Our place in the region

When Australia’s role in the Asia-Pacific comes to mind, first thoughts turn to our immediate neighbour, Indonesia, and the wake-up call of the Bali bombings. Also, to East Timor, the nation-in-need so close to Australia’s northern shores. The recent sending of troops to quell the violence in the Solomon Islands also serves as a reminder of Australia’s perceived role in the Pacific, if not Asia.

These incidences tell us that indeed Australia is here, alive and well, and acts and has an influence locally (Asia-Pacific) and is not just a mainstream friend of the US and the West.

“Australia is a Pacific nation,” says Clive Moore of the University of Queensland’s School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics, also speaking for the Australian Association for the Advancement of Pacific Studies. "Our future is bound by geographic proximity to the Pacific Islands. The nations around the Pacific Ocean, in the islands and on the Asian mainland, will be most important to Australia in the future, not our older links with Europe.”

East Timor

Australia behaves no differently from any other country when it comes to dependent neighbours, even though it may not bode well for our future. The treaty signed between Australia and East Timor in January is a typical example. Here’s a developed country with the know-how seeking to exploit an undeveloped country’s resources - oil and gas reserves in the East Timor Sea. The fine print in the treaty, or more likely the subsequent contracts drawn up, will reveal the true nature of the deal.

Australia needs to revamp its wimpish image when it comes to dealings with Indonesia - as in the case of granting 42 West Papuans asylum. A refugee is a refugee - political or economic. The responsible way to handle the affair is from a home base, not Christmas Island.

As to Indonesia’s claims and fears of secession by West Papua - any regional or cultural group has the right to self-rule. Such people have a right to be listened to, however, to change the situation in a positive way needs dialogue and use of the UN to achieve autonomy.

So if Australia thinks it wears big boots in the region, is it really filling them?

“Australia never has confronted Indonesia 'head on' over these issues,” says Scott Wilkie speaking for the Sydney-based Centre of Cultures. “We simply sends troops and police over to pick up the pieces after skirmishes. Our dialogue is poor with Indonesia over these issues. Indonesia claims sovereign rights to do as it sees fit, but ignores the human rights of the states that are demanding basic living conditions. Australia needs to pressure Indonesia into an 'attitude' change through trade restrictions, etc. Unless we stand up for the human rights abuses to our immediate north, we cannot, to speak metaphorically, 'fill the boots'.”

Australia could stave off the negative effects of the promises and then the realities of big money arriving on the shores of a fledgling democracy like East Timor - just two years old - by doing the deal in a transparent manner and assisting that “suddenly young” country to wisely handle the money.

Australia could be a good neighbour and still make a good profit by becoming a real friend of a nation that needs real friends and not by acting as a capitalistic short-term gold digger out for its own.

China

There is an interesting point when it comes to dealing with Asia and the Pacific: is Australia classed with the West (and Japan to a certain extent) in our dealings with Asia? Or, are relations better developed with Australia being seen as a regional, benign, co-operating country?

"Australia from the Chinese perspective is not an Asian country. It's a western country but close to Asia. It's a special partner, a special neighbour …" said Zhang Yun Ling, director of the Institute of Asia Pacific Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, (August 13, 2004) at the Asialink National Forum.

2005 started nicely for China-Australia relations when in April, during his fifth visit to China, Prime Minister John Howard announced Australia's recognition of China's full market economy status. Negotiations on an Australia-China bilateral free trade agreement were launched, “marking the start of a new stage of economic relations”, it was said.

However, the diplomat defections in 2005 spoilt the pie. Chinese diplomat Chen Yonglin defected to Australia in late May alleging the Chinese Government had up to 1,000 spies operating in Australia, a claim quickly refuted by the Chinese Government. A former security officer who also defected, Hao Fengjun, came forward to support Chen's claims a few days later. Chen was granted a permanent visa in July: a decision criticised by Beijing.

But all this is small stuff compared with the potential the future holds. Yet it does point out the common practice of nations spying on each other - not a worthy pursuit. How can trust and trade be developed while spying and industrial espionage are accepted practices? It might be common practice but spying is not on.

Australia will begin delivering liquid natural gas to China's Guangdong province next year as part of a $25 billion (US$19 billion) supply contract - Australia's largest-ever export deal. Wu Bangguo, chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress visited Sydney in May 2005, and began negotiations on a free trade agreement between the two countries.

