With a federal election campaign just a few weeks away, there are many things we still don't know about Kevin Rudd. We don't know his tax policy. We don't yet know the final version of his industrial relations policy. And other than Labor's promise to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq, we don't know too much about his foreign affairs policy.
A single-sentence summary of Labor's foreign policy would be along the lines of "wait until Hillary or Obama becomes the next US president". While this might be what Labor wishes for, things are never as simple. For one thing, George Bush is going to be around for another 15 months. There's also no guarantee that a Democrat will win the presidency. And if a Democrat does replace Bush, Iraq will continue to dominate US foreign policy.
The only element of Labor's foreign policy that has had any public or media scrutiny has been its position on Iraq. This is fortunate for Rudd because on issues such as the condition of the US alliance and relations with our neighbours in the region, the ALP's stance is confusing and contradictory. Worse, as it stands, there is potential for Labor's foreign policy to undermine this country's commitment to democracy and human rights in the Asia-Pacific region.
John Howard has succeeded in balancing Australia's political relationship with the United States against our commercial dealings with China. At the same time, the Prime Minister has recognised that as a democracy our long-term interests rest with other democracies. This is why the Coalition has made the first steps to establishing a defence treaty between Australia, the US, Japan and India. It is this kind of treaty that Rudd opposes. The reason he has given is that China regards such an arrangement as an attempt to "encircle" it.
Rudd is correct in his assessment of China's attitude. What he has not explained, though, is why Australia's foreign policy should be held hostage to China, or to any other country for that matter. His approach is peculiar given that Labor has always regarded itself as more willing than the Coalition to pursue an "independent" foreign policy.
In recent years, China has made important strides towards political freedom. I hope it will continue towards the creation of a liberal democracy. But for the moment at least, the values that prevail in China are quite different from those that exist in this country -- and Australia's foreign policy should take account of this.
ALP foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland said earlier this year that "we can't assume that forever and a day the United States will have the predominance of influence it currently has". This is true. And it is for precisely this reason that Australia should be establishing closer defence links with countries that uphold the importance of democracy and human rights.
One of the reasons that the ALP has rejected a defence treaty between Australia and Japan is because such a treaty would require each country to assist the other in case of a military attack. The problem with Labor's rationale is that it is almost impossible to contemplate a situation in which Japan is attacked and Australia did not provide support. This country's economic and security interests would be vitally affected if Japan suffered a military threat. It is a mistake to imagine otherwise. Labor has been quick to complain that the Coalition does not show due deference to the United Nations. Another criticism is that Australia has been complicit with America in allegedly breaking international law by invading Iraq. In contrast, a Rudd government would ensure that Australia is a "good international citizen".
To its credit, the ALP has acknowledged that sometimes pre-emptive peacekeeping action might be necessary to prevent crimes against humanity. Labor has set the condition that such action must be "sanctioned by the international community in accordance with strict predetermined criteria". This is fine in theory. The question Labor can't answer is what happens when the "international community" can't or won't stop crimes against humanity.
Neither the UN nor international law prevented the genocide in Rwanda. And the "international community" has gone missing during the Darfur crisis. A few weeks ago China blocked a UN resolution that would have allowed for the deployment of peacekeepers to Sudan. The US and the European Union had lobbied for the resolution.
Kevin Rudd's efforts to present himself as different from John Howard are understandable. What he should not lose sight of is the fact that for the foreseeable future, the best guarantor of peace and security in our region will be the United States.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment