Submission for the Foreign Policy White Paper - 2017
Australia should improve its diplomatic capacities. As a nation, we have the smallest diplomatic
presence of any of the G20 countries. Comparatively we have one of the larger defence budgets
in the world. Australia’s defense budget has been 6 times larger than that of DFAT. Based on
this allocation of resources, the Australian government is leading our international engagement
with its military rather than with its diplomacy. Our military capacity, while suitable for a state
of Australia’s size, should not so dramatically outweigh our diplomacy especially when
Australia’s middle-power status and influence is far more dependent on our ability to wield our
diplomacy than it is on our military. That being said, any expansion of foreign affairs in Australia
must not come at the expense of efficiency. Foreign affairs should never become the dumping
ground of inadequate public servants or a system of perks and rewards for retiring statesmen.
Australia must pursue and effective and lean Foreign Affairs department which uses the best
Australia can offer.
As to the use of Australia’s power, Australia’s national interests and its objectives in foreign
affairs should include: the security of the people and territory of Australia, the ability for
Australia to influence the instruments of international governance and cooperation, the
promotion of democracy and liberalism throughout the world, and the promotion of the
economic well-being of Australia through trade and investment. While not an exhaustive list,
these priorities will improve the position of Australia in the world for the benefit of the
Australian people.
Security
Australia’s territorial security is well maintained through the Australian Defense Force and the
relative geographic isolation of Australia. But this does not mean that there is not an active role
for Australia’s foreign policy in improving Australia’s security through improving stability
throughout the region and more generally throughout the world. This will be achieved through
improving relations with our neighbours more than it will be achieved through shows of force
or building up of our military capacity. While Australia has a very professional army with a high
level of technical experience, it remains small compared with the military personnel in nearby
regional actors. Our diplomacy should be used instead to encourage stability in the region and
safeguard Australia in that way.
In our own region, Australia should work cooperatively to promote the ongoing stability of our
neighbours especially with Indonesia and Timor-Leste as well as those of the Pacific Islands. In
the past our relations with all of these groups have been marred by poor thinking and an
unwillingness to retract a previously held position. History judges our foreign actions best when
we don’t choose the easy path but we strive to treat other nations, especially smaller ones, as
we hope larger nations treat Australia, that is with respect. Our relations with Timor-Leste
would be served by not vacillating on whether or not to maintain the existing maritime
boundaries or negotiate permanent ones. Our seeming reluctance to even negotiate the issue
with the Timorese suggests that we believe that we would lose out on the resources currently
under dispute but I would warrant that improving relations with Timor-Leste would be more
valuable than any revenue gained especially when we are likely to be the best placed to help
the Timorese extract the resources. This is only one area where we haven’t shown Timor-Leste
the respect we would expect and while in the future our relations will improve, this is a
significant impediment to that improvement. It has been beneficial that Australia has sought to
arrange military cooperation with Indonesia. The cooperation of our militaries, and more
recently our counterterrorism efforts, strengthens the security relationship between our states
and paves the way for increased cooperation in other areas. The frequency of Australians
visiting Indonesia is also encouraging despite the cultural clashes that on occasion occurs and
the risk terrorism has presented. Future efforts with Indonesia may included closer trade links
which will further build up our relations.
The rise of China has cast the Asia-Pacific region into concerns over a predicted struggle
between the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America over who may be the
leading state in Asia and whether the existing post WWII security status quo in Asia will be
maintained or upset. Recent issues such as the territorial claims in the South China Sea and the
disputes over the islands claimed by both China and Japan in the East China Sea have thrown
this into sharp relief. As a nation in the vicinity of the Asia-Pacific, it is been suggested that
Australia will one day need to make a choice between China and America. This is illusive. While
Australia’s historic trading relation and military cooperation with the US in the Asia-Pacific is
contrasted with Australia’s ever increasing economic relation with China, in reality, the choice
has already been made. Australia’s regional future is currently bound up in the continued
presence of the United States in the Asia Pacific. Even putting aside Australia’s military
cooperation with the ANZUS treaty, our security cooperation through initiatives such as Five
Eyes, and our economic relation with the United States through AUSFTA and other agreements;
the reality is that the United States is a proven quantity in the region. In this, predictability and
stability are benefits Australia cannot reject merely because we are concerned by US leadership
or a lulled into thinking that China may provide benefits for Australia. China has yet to
demonstrate a strong commitment to preserving security and stability in the region. The
indifference China has demonstrated through actions such as its serial abstention at the UNSC,
does not provide the guarantees Australia needs from a leading power in the Asia-Pacific. This
may change in the future, and it is encouraging that China has increasingly put pressure on a
significant regional destabiliser in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea),
however, at the same time the Chinese provocations in the South China Sea and its apparent
rejection of the international rulings made against its actions there must dampen future
expectations by Australia. Furthermore, as a liberal democracy itself, Australia’s natural
preference is for another liberal democracy - the US - to take lead in Asia rather than the one
party governed China.
