West Papua students ordered home from NZ
Kokoda: Angels & Diggers begat bureaucrats

Did Xi shoot the sheriff?

A Bush hails ‘sheriff Australia' (BBC News)
Bush hails ‘sheriff Australia' (BBC News). Every day looking more like the Sheriff of Nothingham

| The Village Explainer
| Courtesy Asia Pacific Report

“If we can’t respect the equal standing of nations, we can’t protect their integrity” – Dan McGarry

VILA - If the coming election goes to Australia’s Labor Party, Senator Penny Wong is very likely to become foreign minister.

So when she speaks, people across the region prick up their ears.

Without the least disrespect to her recent forebears, she could be one of the most acute, incisive and insightful foreign ministers in recent history.

Whether she’ll be any more effective than them is another matter.

Australia has a long tradition of placing prominent frontbenchers into the role, and then pointedly ignoring their efforts, their advice and their warnings.

It’s as if government leaders find their greatest rival and send them trotting off around the globe, more to keep them from making mischief at home than to achieve anything noteworthy while they’re gone.

In Australia, it seems, foreign policy is domestic policy done outdoors.

If she achieves nothing more, Wong would be well served to look closely at the people supporting her, and to spend considerable effort re-organising and in fact reinventing DFAT – the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Its disconnection from other departments, especially defence and the prime minister’s office, has created an internal culture that spends more time feeding on itself than actually helping produce a persuasive or coherent foreign policy.

Ensuring foreign policy’s primacy at the cabinet table is a big ask, but it will be for naught if the department can’t deliver. There are significant structural matters to be dealt with.

Rolling development and aid into the department was a significant regression that hampered both sides.

Volumes can be written about the need to distinguish development assistance from foreign policy, and many of them could be focused on the Pacific islands region.

The two are mostly complementary (mostly), but they must also be discrete from one another.

It’s far more complicated than this, but suffice it to say that development aid prioritises the recipient’s needs, while foreign relations generally prioritise national concerns.

The moment you invert either side of that equation, you lose.

Exempli gratia: Solomon Islands.

It’s well known that Australia spent billions shoring up Solomon Islands’ security and administrative capacity.

Surely after all that aid, they can expect the government to stay onside in geopolitical matters?

Applying the admittedly simplistic filter from the paragraph above, the answer is an obvious no.

Aid is not a substitute for actual foreign relations, and foreign relations is definitely not just aid.

So is Penny Wong correct when she calls the China-Solomons defence agreement a massive strategic setback? Sure.

Is she right to call Australia’s Pacific affairs minister Zed Seselja “a junior woodchuck”, sent in a last minute attempt to dissuade prime minister Manasseh Sogavare from signing the agreement?

The idea of a minister responsible for the complex, wildly diverse patchwork of nations spanning such a vast space has value.

But in terms of resources and policy heft, Seselja rides at the back of the posse on a mule.

A Senator Penny Wong (ABC)
Senator Penny Wong (ABC). Shaping up to be "one of the most acute, incisive and insightful foreign ministers"

There are good reasons to devote an entire office to Pacific affairs.

There are also blindingly good reasons to keep the foreign minister as the primary point of contact on matters of foreign policy.

That means the role—and yes, the existence—of the Pacific affairs ministry needs a ground-up reconsideration. Notionally it fulfills a critical role. But how?

It’s fair to say that Wong is more insightful than those who describe Solomon Islands as a flyspeck in the Pacific, or a Little Cuba (whatever the F that means).

But in the past, Labor’s shown little insight into the actual value and purpose of foreign policy.

For the better part of four decades, neither Australian party was fussed at all about the fact that there had been few if any official visits between leaders.

Prime ministers regularly blew off Pacific Islands Forum meetings.

In Vanuatu’s case, the first ever prime ministerial visit to Canberra was in 2018. Why aren’t such meetings annual events?

Australia is rightly proud of its pre-eminence in development assistance in the Pacific islands.

But that never was, and never will be, a substitute for diplomatic engagement.

And you can’t have that without a functioning diplomatic corps whose presence is felt equally in Canberra and in foreign capitals.

But even that’s not enough.

Penny Wong has yet to show in concrete terms how she plans to address what could accurately be called the greatest strategic foreign policy failure since World War II: Leaving Australia alone to guard the shop.

In 2003, George W Bush was rightly vilified for characterising Australia’s role in the region as America’s sheriff.

But the Americans weren’t the only ones who walked away, leaving Australia alone to engage with the region.

The United Kingdom and the European Union (minus France in their patch) rolled back their diplomatic presence substantially.

Even New Zealand agreed to restrict its engagement in large areas in deference to its neighbour.

