Australian hypocrisy

Dear Sir, I write this article as an Australian citizen who continually looks on with horror at the foreign policy of my own country.

Australian foreign policy seems to be defined by two conditioned responses: a manipulative flaunting of Australia’s rela tive economic power in comparison to the smaller Pacific nations; and Australia’s subservience to its “powerful friends” who are either equal or superior to Australia in terms of economic and military power.

This type of policy renders Australia incapable of interacting with Pacific nations as a partner among equals who all have a common interest in negotiating the peace, prosperity and wellbeing of our region.

If not abandoned, this policy will con tinue to work against Australia’s long-term integrity as an autonomous nation, and can only serve to isolate Australia from Pacific nations.

Pacific nations rightly refuse to be dealt with as subservient, minor regional powers who must be dependent on Australia, and who can be manipulated simply by money and might.

So myopic is Australian diplomacy, that it does not even realise how offensive its foreign policy assumptions are to Pacific nations. Yet, even to many of its own citi zens, the most striking features of the Australian government’s recent dealings with the Papua New Guinean government are the hypocrisy and offensiveness of Australian foreign policy.

First, hypocrisy. It seems that Australia was opposed to the PNG government’s hir ing of mercenaries on moral grounds. But has Australian foreign policy ever been concerned about countries in Asian and Pacific regions who are not doing what is moral?

The Australian government’s near total lack of response to Indonesia’s invasion, occupation and brutal subjugation of the East Timorese gives the lie to that one. And this is after the Timorese gave Australian troops costly succour against the Japanese during World War 11. Australia is in debt to the Timorese, but has continually turned a deaf ear to their pleas for help and a blind eye to the blatant atrocities of the military junta of Indonesia against the East Timorese.

Ignoring all moral issues, ignoring all issues of political sovereignty, ignoring human rights, ignoring the vile murders of its own citizens at the hands of Indonesian troops, and ignoring its own obligations, the Australian government keeps its

silence. Australia must be very careful in saying anything about Indonesia’s ruling military caste - they are very sensitive peo ple, you know, they might get offended.

With similar moral incipience, the Australian government praises Aung Sari Suu Kyi of Burma, yet refuses to take eco nomic sanctions against the Burmese regime, as Suu Kyi recommends.

And then there is China. Australia turns a blind eye to Chinese atrocities in Tibet, and another blind eye to China’s blatant military bullying of Taiwanl. Australia con stantly reminds the Chinese government that it’s not going to moralise about them; all Australia wants is quiet trading with the charming Chinese dragon.

But why even turn to foreign policy recent attempts to squash the much over due Native Title rights of its own indige nous population demonstrates how uncon cerned with issues of justice and morality Australia is.

Australia has no record of moral strength in matters of foreign policy. Yet, the Australian government seemed to object to the use of mercenaries in Bougainville on moralistic grounds. This is pathetic hypocrisy.

It seems that it is not right that the PNG government should hire external troops who will use missiles to rapidly and effi ciently attain their military objectives without regard for civilian casualties.

It seems that it is morally questionable that strong links exist between Sandline, multinational mining companies, and the vast untapped gold and copper reserves in that region which Sandline was required to secure.

It seems that it is not right that such a brutal mercenary approach to PNG’s prob lems in Bougainville should “solve” those problems.

Whilst the Bougainville problem is far from simple, it seems evident that the hir ing of mercenaries was a frustrated attempt by Sir Julius Chan to simply close the Bougainville issue; an attempt fraught with serious moral, political and military prob lems.

Jerry Srngirok’s refusal to be a party to the hire of mercenaries seems to have the ring of integrity. But, from the Australian perspective, what did Australia do to help solve the problem in the right way, and what credence does Australia have as a country committed to the moral path in the

first place? Moral statements can’t just be made when it suits, one needs to earn the right to say them by a record of integrity a record Australian foreign policy does not have.

Australian foreign policy was never defined by morality. It has always been defined by a morally spineless form of real politik self-interest, which reduces Australia’s autonomy to zero.

Where the big boys go, Australia fol lows blindly. And Australia will tiptoe silently through a moral minefield not to offend Indonesia or the US or China.

Trade and security, secured by sub servient alliances with the powerful, are everything to Australia. Courage, integrity and autonomy are nothing to Australia.

Australia seems to assume that the small regional powers of the Pacific have the same disregard for their own autonomy and the same moral incipience as Australia has. Such an assumption - and the finan cial threats that flow from it - are offensive to any self-respecting nation.

Australian foreign policy statements directed towards nations like PNG, come from the offensive assumption that Australia has a right to tell small powers what to do just because Australia is a big ger power than they are.

To threaten the withdrawal of aid after the event of mercenary hire is pointless, indecisive and out of touch with the stream of events in PNG.

Australia’s aid to PNG, when weighed against the trade imbalance between PNG and Australia which benefits Australia, is chicken feed. And, given that Australia recently abstained from a UN vote denouncing the use of mercenaries (in order not to offend the US which voted against the resolution), what grounds did Sir Julius have for expecting Australia to take an interest in his actions in hiring Sandline?

But most gratingly, Australia’s threat to withdraw aid if PNG doesn’t fall into line, is a manipulative threat which rests simply on Australia’s power to withhold some thing it thinks the PNG government wants.

If Australia thinks it can buy its influence by threatening to withdraw money, it is severely mistaken, and it is being unbe lievably insensitive and offensive to the self-respect of other nations.

This propensity towards moral incipi ence and manipulative offensiveness dis

closes the psychology of Australian foreign policy. Australian foreign policy has a gut less bully psychology. Australia will bow and scrape to the will of big powers whom it cannot dominate and whose help it believes it is dependent on, but Australia tries to act the big power who can dictate terms when dealing with a smaller power.

This is an infantile, shameful and dependent foreign policy.

What would Australian foreign policy towards PNG look like if Australia did actually have some moral integrity, if Australia did respect itself as an indepen dent power, and if Australia did treat all foreign powers with equal regard for the truth regardless of their power, status or significance to Australia’s interests? Who knows? Such, a foreign policy is almost

impossible to imagine coming from an

Australian government. But it certainly would not look like the shameful display of false moralism and offensive manipula tion which we have witnessed recently.

Paul Tyson,

Queensland, Australia

correspondence and meetings are very rare. • FFA recruitment usually consists of

selecting former government personnel,

academics or project consultant types none of whom understand the cut and thrust of real commercial fishing in the 90s. • If a meeting or conference is to be held, the FFA or its spin-offs nearly always pick a superb holiday desination (like the

Seychelles) for a two-day meeting which

may last five days due to golf commit ments. Why not hold these meetings in Levuka, Noro or Tulagi and see some real fishing operation first hand? Not luxurious

enough?

• Some FFA personnel ask for tax/duty free prices when buying goods for their own consumption. Surely, these conces sions only apply to goods purchased by the agency.

Both sides of any argument should always be presented.

Ben Feraux,

Port Vila, Vanuatu