Nonetheless, just because Australia should maintain its vested interest in the US led status quo
does not mean that a firm relationship can not be established with China. The success of
Australia and China’s trade relation most recently confirmed with the conclusion of the
negotiations for the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, demonstrates that while there are
political differences between Canberra and Beijing, there can be strong economic links as well
as cultural links through past and future migration between Australia and China.
International Organisations
Chief of the international organisations which Australia should maintain commitment to and to
devote its attention to is the United Nations. This should be uncontroversial as the advantages
the UN offers are many. Firstly, the UN has expansive membership providing a convenient
forum for multilateral discussion. This is especially useful for Australia as, even though I
advocate for a more expansive diplomatic presence from Australia, Australia remains only a
middle-power and can make use of the concentration of diplomatic attention the UN attracts.
Secondly, the United Nations, through its Security Council, has one of the few legitimate
avenues for the use of defensive force. This is important for Australia as it underpins the
stability of global system of governance which Australia is invested in. Furthermore the United
Nation acts as a channel for the rule of law to attempt to work in the international field. As
Australia is a state which values the rule of law, this should be supported by Canberra.
However, when pursuing influence at the United Nations, and in diplomacy more generally,
Australia should not use the short sighted approach it used when last campaigning for a seat on
the UN Security Council. By this I mean that there was a courting of smaller countries votes
through targeted aid and diplomatic favours, especially for countries in the Caribbean and
Africa, which seems to have been swiftly abandoned once Australia was elected. In Africa,
Australia’s aid increased significantly in 2012 for the Security Council vote before resettling at
its before 2012 level by 2015. While there were domestic political factors which also
contributed to this change, it remains short-sighted for Australia countries are far more likely to
remember the fact that we took aid away than that we gave aid in the first place, and
memories can be long. By not structuring a long term approach to our campaign we potentially
sacrificed any future credibility in pursuing a Security Council seat for a more immediate
success. This mortgaged Australia’s influence in the future which was irresponsible.
The UN’s associated agencies such as the International Monetary Fund, World Health
Organisation, and UNESCO also provide the highest umbrella of authority on international
issues. Australia’s continued commitment to the UN allows Australia to participate and exert
influence in these areas with credibility, which is useful for advocating for the issues which
Australia cares about.
Outside of the United Nations, Australia’s involvement with the Commonwealth of Nations is a
unique platform for Australia to pursue its interests. The diverse membership and shared
commitment to values which Australia holds allows us to find convenient partners to work with
throughout the world allowing Australia to exert an outsized influence. It also provides a useful
forum to engage with certain countries which, while members of the organisation, have not
lived up to their commitments to its values.
Our Liberal Democratic Values
Australia should strive to promote liberalism and democracy through the world. But what we
should have learnt especially after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is that doing so after military
action is a fraught process that carries far more risks and requires much more material
investment and a time frame far longer than the Australian political process and the Australian
public are usually willing to commit too. A suggestion to ameliorate this is to offer better
education exchanges with the youth of countries we believe should be exposed to greater
democracy and liberalism. By providing a different perspective in programs such as the
Australia Awards combined with Australia’s existing role as an education destination we have a
large potential capacity in this area.
Engagement with countries which do not share our values is another principal way that
Australia can contribute to improving democracy and liberal values in the world. Due to our
geographic isolation, Australia has the good fortune to not have a vested interest in the
conduct of foreign countries but only a values based interest in the best path for the benefit of
the world. This favourable advocacy position has not been well pursued in the past, and
Australia has often not taken a long enough viewpoint to consider the future ramifications of its
actions. This should be reassessed, honest and impartial brokers can be valued in international
affairs and Australia should pursue this as a role.
Economy
Free Trade has been the objective of recent Australian governments and with good reason. The
advantages of free trade have been known for almost 250 years. On average free trade
generates greater markets for Australian businesses to sell to and decreases the prices the
average Australian pays for goods and services. The worry is that too often the advantages are
fell too thinly, dispersed across the entire Australian population almost unnoticeably and the
disadvantages are felt more acutely by a few Australian who lose their livelihoods or
competitiveness to foreign producers who can produce more cheaply and out compete
Australians. Because of this, in pursuing future free trade agreements, Australia should ensure
that there is a look at the domestic impact of these beyond the export and import markets .
Perhaps labour standards should more fruitfully be defended so that Australian producers are
undercut with labour standards that Australia does not condone. Furthermore, it is well
established that bilateral free trade is inferior to comprehensive free trade that combines the
benefits of multiple states reducing trade barriers. With the abortion of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, there strongest multilateral pursuit of Free Trade should rightly come from the
World Trade Organisation. Despite its failures with the stalling of the Doha Round of
negotiations since 2001, the inclusiveness and systematic control of trade barriers, including
arbitration, that the WTO offers makes it a good apparatus to base future free trade against. A
recommendation is to aim to get agreement on small things rather than wait for a fully
comprehensive agreement to be achieved.
Beyond the objectives and interest Australia should pursue, there are two points on Australia’s
foreign affairs methodology with regards to new technology and the making of treaties.
Technology
Social Media has become a key feature of diplomacy in the modern age. Australia has already
taken the first steps in using these platforms, however, as I understand it, our engagement with
them is still strictly regimented. Australia’s digital methodology sees our foreign actors unable
to make independent actions in the online sphere in the way that other nations have allowed
their agents to. This has its advantages in that there are few blunders to correct and a uniform
message is sent out but these are gained at the cost of flexibility and our ability to make the
most of these new places to undertake diplomacy and pursue our foreign policy. This may be a
trade-off we are willing to make at this time, but it should be assessed whether this approach
should continue or be altered.
Treaties
A final point to be made is the way in which Australia currently negotiates and creates treaties.
The negotiating, signing and ratifying of treaties has been a cornerstone of Australian foreign
affairs and should remain so. However, there are some points around the creation of treaties
which are important for Australia to keep in mind. Firstly, while a well intentioned notion, the
concept that all of Australia’s treaties should be negotiated with completely open information
available to the public is unwise. An advantage of a closed room negotiating approach are that
there is a flexibility for Australia to offer and bargain with issues without the constraint of a
knee-jerk criticism being voiced. For example, in trade agreements there are almost always
going to be industries which are not advantaged by the final treaty. If these industries knew
that they were being considered as a trade-off for a deal that while bad for them would benefit
the rest of Australia, there may be significant efforts by that industry to derail the treaty.
Another aspect of this is the reality of a public commitment by the Australian government to
achieve an aspect of the treaty when in reality these objectives may be unachievable in
negotiation. By not having a wholly open negotiation process, these sorts of incidents can more
easily be mitigated.
Two further points on treaties. Firstly, Australia must also be careful not to sign and ratify a
treaty merely because it has invested in negotiating it. This is not always possible but it should
be an option kept in mind when negotiating and presenting treaties for ratification. Secondly,
Australia should also ensure that it does not reject the opportunity to be at negotiating tables
when it has an interest to be there. While it may appear to be a strong statement of our
opposition to one thing or another being negotiated the reality is that decisions are made by
those at the table and to voluntarily forgo that means that Australia loses out on influencing
negotiation outcomes.
In Summary
● Australia should invest more in its diplomatic capability and pursue a broader diplomatic
footprint
● Australia should look at longer timeframes for its national interest, and a longer time
frame for its implementation of actions
● Australia should recognise its place between the United States and China and not
equivocate over what it believes or where its interest lies
● Australia should remain firmly committed to what has been agreed to in international
law and to the international agencies which promote it
● Australia should not retreat from diplomacy merely because events do not currently
favour our position
● Australia must ensure the way we conducts diplomacy is considered in addition to what
we are pursuing with our foreign policy
Thank-you,
Brendan Storer