HENRY REYNOLDS. The destruction of Dastyari chills an independent foreign policy

In his recent searching commentary on Australia’s foreign policy Hugh White left us with many challenging observations. Two of them lodged in my mind. In his Quarterly Essay: Without America he argued that Australia is going to have a more independent foreign policy in the new Asia—more independent of Washington that is ‘whether it likes it or not.’ While commenting on the recently released Foreign Policy White Paper he observed that the document failed ‘ the essential ingredient for effective diplomacy when weight of power is not on your side: new ideas.’ It was, he remarked, ’a telling omission.’

This second observation was pertinent not just to the paper itself but to the discussion which followed as well. There was no debate in parliament and little serious analysis in the main stream media. Government and Opposition were in lock step as we have come to expect in matters relating to defence and security. The conformity reaches deep into the political system. Party discipline is so tight that if there is internal disputation we rarely hear about it. The local media compounds the problem by endlessly looking for division then parroting the mantra that division is death. What this does is to strip Australian public life of serious intellectual exegesis.  There is similar conformity among those people chosen by the media as the go- to experts usually working in the defence and foreign policy think tanks in Canberra. They are largely staffed by men and women who have had careers in the armed forces, the security networks or the department of defence. They comment on policies and practices that they helped shape while inside the system.

Hugh White’s analysis of the need for radical realignment is therefore a particularly challenging and invigorating thesis. But its very distinctiveness points to an implicit unasked question. Is Australia capable of radical change? Intellectual habits re-enforce institutional inertia. The American alliance has been endlessly promoted for almost seventy years. There has been little encouragement to discuss the very real limitations of the ANZUS Treaty. The Australian public have been fed on rhetoric which grossly exaggerates Australian influence in Washington and insists that we have a special relationship as so many other countries imagine they do. The language of personal relations is carried over into diplomacy, Julia Gillard declaring that Americans and Australians were mates. Malcolm Turnbull went further alluding to Siamese twins when telling us we were joined to our great and powerful friend at the hip.

The two country’s defence and intelligence services are intricately inter-related. As the recent White Paper announced:’ A strong and deep alliance is at the core of Australia’s security and defence planning.’ The favoured word of the defence establishment is’ interoperability.’ The argument and the rhetoric point in only one direction. There is no space for a u-turn. There is no plan B.

So where are the iconoclastic political leaders who can prepare us for a very different future? The present state of our politics provides little encouragement on that score. When foreign and defence policies are debated they are used as weapons in parliamentary point scoring. The sudden destruction of Sam Dastyari’s political career is a compelling example. The inflation of indiscretion into disloyalty and even espionage would have been remarkable even in the height of the Cold War. More astonishing was the ease with which the red peril was disinterred. The threat, as portrayed, came not from’ China’ or the’ Chinese Government’ but from the ’Communist Party.’

The young senator has gone but important reflections remain. The flurry of concern about foreign influence is so sharply selective. And there is so much attendant hypocrisy. American influence is pervasive and so familiar we scarcely notice it. So Rupert Murdoch’s papers can lead the crusade against foreign influence without embarrassment and certainly without self-reflection. The capacity of Israel to intrude into local politics has recently been abundantly documented in Pearls and Irritations. And this makes the reaction to China’s attempt to exert influence all the more problematic. It was all done with loud rhetoric and screaming headlines. A visitor to Australia would never guess that the object of the crusade was our greatest and irreplaceable trading partner and source of a large share of our overseas students and tourists.

The momentum which was created to destroy Dastyari is a mere foretaste of what could happen to any government that tried to develop a more independent foreign policy as Hugh White persuasively advocates. Bi-partisanship would be unlikely if politics continues to be played as it is today. The Murdoch press would, it is fair to assume, crusade with intense fervour against any change of direction. Many members of the defence and intelligence communities would resist the reforming government using an array of devices. The United States would scarcely look on with benign detachment and respect Australia’s sovereignty.

But if change is too difficult to bring about where does that leave us? Will it be business as usual? Will we continue to follow the United States into further unnecessary wars? And looming over everything is the possibility of a Sino-American War which at its worst would be as disastrous for this century as the Great War was for the previous one. Would we have freedom of choice or would our involvement be pre-determined? The Americans clearly assume we will be there and presumably plan accordingly. The defence establishment’s admiration for interoperability makes entanglement in America’s wars so much easier.

Much of the cogency of Hugh White’s Without America essay comes from his concern arising from these portentous circumstances. He offers the nation their plan B, a future without America, but he is not certain it will be implemented.  He may not want to play the role of Cassandra but events may force it on him.