A deal was struck last April for Australia to sell uranium to China. Meanwhile the Australian Government is also considering selling yellowcake (uranium concentrate) to India. But environmental groups are implacably opposed to any expansion of uranium mining and condemn nuclear energy as dangerous, dirty and costly.

Amid lingering public disquiet over the safety of nuclear power, the government is enthusiastically backing uranium mining. These days governments, even in the most authoritarian of nations, ignore their public at their peril.

However, seldom have governments or businesses considered the long-term effects of their decisions when there is much money to be made. It’s a toss up whether India or China is the best bet so why not go both ways ... neither is a “safe bet”.

The deal was given the green light after China signed a nuclear safeguards document under which it pledged to use the uranium only for the production of electricity. The agreement conjoins Australia's mineral reserves - it has 40 per cent of the world's uranium deposits - with China's aims. This includes building 30 nuclear reactors by 2020 to meet China’s rapidly growing power needs.

But critics say it is very difficult for Canberra to ensure its uranium will not end up being used in the manufacture of nuclear warheads and the sale could consequently lead to instability in Asia and friction with the US.

India

Australia's relationship with India is today driven by India's emerging status as Asia's next big economic superstar along with China. While the Howard Government's first Foreign Affairs White Paper in 1997 did not rank India, six months later India announced itself as a nuclear weapons power with its bomb blasts (1998), rankling that government. In 1997, Australia helped shut the door on India when it tried to join the Asia-Pacific economic forum, when APEC imposed a 10-year moratorium on new members. India was vexed that it had been vetoed by Australia.

However, last year Australia slipped into the new East Asia Summit through India's diplomacy. The ASEAN hosts did not allow China to veto India attending the first summit. Admitting India made it easier to invite a non-East Asia state - Australia (and New Zealand).

Today, India has a permanent place set at the top table which provoked Howard to head to New Delhi last March to carve a path for the future, and bury some negative history.

Policing the region

It is no longer economics alone that influences decisions. Australia may find its days of “white” rule about to be subsumed by a Latin-Arabian-Asian dominance. That would fit an Asia-oriented foreign policy but would also mean taking sides against the US and the West. A choice will have to be made because you cannot please everyone.

Australia takes part in regional forums, such as APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) and ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) Regional Forum (ARF). But these organisations do not handle local conflicts. The UN remains the only institution that can go into a problem situation with any credibility. Certainly it is not Australia’s role to police the Pacific, or Asia.

One forum for exchanges where Australia could play a useful role is in the Pacific Islands Forum, an inter-governmental consultative organisation for co-operation among the independent countries of the Pacific Ocean. Founded in 1971 as the South Pacific Forum, the name was changed in 2000. Member states are: Australia, the Cook Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

However, it is widely said that the powerful entities of Australia (and New Zealand) have mis-used the forum for their own ends.

Over the years Australia has devoted particular attention to relations with the countries of ASEAN - Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Brunei, and the island states of the South Pacific. Australia has acted as an active participant in ARF, aimed at regional co-operation on security issues.

In September 1999, acting under a UN Security Council mandate, Australia led an international coalition to restore order in East Timor when Indonesia withdrew from that territory.

Australia was a participant at the ASEAN-sponsored East Asia Summit in 2005 but Australia's place at the summit was only gained after an agreement to reverse its policy and sign ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and Co-operation. Australia had been reluctant to sign the treaty out of concern about how it would affect Australia's obligation under other treaty arrangements, notably ANZUS - which involves the US.

Trade agreements

Trade agreements between Australia and the bigger Asian powers affect the lesser developed economies of Asia and the Pacific. Fiji’s garment industry, for example, is threatened by a free trade agreement between Australia and China claims Ramesh Solanki, president of Fiji Textile Clothing and Footwear.

Employment and export revenues have registered a downward slide in the textile sector for the past five years in a row, he said. The textile industry provides employment to poor women who will find it difficult to get job elsewhere if the industry collapsed, Mr Solanki said, “It will create further social problems and deride our poverty alleviation program”.

Such predicaments of lesser developed nations have to be born in mind should Australia decide to take the Asia route to its future. China may make a worthy friend but will also be a formidable foe. Yet even as a friend of Australia - meaning you tend to back friend’s positions and give them the benefit of the doubt - there is a need to keep a balance in general relations with all the countries of Asia-Pacific.

Australia is in a position to bring to the table ethical values that further the good life without compromising weaker states. What a fine and worthy stance.