Australias Engagement to Asia - Essay Example

Australia’s Engagement to Asia Australia’s Engagement to Asia The nationality identity of Australia is not clearly defined whether Australia is a European nation in Asia or an Asian nation. Such a situation is referred to as multiculturalism, a democratic policy that helps societies with conflicting social and cultural diversities. A national identity must be predominantly post-ethnic, dynamic and involve an open ongoing dialogue regarding national traditions. Inclusive national identity accommodates and supports multiculturalism. It also serves as a source of unity and cohesion in culturally and ethnically diverse societies. Multicultural nations require some level of common national culture that supports a sense of togetherness. Australia realizes that in order to achieve a substantial growth, it has to improve its engagement with Asia (Gammage, 2011). The limiting factor to the Asian engagement is its national identity. This paper will, therefore, focus on what Australia has to go through as a European nation in Asia. Australia has been interpreted as the ‘satellite society’ of the large metropolitan America. It has been described as the economic and victim of Americanization or American cultural imperialism and as a ‘client state’ of United States. It is perceived as a fragment of America’s informal domain. At the very least, it is seen as the future America, that is, a smaller and slightly stunted country pursuing the American path to newness and modernity. Howard’s government reaffirmed Australia’s cultural distinctiveness and identity in the region. The focus on ties with the US emphasized its national identity as a Western nation. It placed strong emphasis on bilateral relationships as the basic and important building blocks of the country’s foreign relations. He emphasized on realism, bilateralism and pragmatism. Labour had focused on regional institutional building. Howard, however, identified key bilateral relationships: China, the US, Japan and Indonesia. Howard asserted that closer engagement with Asia did not require reinventing Australia’s identity or abandoning traditions and values that defined the society of Australia (Moran, 2011). This had a negative impact on its close ties with Asia. The recognition of Australian and British shared histories and cultural aspects is fundamental to a comprehension of the Anglo-Australian relations. It is not extravagant to claim that cultural forces and national identity have played essential roles in shaping, determining or symbiotically disclosing Australia’s changing relations with its other powerful and great friend, the US. The reorientation of its international relationships after the Second World War including its formal planned and strategic alliances was rooted in broad processes of cultural change that were wholly American content and in form. Successive Australian governments have been more attentive to the Asian region during this period. There are a number of factors that have contributed to this. First, the rapid rise of Asia has witnessed a major shift in power from the west to the east of the international system. Despite Europe and North America’s important role in international relations, Asia is the engine room of global growth in the early part of the 21st century. It is the most populous region in the world. An instance of its prosperity and stability is the recent 2008 global financial crisis. Asia was resilient in the face of the 2008 global financial crisis (Higgot and Nossal, 1997). It is estimated that by 2025, the Asian region will account for almost half of the world’s output. In a few years, Asia will be the world’s largest producer and consumer of goods and services. This transformative shift presents Australia with an unprecedented set of opportunities given its proximity to the region (Sulistiyanto, 2010). Generally, however, relations with the states of East Asia were and shall be deeply conditioned by Australia’s view of itself as a relatively small isolated outpost of the Western civilization on the outer edge of large and potentially threatening states to the north. Such perceptions were strengthened by the White Australian policy, the Australian restrictive immigration policy that discriminated against Asians socially, culturally and economically. Australia was unique in its deliberate and self-conscious efforts during the period of the Labour governments of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating 1983-1996. It wanted to relocate itself economically, diplomatically and militarily to the Asia-Pacific region (Higgot and Nossal, 1997). The Asian engagement project was tied to a broader agenda to forge a new national identity for Australia as an independent cosmopolitan society, located in Asia during Keating’s reign. It had an international role that was not primarily reflective of the origins of Australia as a British colony and its alliance relationship with the United States. Keating government aimed to reshape the Australian identity through Asian engagement. This was driven by the need for government policy to catch up with the regional intensification of Australia’s trade relationships. This process had been occurring for over a quarter a century. The Asian engagement project aimed at unprecedented cultural change. This included the foregoing of a more independent state in foreign relations, economic globalization and the casting off of vestiges of Australia’s colonial origins by becoming a republic. Keating identified that the trading future of Australia lied in Asia (Moran, 2011). Bob Hawke’s government perceived Asia’s traditional threat as a great opportunity for the positioning and restructuring of the Australian economy. He came to power when the economy had numerous structural problems. Its export profile was dominated by agriculture and resource commodities. He responded to