The most enduring presence was provided by organisations without any meaningful foreign policy role: UN development agencies and multilateral financial institutions.

Since the beginning of the War on Terror, there has been a consistent and often deliberate draw-down on the capital provided by democratic institutions, multilateral foreign policy, and indeed any collective course-setting among nations.

Post Cold-War democratic momentum has been squandered on an increasingly transactional approach to engagement that’s begun to look alarmingly like the spheres of influence that appeal so much to Putin and Xi.

This hasn’t happened in the Pacific islands alone.

The United Nations has become an appendix in the global body politic, one cut away from complete irrelevance.

ASEAN and APEC are struggling just as hard to find relevance, let alone purpose, as the Pacific Islands Forum or the Melanesian Spearhead Group.

Australia has ‘led’ in the Pacific islands region by being the largest aid donor, blithely assuming that all the other kids in the region want to be like it.

But that ‘leadership’ masks a massive gap in actual influence in shaping the agenda in a region that’s larger and more diverse than any other in the world.

The data’s there if people want it.

These views are not particularly contentious if you’re among the far-too-small group of people who actually live in and care about the future of the region.

In a regional dynamic defined and dominated by transactional bilateralism, China holds all the aces.

The only hope anyone has of slowing its growth in the region is through meaningful multilateralism that treats Pacific island countries as actual nations with national pride and individual priorities.

Instead of silencing them, their voices should be amplified and defended, not by Australia alone, but by every other democratic nation with the means and the will to do so.

If we can’t respect the equal standing of nations, we can’t protect their integrity.

Scott Morrison may indeed be one of the worst exemplars of this blithe disregard for actual foreign policy engagement.

He’s certainly won few friends with his world-class foot-dragging on climate change.

A Oz-Sheriff (Dan McGarry)
Oz-Sheriff (Pastiche by Dan McGarry). A sheriff that looks like being run out of the Pacific on a rail

America’s suddenly renewed interest in the region is an indication that they’ve woken up to the Bush administration’s mistakes.

It’s also clear they don’t trust Australia to play sheriff any more.

Kurt Campbell’s upcoming visit to the region is just the latest in a series of increasingly high profile tours of the region.

So yes, Penny Wong is justified in saying that China’s advances in the Pacific derive at least in part from Australia’s lack of a coherent and effective foreign policy.

But foreign policy is not made at home. It’s not Australia’s interests alone that matter.

Subjugating Pacific nations in compacts of free association isn’t a substitute for actual policy making.

Pacific Island nations will not defend Australia’s national interests unless they share those interests.

The only way that Australia—and the world—can be assured they do is by actively listening, and by incorporating Pacific voices into the fabric of a renewed and revitalised global family.

A dan
Dan McGarry

Dan McGarry was previously media director at Vanuatu Daily Post and Buzz FM96. The Village Explainer is his semi-regular newsletter analysing and providing insight on underreported aspects of Pacific society, politics and economics


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul Oates

The essence of the issue is in understanding where the obvious disconnection lies between Australia’s national interest and our current politician’s ideas about foreign aid.

The expectation that there will be a reciprocal feeling of warmth or friendship forthcoming from those to who aid is given, is based on a fallacy and has no basis in law. In fact, the reverse is more often the case.

By creating an obvious expectation that a notional debt is being established only exacerbates the increasing insult as the millions of dollars in aid mount up. Especially if it is the proverbial ‘boomerang aid’ that only pays for expensive consultants who achieve very little in long-term practical value to the nominated recipient.

Under the rules of reciprocity, when a large expectation of reciprocity is created, it may well create increasing bad feelings from those who are the recipients, if they have no easy way of actually discharging the obligation or of notionally repaying the inferred debt.

So those who draw attention to how wonderful Australia has been over the years to our Pacific neighbours, may well be simply creating further bad feelings, albeit from those people who are culturally not readily inclined to tell our politicians about the problem to their face. They are possibly too polite to point out what the Australian pollies should know or have been fully briefed about.

This convenient but possibly insulting Australian terminology of a ‘Pacific family’ also infers there are notional mums and dads as well as brothers and sisters, cousins and aunts and a host of ‘wantoks’ all of who may not feature in the concept of Australian politics. No doubt however, they do feature strongly in a representative collective brotherhood that may or may not include Australia.

New Zealand is often far more astute in understanding the involvement with the Pacific, no doubt due to the interaction of Mauri and Cook Island experience and culture.

Those who now seek to remonstrate about how the current fracas over the Solomons may affect our future national interests, might do better to actively seek out those who have a modicum of experience in actually understanding these matters. This might well come up with some better long-term objectives rather than seeking the current short term political gain during a General Election.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)