Everyone recognises that we need closer ties with our region. Peter Varghese has written about the importance of “deepening our regional relationships”.

The real question is how – whether unilaterally, bilaterally or multilaterally? Varghese is one of many who have urged  the need to deepen and extend relationships. Australian leaders have been hammering their importance for decades.

Thirty years ago, Paul Keating said, “We do not, and cannot, aim to be ‘Asian’ or European or anything else, but Australians. But we can and should aim to be a country which is deeply integrated into the region around us.” Soon after his victory in the 1996 elections, John Howard said his government had “a strong commitment to the Asia-Pacific region”. In 2021, Scott Morrison told the US/Asia Centre in Perth, “Australia brings its own distinctive perspective to global challenges, informed by where we are and who we are – our principles, our values and, of course, our national character. Our interests are inextricably linked to an open, inclusive and resilient Indo-Pacific region.”

All spoke about “the region”. Keating defined it as the Asia-Pacific. The Defence White Paper of 2013 refers to the Indo-Pacific. No matter which term is used, we need to understand why it matters so much. To put it simply, just look at an old-fashioned globe. China sits in the top right-hand corner. It is the world’s top manufacturer and exporter, has been the largest trading nation for more than a decade, and is our number one trading partner. Most of our trade and China’s imports and exports go by ship across the centre of the globe, left to the Middle East and Europe or down to Australia and New Zealand.

The routes through Southeast Asia are vital to the global economy. Also in that top-right corner are Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, all trading entities with key roles in international investment. The GDP of Northeast Asia accounts for a quarter of the world’s total and is greater than the US. In Southeast Asia, the economies of Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam are all growing strongly. DFAT estimates the consumer market of Southeast Asia will be 10 times larger than Australia by 2040. We need to pay more attention to our region for the sake of our physical and economic security.

Where to start? In this region, multilateral organisations, including ASEAN and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, play significant roles. Australia encouraged the development of APEC, was a founding member of the Regional Comprehensive Partnership Agreement and currently chairs the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The genius of these multilateral organisations, as is true of the United Nations and its subordinate organisations, is that each member has equal status, and no member is superior or inferior. This allows each country to uphold its sovereign status and develop its unique culture, at the same time as sharing and interacting with neighbours and overseas partners for developmental needs and to solve global challenges. Australian scholar Wang Gungwu recently offered the same advice in an interview for Singapore’s ThinkChina, as did Anthony Milner in ASPI’s Strategist.

Membership of a multilateral organisation is extra important for smaller or middle powers like most countries in our region. Solid rules and agreements encourage negotiated outcomes and discourage direct bilateral action. Australia, in the past, strongly supported multilateralism and “upholding the international rules-based system”, but in recent decades foreign policy has favoured bilateralism. This is regrettable. Bilateralism tends to competition rather than co-operation. We could do more to support the UN and other multilateral organisations. None is free from fault, but more effort could be made to reform them, as Mercedes Page noted in the Lowy Institute Interpreter. Active participation in regional organisations such as the CPTPP can provide greater market access, raise regional standards and spread the benefits of free trade more evenly.

A third approach to international relations is unilateralism, or what these days we might call “Trumpism”. This approach makes one country alone the arbiter and standard by which all relationships and other countries are measured. Decisions are made with no regard for the interests or views of others. Donald Trump takes pride in placing the US first. Jason Koutsoukis in The Saturday Paper quoted a senior government official commenting on the impact on Australia of Trump’s tariff regime; it “isn’t just an economic slight – it’s strategic. We’re being tested – not just in trade, but in how far we’re willing to defend our sovereignty. Trump is probing for weakness”. Surely, unilateralism must go. Bilateralism may make sense, while multilateralism can deliver even more benefits.

Whichever approach we take, it has to start at a senior level and be extended through cultural, scientific and grassroots exchanges. We do not seek a leadership role, and we need to learn patience (the “Asian way”) in building consensus, but we have a tradition of interaction with our neighbours over many decades and a great network of professional colleagues and partners who will support a greater commitment to partnership.

My advice to our incoming prime minister, whoever it may be, is to start the new term with a visit to our neighbours.