• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Australia: a decent country?

by Simon Longstaff

The former Indonesian Ambassador to Australia, Mr Sabam Siagian, is a collector of maps. One of those that he used to display in his residence in Canberra had been drawn for the benefit of spice traders sailing from Capetown to the Dutch East Indies. Somewhat unusually, it was oriented with the eastern axis of the compass pointing to the top of the page. At first glance, the upper edge of this map appeared to have been framed with an irregular border. However, on closer inspection it became clear that this 'border' was, in fact, the west coast of Australia.

Mr Siagian's intention in displaying this map was, he said, to offer a pictorial representation of how Australia should see itself in relation to the rest of the region. In his view, we should avoid all pretensions to be at the centre of the world (or even the East Asian hemisphere). In a similar vein, he argued that we should resist the temptation to impose our views on the rest of the region.

Yet Mr Siagian made it clear that he was not advocating a policy of retreat from engagement. Nor did he wish to suggest that Australia become a pale imitation of its near neighbours. Instead he hoped to encourage the view that Australia preserve its distinctive character, its democratic institutions, its liberal traditons, its rule of law, and so on. Referring back to his map, Mr Siagian suggested that Australia should remain an important place to 'bump into', from time to time.

What sort of place do we want people to 'bump into'? How should we like to be regarded by ourselves and others? One option is to resurrect some of the earlier attempts to capture a sense of our identity.

Despite the twist of irony introduced into the notion by Donald Horne, there was a time when many Australians had a positive view of themselves as belonging to the 'lucky country'. More recently, we have witnessed a conscious attempt to define Australia as the 'clever country'.

Are these the directions in which we should head? Amongst the failings of both labels, the most significant is probably that they connote qualities that are primarily a matter of good fortune rather than choice and effort. This being so, is there something that we might consciously embrace?

A further option embraced (at least in principle) by an earlier generation of Australians is the idea that we develop our self-understanding along the lines of becoming a 'decent' country. Not powerful, not brilliant - but simply, decent.

There is no quick or simple way to generate such an outcome. A reputation for decency is not the product of grand gestures but something that grows only over time and in response to the way we choose to deal with others in practice. Consequently, if we wish to preserve or develop a reputation as a decent country, then we will have to begin the process by looking to ourselves. Amongst other things this will require us to evaluate our policies and practices in order to ensure that that they are a true reflection of what we profess to believe about ourselves.

Thousands of decisions are made by government every year. So it may be a little unfair to single out a few. However, I wonder what picture of Australia emerges from the following selection.

In terms of foreign policy, the past year has seen Australia sponsor important initiatives in the field of weapons control and disarmament. Yet, we refused to sign a European treaty because it contained a clause linking trade and human rights and continue to mount a major campaign against the setting of mandatory limits to greenhouse gas emissions.

Domestically, we have banned most lethal weapons, wrestled with 'Wik", the 'Stolen Generations' report, unemployment, tariffs and tax policy, a rising youth suicide rate and a host of other pressing issues. Taking our government's response to all of these issues as a whole, it is difficult to see any overriding pattern of values and principles guiding the decisions made in our name. This is not to say that such values and principles do not exist to guide our leaders - it is only that we (and others) are mostly left to guess at what they might be.

In the absence of any clear alternative, people tend to be drawn to the conclusion that policy is being driven exclusively by the demands of 'realpolitik' in international affairs, domestic political expedience, or some other species of unmediated self-interest. Of course, the pursuit of self interest is a principle that many would want to defend.

However, it is not obvious that an exclusive commitment to that approach will distinguish Australia as the kind of decent society that we might wish to be. This is not to suggest that Australia should offer itself up as a 'doormat to the world'. It is equally important that we remain in a position to preserve the things that we value - but without adopting an air of supposed moral superiority.

If anything is going to influence people, it will be our example at home and abroad - especially if, on occasions, we accept some of the adverse consequences that can flow, at least in the short-term, from choosing to do (or not to do) things that others would advocate solely on the grounds of self-interest or prudence.

If my recent experience in Singapore, Malaysia and China (Hong Kong) is anything to go by, then Mr Siagian's thinking is well in advance of popular opinion in the wider Asian region. Apart from a Malaysian friend, who had a definite view that Australia is the land of the 'bland', and (of course) disturbingly frequent references to Pauline Hanson, most of the people I met seemed indifferent to Australia and largely unaware of who we are and what we stand for.

All of this had a strangely familiar feel. And then I realised that it was just like being at home. In turn, this led to the unsettling thought that the world knows us better than we think they do and that it sees us as we currently are.

discuss this article

---