Tepid foreign policy debate sets the right tone

Amidst the posturing and confected outrage of the election campaign, foreign policy stands out as a particularly anodyne affair.

In the Lowy Institute foreign policy debate earlier this month, Shadow Foreign Minister Julie Bishop spruiked the mantra of ‘more Jakarta, less Geneva,’ while Foreign Minister Bob Carr talked up the government’s multilateral diplomatic wins-the UN Security Council seat, an Arms Trade Treaty, and an international inquiry into human rights in North Korea.

Yet as the details of the debate revealed, the foreign policy differences between the two major parties are more about rhetorical style than policy substance.

The Coalition and Labor are both committed to simultaneously deepening our security ties with the United States, and our economic connections with China and the rest of the Asia-Pacific, while also pursuing global trade liberalisation with a combination of bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements.

And although both think Australia should maintain a vocal and active presence in multilateral trade and diplomatic forums, they recognise that the real business of Australian foreign policy centres on the Indo-Pacific arc stretching from New Delhi to Washington via Jakarta, Beijing and Tokyo.

It does not make for good political theatre, but this consensus is as predictable as it is healthy.

The foreign policy portfolios, encompassing the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), AusAID and Austrade, cover policy areas vital to Australia’s national interest.

The health of our foreign relations is the keystone of our security, while our trade policy and economic diplomacy fuel our prosperity.

Not only are the foreign policy stakes too high for political posturing, but consistency between governments of different hues is essential for earning the respect and support of our allies and partners.

The idea that our foreign relations are beyond politics is not just a diplomatic nicety. It reflects a longstanding acknowledgement by both sides of politics that Australia’s most fundamental security and economic interests should not be held hostage to the electoral cycle.

The furious agreement on foreign policy this election season does admittedly overlook difficult questions about the funding imbalance between DFAT and AusAID. Will DFAT be able to effectively contribute to the global fight against economic protectionism and navigate Australia through the Asian Century’s complex and volatile international relations when its total resources amount to approximately a quarter of AusAID’s ballooning budget?

Notwithstanding such blind spots, the Coalition-ALP foreign policy entente is a rare example of high-mindedness in a political climate conducive to policy in the name of partisan politicking.

Benjamin Herscovitch is a Beijing-based Policy Analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies.