowed an affectionate Chinese nickname, Lu Kewen.
But it's just as natural other Asian nations, including Japan, should wonder if Australia's new PM is a little blinkered.
Rudd assures us Australia's relationship with Japan is in top shape. But, after Rudd's alleged snubbing of Tokyo during his first major international trip this year, some aren't so sure. Watch out for some quick and fancy fence-mending over the next couple of days.
We've already seen, for example, Rudd moderate his language on how the international community should deal with Japan's whaling interests.
Closer integration in the Asian region is as commendable as it is inevitable.
But is the EU model right for the antipodes? Probably not. European members share much in common including – at least among some – religion, borders and a commitment to liberal democracy. These similarities have created sufficient certainty and familiarity among member states to introduce free trade, freer movement of peoples and a common currency.
Cultural and, more critically, political differences between Asian states would make the EU model unworkable, at least in the medium term. Can Australia really see itself in a close political relationship with, say, Burma?
Rudd must resist the temptation to fly new foreign policy ideas even before the ink on previous plans has dried. His Government must settle on a single path and stick to it. A government with an international reputation for skittishness does itself no favours at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment