The reasons for doing so are fairly self-evident. South-east Asia is Australia’s immediate neighbourhood and it’s consequently vital to Australia’s overall strategic position. Interestingly it’s not the grand strategic aspects of this relationship that have proved important though–it’s not the threat of invasion or the possible cutting of supply lines that’s been an issue with South-east Asia, but the problems associated with issues like terrorism and people smuggling. These are problems that need intelligence and diplomatic cooperation rather than grand alliances or massive defence spending.
How ideological would you say Australian foreign policy is, and looking ahead to the election, would you anticipate much of a change in foreign policy depending on which of the two main parties is in charge?
There are a number of aspects of Australian foreign policy that are bilaterally supported and I don’t think there are going to be huge differences in the kind of rhetoric that the two parties use. I think the interesting question will be how the two main parties deal with climate change, which plainly is not an issue that Australia can solve on its own.
One of the interesting aspects of the Rudd government in retrospect was what Australia might or might not be able to do about climate change. It’s clearly a crucial political as well as environmental issue, and the failure of Copenhagen was the beginning of the end as far as Rudd was concerned. Because he had set the rhetorical bar so high about the importance of the environment and the need to take international action, expectations were inevitably going to be unfulfilled. The political damage this caused Rudd clearly played a major part in his downfall. Australia has now lost two political leaders–Rudd and Turnbull–as a direct or indirect consequence of their attitude to climate change. This perhaps tells us something important about the nature of contemporary democratic politics generally, and it’s likely to influence debate in the coming election campaign, albeit indirectly. So I doubt that the kind of lofty rhetoric Rudd used will be repeated by either side in the election. I think both will be much more cautious about what they say they can do and I think there’ll be a greater focus on domestic issues as a consequence.
This is a pity. Rudd was certainly right about the importance of Australia’s international context and our dependence on more powerful states like the US and China. There is a major debate to be had about what a country like Australia could or should do in foreign policy, but I suspect that it’s not going to happen at this election. Sadly, it may be some time before these kinds of issues get the kind of airing that they really deserve.
Mark Beeson is Winthrop Professor in Political Science and International Relations at the University of Western Australia and co-author of ‘Securing Southeast Asia: The Politics of Security Sector Reform.’
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
david jones
the dugongs and sea turtles,
also need your aid,
as the illegal hunting,
you find before you laid,
check upon the website,
and you will see their plight,
make sure that the parties,
will put this wrong to right.