tip off

Carr v Bishop: business or diplomacy the foreign policy choice

Bob Carr debated Julie Bishop in a battle of foreign policy at the Lowy Institute last night. The differentiation came down to motivation: do you engage with the world for trade or diplomacy?

If Australian foreign policy has generally been marked by bipartisanship and, frankly, an element of disinterest by voters, the Lowy Institute debate between Foreign Minister Bob Carr and opposition foreign affairs spokesperson Julie Bishop last night changed all that. There was a clear divide between the two that could, potentially, resonate with voters on September 7.

Bishop carved out a new Coalition policy position that foreign affairs would henceforth be about trying to secure Australia’s economic interests. All else fell away by comparison. “Foreign policy will be trade policy,” Bishop said, “and trade policy will be foreign policy.”

By contrast, Carr pursued a conventional, if thoughtful, foreign affairs line. His most innovative contribution came from the conflict resolution handbook regarding the South China Sea dispute. When asked how each party would address the issue, Carr said Australia would encourage putting to one side the thorny issue of sovereignty over disputed islands and that there then be negotiations over the division of resources.

Bishop was more disengaged, suggesting it was not in China’s interest to escalate regional disputes, hence such disputes were not an issue. On the generally sanguine nature of China’s economic and strategic rise, both Carr and Bishop were in positive agreement.

This agreement was not quite a “conspiracy of silence” or even “complacency”, as put by Lowy Institute blogger Sam Roggeveen. But it did reflect a view that China’s increasing regional assertiveness was not a subject to be discussed in public and certainly not in a way that could be construed as critical or confrontational. There was an unstated awareness that whoever held office after September 7 would have to deal with the consequences of their public statements.

Similarly, both Carr and Bishop agreed, in ambiguous terms, that Australia could manage the increasing contradiction between its growing strategic reliance on the US and its almost supplicant economic reliance on China. One could detect a shuffling of feet and a metaphorical diverting of gaze on this complex and challenging question.

Perhaps, although she was less convincing in conventional foreign policy terms, it was Bishop’s new foreign policy strategies that marked her as setting a, if not the, agenda.

Other than in times of international crisis, foreign affairs do not, generally, raise much interest with the voting public. Directly linking foreign affairs to trade and Australia’s economic development may, however, resonate with voters who do not otherwise appreciate the value of diplomatic representation.

Bishop’s push for a “reverse Colombo Plan”, which would send Australian students to study in Asia and, presumably, bring back greater Asian literacy, might also appeal to some younger voters. Bishop’s preference for trade rather than aid also appealed to the prospect of Australian economic growth while assuaging voters who don’t see much benefit in giving money to regional neighbours.

Similarly, while both parties agreed on the need to either increase or re-orient Australia’s international representation, the sub-text for this was that DFAT can expect more cuts at home.

Should the Coalition win government in September, there will no doubt be a lot of pushing and shoving between the minister, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and AuAID. Populist policies do not necessarily equate to good international relations and DFAT in particular has long been the bureaucratic tail that has wagged the government dog. Resistance, and policy compromise, is very likely.

In broadest terms, what also marked the debate was a retreat by both parties to foundational positions: Labor favours multilateralism and international cooperation; the Coalition favours bilateralism and individual arrangements. This is, ideologically, how it has always been: broad brush idealism versus hard-nosed if not always successful real politik.

But it was turning Australia’s foreign relations into an arm of business, for better or worse, or continuing its role as a “creative middle power”, that set apart the two camps. The question will be, to the extent that swinging voters pay any attention to such matters, which will have the greatest appeal. Despite Carr winning the debate on points, Bishop’s economic aspirations were likely to win more swinging votes.

*Professor Damien Kingsbury is director of the Centre for Citizenship, Development and Human Rights at Deakin University

7
  • 1
    Posted Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    Didn’t Australia subordinate foreign affairs (and human rights) to trade several years ago when the departments of foreign affairs and trade merged? How vigorous are Australia’s secret human rights ‘dialogues’ with the Peoples’ Republic of China?

  • 2
    MJPC
    Posted Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Does the LNP policy mean, if the South China sea tensions develops to a shooting war we will be supplying iron ore for both sides bombs?
    I find J Bishops foresite breathtaking.. China has just purchased an aircraft carrier from Russia, such ships are offensive weapons. They also purchased Backfire bombers from the Russia? The Backfire was developed by the USSR to counter and attack US carrier groups. China might not be interested in a shooting war at present, but they are certainly getting the weapons to be a player in one sometime in the future; re-taking Taiwan perhaps for a start?

  • 3
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    Bishop’s born for this job - she’d just plagiarise US foreign policy.
    …… so there probably isn’t much between them - except one’s got a “twin sister(?)” - Bronwyn?

  • 4
    Posted Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    I’d want Australia to keep out of all wars in future, particularly any between China and Taiwan.

  • 5
    Arno
    Posted Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    Securing Australia‚Äôs economic interests equates to trade policy? I thought it was a little more nuanced than that….

  • 6
    AR
    Posted Thursday, 8 August 2013 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

    The Hegemon’s toady, usedCarr, will do/say wotever is in the interests of his spiritual (sic!)home.
    Not Maroubra.

  • 7
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Friday, 9 August 2013 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    Reverse Colombo Plan”, so this involves, in order to be the exact reverse of the original, wealthy Asian nations paying for impoverished Australian students to attend their universities, something which said poverty prevents them from achieving.
    Poor little Australians, look what six years of Labor has done to them, turned them into Lee Kwan Yu’s Poor something Trash!
    Well thought out there, Julie.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...