Henry Reynolds is an eminent Australian historian who has focused on frontier conflict between indigenous people and European settlers, and has written many books on that subject. His latest book is Unnecessary Wars.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to HENRY REYNOLDS. The destruction of Dastyari chills an independent foreign policy

  1. tasi timor says:

    ‘At best it is seeking to Finlandise us’

    As Jakarta once did to the NT under successive CLP Govts.

    New Order Jakarta used to intimidate students here just as the PRC now does. When a Jakarta glossy mag published an expose of a real estate rort by the retiring Consul in Perth, his golden handshake, he summoned suspected student activists, interrogated them and tried to get them to dob on the source. He obviously hadn’t been doing his remote reporting, the source was The West.

  2. Rhoni Watson says:

    Thank you for writing this article Henry. I am sorry some want to argue that you have strayed out of your area of expertise and may have applied left-leaning thought, and not the experience of a wide-ranging lived life, to develop your view, of which topic it appears can only possibly be served sensibly by people who have a ‘right’ leaning view of the world’ and who know about defense matters. I recall as a child living in Nth Qld, throwing bouquets of ponciana leaf on LBJ as his motorcade drove through town to visit his old W.W.2 billet during his ‘All the Way’ campaign in 1965 or 66 lost now, and watching as a teenager, the young men march down to the docks, immortalized in the song. ‘He was only 19’, from the window of the commonwealth offices on the main street of Townsville. My mum worked for U.S army Engineers in WW2 when LBJ was here serving so we have a lot of lived experience of the feel of war, having even been considered for ‘partition’ during this period by some on the ‘right’, I do think we get it here, how ‘practical’ one needs to be when talking about a future in the region. So when I consider the topic as member of ‘ordinary folk’, I always do it with a strong regional sensibility and memory. I do not have a far-left affinity, but I do want to be able to have a say about what we do and how we feel in the region without the absolute garbage that has gone on to win a bi-election in far away Sydney. The abuse of intelligence, the abuse of a major trading partner in the heat of an election, whilst callously side-swiping entire ethnic groups of people is so crazy- reckless as to be Trump-like. Let us have the conversation, let us talk quietly to each other and exchange points of view without the accusation so reminiscent of those far off saddest of times in the 1960’s, when to differ with another was to risk derision and worse, cries of naivete, reds under the bed, or a lack of patriotism, conversations that once broke families in two, so riven that we are still paying the consequences today.. As a northerner and ordinary punter, with all our history with the U.S. back in the day and now, and whose politics I engage with daily happily, I remain excited about trying to live in our own region and striking out a place and a voice for ourselves, whatever that may be, and will be and am infuriated by all and anyone who wishes to deny me my right to have a ‘point of view’ regardless of what that is, or that wants to manipulate, or shut down discussion and differences of opinion with insults that hark back to those dark days of right wing governments and the msm barking at the country and its young people to fall into line. This is a grave topic Malcolm, grow up and treat it with the respect and nuance it deserves, as the voice is diverse, but I don’t think that will happen because the ‘politics’ are too tempting if you have the venal nature of a banker, and no margin for a political loss, you use the cards you have no matter the truth or the consequences.

  3. The irony of Professor Reynolds, an historian with hard-Left ideological sympathies, claiming that others are trapped in “conformity” is surely not lost on anyone objective .
    Nor when his own apparent groupthink, when commenting on an area somewhat distant to his specialisation, is based on a flawed assumption of equivalence between liberal-democracies (however imperfect they can be at times) and the ruthless, unaccountable, single-party authoritarian regime running mainland China.
    Nor is anyone serious beating a “red peril”, “Cold War”, “Communist Party” drum with regard to Sam Dastyari’s “indiscretion”. Instead Dastyari is properly criticised for not even realising the risk of being strategically suborned or criminally corrupted (no matter whether he succumbed or not) and not therefore using a long critical-judgement spoon as an interlocutor. Especially when taking payment from the PRC regime, parroting its propaganda lines that ignore UNCLOS and other international law and then denying doing so.
    Whether the PRC regime is still “communist” or not (mainly not), it is surely it’s largely post-ideological but still authoritarian nature that generates the strategic risk to our sovereign freedom-of-action as a country over the long run.
    Our allies, partners and friends also try to influence Australian strategic policy but at least with them we can generally recognise this easily, debate the issues involved openly and disagree without the prospect of coercive retaliation beyond the bounds of rules-based international relations.
    We cannot do so easily and now sometimes not at all with the PRC regime. At best it is seeking to Finlandise us. Hopefully nothing more, but strategic prudence means we need to hedge against, and if necessary deter, even worse possibilities.

