2017-04-16
Jean Ibbotson
Australias foreign policy decisions havent proven the current Coalition government to be the best source of leadership as we head towards unknown territory with one of our strongest historical allies. Syria is a hotbed of chaos, Australian refugees remain on Manus and Nauru, and our commitment to the United States (US) and their current erratic leadership platform are all contentious areas where Australia just cant seem to keep up.
Only six months ago, Malcolm Turnbull made a public apology for our involvement in US led airstrikes over Syria, targeting the so-called Islamic State. The strikes resulted in the accidental death of almost 100 Syrian soldiers. This was shortly after committing to consistent increases in military spending until 2020 to improve “the safety of the Australian people”.
Recently, in the aftermath of the widely reported chemical attack on Syrian civilians, Donald Trump launched a missile strike against an Assad controlled military base in retaliation. This move was unprecedented. The action threatens US-Russian alliances, which have found common ground in their commitment to fight ISIS, while Russia supports Assad. In addition, the source of the chemical attack has yet to be unequivocally proven. Malcolm Turnbull then came out in support of the move to strike against the government he previously “regrettably” struck, citing the Syrian government actions as "a blatant contravention of basic principles of humanity”.
This criticism of the Assad government (while true if effectively proven) is only a month and a half after a very public and humiliating clash with the US president over the proposed refugee deal between US and Australia. Turnbull spoke to the new leader of Australias long-time ally in furthering the US commitment to shift genuine refugees from Australian offshore detention centers to the US, only to be publicly berated over Twitter by Trump afterwards. This embarrassing exchange happened in the face of overt criticism from the UN over Australias inhumane treatment of refugees, which is also in contravention of international law and our commitments to the UN Convention Against Torture.
This leads to the begging questions: are Australians really safer by involving themselves in a war they clearly have no real conceptual grasp of? According to Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, no. Any additional Australian involvement supporting US military action will undoubtedly lead to an escalation of the Syrian conflict, and an inevitable further increase in refugees, which is already an area of poor management. Are Australians safer to follow the leader of a foreign ally with notable pitfalls in knowledge and understanding of international affairs? US press secretary Sean Spicer has recently been criticised for his statements relating to the alleged chemical attacks by the Assad government. When referring to the holocaust, he claimed Hitler “didnt even sink to using chemical weapons.” Most of us would recall Hitler using gas as a significant weapon in WWII—even if your knowledge around the Holocaust is based mainly on the Steven Spielberg film, Schindlers List. Hoping desperately that a foreign leader would inform himself beyond the most basic standard, creates fear when Australia plays the most dangerous game possible in foreign affairs, follow the leader.
Similarly, US President Donald Trump continuously utilises the social platform Twitter to inform the public of his foreign policy decisions. Early in April, he antagonised North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un by threatening military action against the wayward state that is rejecting international conflict laws by developing their nuclear capabilities. Many do not deem the threats coming from Pyongyang as realistic, citing the under-developed missile capability in North Korea. However, when we have a Prime Minister that doesnt mind reiterating elements of Trumps Twitter feed, such as “make China deal with it”, another question becomes salient. Does Australia have to agree with every US foreign policy decision in the name of protection and our agreements under ANZUS? Historically Australia has relied heavily on the protection of US military might. However, perhaps Australia would need less protection if we did not engage in a public probing of potential enemies. It is time for the Australian administration to distance itself from the seemingly impulsive and volatile security decisions coming out of the current Whitehouse administration. Condemn the actions of North Korea, yes. Build on Australian-Chinese relations, yes. Yet, remaining neutral in the international arena ‒ particularly with respect to another arms race ‒ is most likely a stronger position when poking the mentally unwell bear.
In Australia it is time to step out with our own position on foreign affairs that recognises our unique geographical position and aligns itself with peace in the name of the safety of all Australians. A diligent government would recognise this, as well as recognise when it is a good time to follow, and a good time to lead.