Christian Radical Reflections - 12

Who'd be an Australian Diplomat?

Last year's election campaign saw the federal Liberal political machine bluff and blunder its way to victory. Apparently, the Australian electorate is not too worried about a Government which relies upon a Defence Minister's lies and an ongoing record of Prime Ministerial bluff. The votes indicated a national commitment to pragmatism which endorses whatever truth the Canberra Liberal gang finds convenient to promote.

The media, now led by Mr Laurie Oakes, continues to present John Howard as a "tough leader". That view is now accepted as an established fact and, as a consequence, the truth is not respected as a norm, particularly when the PM's version of national interest is in the balance.

The federal election was won and left the military wearing the consequences of the PM's failure to admit his Tampa/ "baby overboard" bluff. We are told again and again that the world is now a much more complex and dangerous place than in former times. But there is no recognition, at least publicly, that the bluffing of this incumbent PM increases the complexity and danger. His is the bluff we have had to have. And since it is not abating danger is increased.

According to this PM's world-view the voice of the people has to be made compatible with the voice of the market god. That's where his skills as a manipulator of the media are also needed. Last weekend the tide in the electoral market turned toward Labor, and so we might have expected a pragmatic and populist Liberal PM feeling a little vulnerable, particularly because he wants to bow out as a winner in a year or two. He clearly doesn't want to lose. And so, with reliable journalistic assistance of L. Oakes esq., he decided to once more display his "tough" credentials to the country. This time by a radio talk-back "off the cuff" remark.

In the 2001 election campaign the "toughness" was demonstrated by the PM and his retiring Minister of Defence, skillfully portraying themselves as those who had to run rough shod in the national interest over the military. Now, via the answer given in the Oakes interview about the need for pre-emptive strikes, the PM has done it again. He has ridden rough-shod, once again according to his view of the national interest, over Australia's diplomatic corps in our region. It's not only the sensitivities of regional governments that we should be concerned about in this orchestrated release of policy by "interview gaff". What we have to ask now is whether this PM sees the careful and painstaking work of Australia's diplomats as a barrier to what he demands must now be Australia's self interest? It certainly seems like it.

Unlike last year, when the PM and his crew assumed that they could get through because the military would avoid becoming embroiled in an election, this time the dangers are particularly acute. If you don't believe me, ask the diplomats! Ask the intelligence community which relies on information gleaned from sources close to regional governments! We should able to confirm this critical state of affairs from journalists!

No, it's not a disaster waiting to happen. The current Liberal Government is an ongoing disaster. From the side of the Government, the relationship with the military has been put under considerable strain, in ways that should simply never have occurred. From the side of the same Government, and the same PM, the relationship with the diplomatic corps is under intolerable strain in those countries which have become the targets for his inept remarks.

A task now awaits the journalists of this country. The PM's attempts to grab the headlines to enhance his "tough leader" image need to be by-passed. At this time responsible journalism will publish articles that aim to strengthen Australia's regional position. We need creative journalistic ways of protecting the vital contribution of Australian diplomats in the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and elsewhere throughout the ASEAN region and the South-West Pacific. These diplomats stand in need of increased support in a variety of ways. They need the help of a nation that respects the tradition of diplomatic finesse that once characterized Australia's foreign policy.

It's no longer wise for non-Liberals to say "John Howard has finally gone too far!" That's the response he has been relying on for years, and it is from that response that he continues to gain further credence for his "tough leader" response to his obvious political bluffs and blunders. There's a lot of bluff here. Journalism should avoid bluff and diplomacy must steer clear as well.

It is also time for the Liberal Party to wake up and realise that the reconstruction of the national interest by this administration and PM brings with it more problems than it solves. This will also turn on the Liberal machine itself in time, if it hasn't begun to do so already. There is only so much electoral capital to be gained from cynically ignoring the complex tasks performed by diplomats and the military. It cannot go on indefinitely. In former times the Liberal Party's outlook was shaped by a deep respect for the talent of international diplomats. But now, with the obsession with media exposure, such an outlook is dispensed.

One last question: Was the Australian PM conceding that a regional government could, as a last resort, send in its anti-terror unit onto Australian soil to take out a cell that was planning to inflict terror on its people? The PM's comments certainly implied that such an action is what any government should do as a last resort. But as I have indicated, any consideration of the problems created by riding rough shod over the work of our diplomats has to take second place when the media is needed to project a "tough leader" image. One can only imagine the response of our self-proclaimed "good guys" if a regional leader was to flag a similar determination in their  local media. Our Foreign Minister was rude and dismissive of the complaint by the Malaysian PM. "We often let his comments simply go through to the 'keeper" he said. But the cricket metaphor would quickly evaporate if the principle formulated by the Australian Prime Minister was enunciated by a regional leader indicating that an invasion of Australia might be their necessary last resort.

The Liberal Party should be ashamed that such a diplomatic disaster could have been fomented under an administration bearing its name. But the Liberal Party in truth seems to preoccupied with camouflaging its deep embarrassment. It needs to become a party again and for that it needs to find a wholly new way to view the future. Yet, despite the many dangers that this nation faces, there is every indication that the same old Liberal adherence to the same old bluffing status quo will hold. It shouldn't.

Bruce C Wearne December 4, 2002