the structural problems in two ways. The domestic reform strategy modernized the Australian economy by exposing it to international competition, promoting economic diversification and encouraging the export of manufactured goods and services. He also focused on the pursuit of multilateral trade liberalization and enmeshment of Australia more closely with the dynamic East Asian economies (Moran, 2011). In his report, Gaurnat (1987) focused on economic growth and structural change in the North East Asia. Its main thrust was the emergence of East Asia as a major centre of global economic activity. This provided unprecedented economic opportunities for Australia. It sped up the urgency of Australia’s reform agenda. It also made Hawke to act with urgency and led to a domestic debate on the reasons of the Northeast Asia’s economic success. Moreover, it outlined the basis for new policies across a broad range of areas including immigration, regional co-operation, domestic industry protection, education, Asian language training and cultural awareness. It helped to identify that for long term political, cultural and economic stability, there was need to utilize opportunities associated with Northeast Asian economic growth (Gaurnat, 1986). Multiculturalism can be supported and accommodated by inclusive national identity. However, combative approaches to national identity as stipulated by Howard’s government in Australia, usually threatens multicultural values. In Australia, it was conceived as a nation-building project. The Howard government of 1996 to 2007 was critical of Labour paying a lot of attention to Asia. He asserted that this led to the neglect of the country’s ties with Europe and the United States. He favoured the promotion of stronger ties with the US and afforded greater prominence to the US-Australia alliance. The government back pedalled from Labour’s all-encompassing agenda of Asian engagement (Goldsworthy, 2006). Howards’ tilt towards United States was emblematic of the Coalition’s determination to conduct Australian foreign policy in ways that were different from the approach of Labour. This had particular consequences for Australia’s approach to Asian engagement. He emphasized Australia’s ties to the global superpower thereby foreshadowing his desire to thrust Australia onto the world stage. This was a clear reputation of Labour’s “middle-power” diplomacy and regionalist inclinations. It signalled a return to a more realist and hard-headed foreign policy stance, one that focused on pursuing Australia’s national interest rather than loftier ideals through multilateral and regional institutions (Moran, 2011). The Howard government led to Australia’s affiliation with East Asia to falter badly after five years in power. He rejected regionalist approaches to trade and security in favour of bilateralism. His government consistently refrained from publicly criticizing Asian governments over human rights abuses but instead with Australia’s concerns through quiet and discreet diplomacy. Howard’s instinctive preference for bilateralism was in tune with the demand of those times. However, Australia had limitations, especially, inherent deficiencies such as the continual regional exclusion from forums that were being established. It is Australia’s national identity that contributed to this Howard approach. The most influx of predominantly Asian students into the country’s tertiary institutions has significantly contributed in myriad ways to the reshaping of its higher education system. Australia’s engagement is central to the country’s prosperity and is dependent on the region for its future security and prosperity. Deepening its multilateral and bilateral relations with key players in the Asian region including Indonesia, South Korea, China, India and Japan enables it to continue to influence regional politics. This shall also enable it to possibly shape the region to its own advantage. Besides, it shall provide a basis for a better interconnected region that can deal with important economic, security and strategic challenges. It will be an important driving force for a growing Australia in the Asian century. (Higgot and Nossal, 1997). However, Australia’s identity as a European nation that is located in the Asian region will continue to restrict its acceptance within the Asian region. In conclusion, the predicted Asian century has large implications on the economy and has made Australia to enhance their engagement with Asia. This has played an immense role in shaping its national identity and position in the world. Australia continues to improve its multilateral and bilateral ties with key players in the Asian region to enhance its growth. This could help it to control and shape its future. The ultimate challenge remains its national identity that continues to restrict its acceptance in the Asian region. References Bell, R., & Bell, P. (2010). Cultural Shifts, Changing Relationships: Australia and The United States. Australian Cultural History. 28, 283-297. Gammage, B. (2011). Fire in 1788: The Closest Ally. Australian Historical Studies, 42, 277- 288. Goldsworthy, D. (2003) Facing North: A Century of Australian Engagement with Asia. Carlton: Melbourne University Press. Higgott, R & Nossal, K. R. (1997). The International Politics of Liminality. Relocating Australia In The Asia Pacific. Australian Journal of Political Science, 32,169–86. Moran, A. (2011). Multiculturalism as Nation-Building in Australia: Inclusive National Identity and the Embrace of Diversity. Ethnic and Racial studies, 34, 2153-2172. Sulistiyanto, P. (2010). Indonesia–Australia Relations in the Era of Democracy: The View from The Indonesian Side. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45, 117-132. Garnaut, R. (1989). Australia and the Northeast Asian Ascendancy. A Report to The Prime Minister and The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Read More