  4. Peter Small says:

    Yes you are so correct Andrew re “the way politicians are sourced for pre selection in the major political parties”. I know nothing of the Labour party system but the rot in the Liberal Party has a definite start date; 1990 the year Andrew Robb replaced Tony Eggleton as Federal Director. What happened then and how we are where we are now should be matter for forensic research!

  5. Andrew Farran says:

    You correctly pose the question:
    “So where are the iconoclastic political leaders who can prepare us for a very different future? The present state of our politics provides little encouragement on that score. When foreign and defence policies are debated they are used as weapons in parliamentary point scoring”.

    They won’t come from the way politicians are sourced for pre-selection in the major political parties whose bases are becoming narrower and narrower. And you have to ask why those with potential political talent won’t bother to try in the first place.

  6. We will have to fight for our country, Henry, so it needs to be worth fighting for. We should not suck up to the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians, the Indonesians or anybody else. That does not mean we should not trade with them, or with anybody else who pays a fair price for our produce.

    Australia has always been a global trader, before we were a nation, before we were colonies. Your fellow historian, Geoffrey Blainey, writes about this, describing the continent’s location in the path of the trade winds.

    Foreign policy is the result, not the cause of the problem. Our problem is domestic and stems from a lack of knowledge of ourselves and our country. It was truly frightening to see the ease with which the Chinese acquired a 99 year lease on the Port of Darwin, Australia’s gateway to Eurasia’s New Silk Road, and the only voice of protest we heard was from America’s President Obama.

  7. Tony Kevin says:

    I am glad to see Henry Reynolds occupy similar public intellectual territory to Brian Toohey (see his important AFR article on 11 Dec on the foreign interference draft legislation), Paul Keating, Bob Carr, Hugh White, John Menadue, James O’Neill, Alison Broinowski, Richard Butler, Ramesh Thakur, and myself. Many of us are current or recent regular contributors to John Menadue’s Blog.

    Big and important battles lie ahead in 2018 over the FI bills. We need to stick together better in fighting these battles. We should recognise that, just as Turnbull clearly has China and Russia in his sights as our nation’s international enemies du jour, we need to be prepared to see the possibilities of mutually beneficial international security cooperation with both of these great nations.

    To suggest this is not disloyalty or treachery or even naïveté. It is openminded, realistic foreign policy common sense.

    Let us stand together. Tony Kevin

  8. derrida derider says:

    On Dastyari, it’s important to remember that his what finally destroyed his career was not simply taking a Chinese businessman’s money, not even publicly rendering a service (ie that speech) in return, but lying about it- twice.

    Then again, it should have been the same if it had been some Trump-aligned American businessman paying him to say vague but nice things about US Middle East policy, but we know damned well it wouldn’t have been. There’s a lot of hypocrisy here and the Chinese rebuke, while self interested, is merited.

  9. Jaquix says:

    Yes, all very depressing. The state of the media in Australia is woeful. The Bennelong by-election has brought it all into sharp focus. Even the ABC has succumbed to what must be pressure from somewhere because its blatantly pro-Liberal government at the moment. I do believe a staffer from the Prime Ministers office was seconded to the ABC a few months ago – “embedded in a partnership” or some such gobbledegook. Looks suspiciously like political meddling to me. Murdoch has poisoned the minds of Australians for 3 generations – 50 years worth of it. The sooner he disappears the better. You only have to look across the ditch to see the difference in New Zealand – although their press has been conservative, they’ve escaped the absolute scourge of relentless Murdoch. And this government cannot be relied upon to do anything for the good of the nation. They are totally consumed with themselves, their comfy seats and pensions. Just watch 4 Corners about them recently, glaringly obvious not one of them mentioned the good of the country, their voters, their electorate. It was all about themselves. Now Bennelong has brought out the worst in them as they face losing their “majority”. If they lost it to Labor the net seats in parliament would be 74 Libs 70 Labor. Till the next round of High Court referrals. And some which havent yet provided proper paperwork, being protected by Malcolm Turnbull. As I said, its depressing. Rant over. Sorry, didnt stick to topic of the piece, but its all intertwined.

  10. Clive Hamilton says:

    Hey Henry, why not inform yourself about the history of PRC interference operations before launching into print? The historical emptiness of Hugh White’s Quarterly Essay (he has said it’s not important to know about the nature of the CCP regime and its ambitions) means that his analysis cannot come to grips with the new situation we confront. See
    The commentary on China in Pearls and Irritations is locked in the past.

Comments are closed.