The Guardian 27 April, 2005
Beazley talks to the Lowy Institute
Peter Symon
Last week Labor Party leader Kim Beazley followed up the address of John Howard to the Lowy Institute on foreign policy by one of his own. Like all such major policy statements it reveals the thinking of Kim Beazley not only by what is said but by what is not said.
For example, Kim Beazley has nothing to say about the role of the United Nations or the Asian Treaty of Amity and Cooperation which is an important question when discussing Australia’s relations with Asian and other countries. Nor does Mr Beazley say whether he adheres to the policy of “one China” or is a supporter of Taiwanese “independence”. He had nothing to say about nuclear disarmament or any other sort of disarmament — not even the need to limit expenditures on arms. Beazley had only three themes — Indonesia, the US alliance and the state of Australia’s military preparedness.
Rather than use the occasion to make a statesmanlike speech about the Labor Party’s foreign policy principles, he repeatedly attacked the Howard government over its shortcomings and wrong policies. It was as though an election is just around the corner. This may give the impression that Beazley’s policies are a real break with those followed by the Howard government but an analysis of his remarks show that there is no fundamental difference. Beazley is out to convince his audience that a Labor Party government would carry out the same policies but would do it better.
He starts by elaborating four principles underpinning his policies. They are “Australia’s security”, self reliance, the need to make “realistic assessment of our assets and liabilities” and “how effectively [an Australian government] marshals all the policy options to meet Australia’s unique interests”.
Principles
Beazley does not mention such policy principles as non-aggression, non-interference in the affairs of other countries, independence and sovereignty, the peaceful settlement of disputes and mutual benefit. All these are incorporated in the Asian Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. No wonder Beazley does not mention them or make any mention of this Treaty and whether or not an Australian Labor Party government would adhere to the Treaty.
He is concerned about the “changing strategic balance in Asia” as a consequence of the economic growth of India and China and how it might affect Australia’s “future security”. He says that “we want a new regional order which peacefully accommodates the growing power of [these two countries] and preserves the independence and integrity of the region’s small and middle powers”. He says that “the prospects of preserving a peaceful, integrated and cooperative Asia are not assured”.
He quite obviously sees some threat arising from the growing power of India and China but makes no mention of the power of the United States and its threatening role in the Asia-Pacific region. Rather, Chinese power is to be “balanced” by the power of the United States.
Although calling for “good US-China relations” there is no content to this appeal. Nothing is said about the support by the US of Taiwanese independence and the sale of sophisticated arms to Taiwan by the US, the threats to North Korea, the boosting of the US-Japan alliance, the attempt of the Japanese government to remove the “peace” clause from its constitution, the string of US bases in the region, the presence of huge US naval flotillas constantly cruising off the coast of China, etc.
Militarisation of Japan
The fact that China is not making any threats to its neighbours, does not have naval forces prowling the seas, is opposing the militarisation of Japan while calling for friendly, cooperative relations with that country, wants to see the de-nuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula, etc, is not on Beazley’s radar.
Australia is to “help America shape its policies in the new Asia, and influence the outcome to our advantage”. When Beazley speaks of “our advantage” he means those of Australia and the US. He has always been a 110 percent American boy! He said in his speech to the Lowy Institute that “I do not need to spend much time telling you of my respect and affection for the United States”. His criticism of the Howard government is that it has “misused and damaged” the US alliance. “I am worried for the future”, said Beazley.
One of his worries is that the Australian public is not as solid in support of the US alliance as it once was. He wants to re-establish the belief that the US alliance “constitutes a sound, cost-effective strategic investment by Australia”.
Who is to blame for this slid in support for the US alliance? “Some will blame George Bush. They are wrong. John Howard is to blame”, says Beazley.
It becomes clear that Beazley wants to make the alliance with the US stronger while criticising the totally subservient role played by Howard — but it is no more than new paint. A Labor government would make Australia “a more substantive and a more reliable partner” says the ALP’s present leader.
Indonesia
Beazley falls over himself to ingratiate himself with the newly elected President of Indonesia. “He is a totally different leader” and “understands Australia” says Beazley. “Here is an Indonesian leader who is democratically elected, has the knowledge, understanding, leadership and will to put the relationship between Australia and Indonesia on a deeper, stronger, sounder footing than has ever been possible before”.
But the space given by Beazley in his speech to relations with Indonesia suggests that there is more to it than just regard for a particular person. Put into a wider context it is likely that Australian authorities, both Howard and Beazley, are attempting to move Indonesia away from its close relations with its ASEAN partners and its friendly relations with other Asian countries, particularly China, and push Indonesia into the orbit of the US, Australia and Japan.
“We need to work out how to deal with Indonesia as a strong neighbour, because it might just become one” said Beazley. But in that one remark he actually displays his contempt and worry that Indonesia might “JUST” become a strong country.
While calling on Howard to “repudiate his irresponsible language on pre-emption” Beazley applauds the Howard government for “pouring money into defence since 2000 with great gusto” but strongly criticises Howard for doing “serious damage to the ADF”. He claims that “we are paying more and getting less”.
Operations overseas
Apart from the specific criticism made by Beazley about the purchase of particular war planes, tanks, etc. his references to the use to which Australian forces might be put indicates that all his thoughts are about operations overseas.
He spoke of “the need we have to mount sustained air operations in different places”, “to undertake independent operations in our immediate region” (Indonesia?), “to deploy and sustain a brigade on operations in our neighbourhood”. Long gone is any plan or even talk of the defence of Australia.
He recalls that in the last election the Labor Party campaigned to “enhance the Army’s capacity to engage in the region” and complained that the troops are “not heavily armoured enough to operate independently and sustainably in the Middle East or on the Korean Peninsula” and are “not light and deployable enough to operate effectively in our immediate region”.
Just to make sure that there is no misunderstanding about where he stands, Beazley declared that, “Our approach would be different [to that of the Howard government] but the underlying philosophy would be the same” and, “what matters is not whether our deployments are regional or global. What matters is whether they constitute an intelligent response to supporting our vital national interests”.
What Beazley has actually spelt out is that a Labor Party government would carry on the same aggressive, interventionist, war policies of the Howard government in alliance with the United States and would like us to believe that the invasion of other countries is in Australia’s “national interests”.
Bomber Beazley is still the same warmonger and American lick-spittle that he always was. It is because of this “philosophy” that he could not find one word to say in his address to the Lowy Institute about the United Nations or the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation because the principles contained in the UN Charter and in the Treaty are anathema.
It is the principles contained in both these documents that should form the basis of Australia’s foreign policy. For peace and a secure future for Australia we must reject both the Howard and Beazley policies which in the not so distant future could spell real disaster.