Back to News Menu About the Rat Asia Pacific Management Forum

What's New? Site Map

Search the Asia Pacific Management Forum database of almost 1,000 pages. Updated weekly. Use today's topical search terms or clear the box and enter your own. Click options for complex or phrase search. Or click on the icon for our full search facilities.

Google! is one of the publicly accessible Web document databases recommended by the APMF for professional and business research. Use our suggested search or clear the box and enter your own.

This claim of course is continually derided in Asian political circles, especially by vocal proponents of Asian values who blame (at least publicly) a US-led West for the Asian crisis.

Imagine the Rat's embarassment therefore when OZ PM John Howard seemingly demonstrated all the political acumen of an emu with its head stuck deep into the sand of Bondi Beach by reportedly stating that Australia's role should be that of a deputy to the US in Asia. It got into the daily Hari Ini, and Asian politicos as surely as a Roo jumps in front of the headlights of an on-coming batterred Holden on the Melbourne-Sydney highway got into the act as well by heaping out a new torrent abuse to the new whipping boy of the "Asian values" lobby.

It now seems that honest John Howard was foiled by the same sensationalistic and misleading reporting that Mahathir blames for Malaysia's presently poor international image. Yes, the press is a powerful friend or foe that can be bought off with filthy lucre and benefits or even a clever mix of unspoken threats as Mahathir is demonstrating clearly in his management of the Malaysian press today.

Straight from the Australian Ambassador to Thailand, William Fisher, came the following correction for these reports...

These articles were based on an article in the Australian magazine "The Bulletin", which suggested that the Australian Prime Minister John Howard had claimed that Australia would act in a sort of deputy peace-keeping capacity in our region to the United States.

Howard did not use these expressions and they don't accurately represent his position.

Howard said in his interview that " ...you have Australia as a medium-sized, economically strong regional power leading in a peace-keeping operation that is largely, but not totally, regional with strong lender of last resort from the United States. I don't think it is necessary for Australia to lead every peace-keeping operation..."

Howard said "...We've shouldered the burden that we should carry. As we are a relatively wealthy, economically strong country, we have a particular responsibility to do things "above and beyond" in this part of the world." This is what Australia has done with with its regional colleagues under the umbrella of the United Nations in the case of East Timor..."

A potted history and profile may help in explaining how Australia got into this mess...

Prime Minister of Australia John Howard is a man that looks like a koala bear, remarkably uncomfortable when forced into a confrontational role. His squirming body language reeks of the schoolmaster rather than national leader, from the earnestly arched eyebrows and furrowed forehead to the somewhat bumbling speech and nervous "never you mind about that" smile. Unlike his predecessor Paul Keating, he fails to convincingly demolish opposing arguments.. his attempts to pass off recalcitrant spokesmen and arguments failing as regularly as a fake 5 buck Rolex bought in Hong Kong's Temple Street. When Howard had the international spotlight for a few days as Aussie forces prepared to lead the UN peace keeping effort to East Timor, this coudn't be more evident.

But behind the visage which image-makers have failed miserably at correct, is a man of extraordinary humility, determination, toughness, and honesty. The toughness and dedication is no better demonstrated than a history which saw him continually ridiculed by a brilliant street-educated orator in Paul Keating, struggling over a decade to get the respect of the Australian people and his own party, only to emerge triumphantly as "Honest John", the new PM of Australia, around 5 years back.

The rise of Howard, a low profile Sydney suburban lawyer by profession, surrounded by a middle-of- the-road conservative gaggle of fellow Liberals, (the Australian Liberal party is the major conservative and business party, and not to be confused with Liberal in the classic sense), gave Australian businessmen in Asia some concerns, despite the business friendly change of government. The out-going Australian Labor party, a just slightly leftish-leaning and progressive party much like the Blair's UK "New Labor" of today, had embraced building stronger relationships with Asia, while the Liberals represented older, conservative, and predominantly Anglo Saxon views. (See our earlier reports from that time by using the APMF Search box on the left).

Led by the extremely capable, down-to-earth populist Aussie ocker Bob Hawke beforehand and the more sophisticated Paul Keating from thereon, partnerships and friendships with Japan, Indonesia and ASEAN in particular had been nurtured. Great strides were taken. Even before that, the larger-than- life Gough Whitlam, Australia's first Labor Prime Minister for 23 years, spent enormous effort in the 1970's building ties with China, pulling Australia out of the Vietnam mess, and introducing a multicultural view of Australia, led by the colorful immigration minister Italian immigrant Al Grassby (later to fall in profile due to allegations of involvement with the Mob).

Australia's embrace of the concept of regionalism has not been without its problems. Most Asians think Australia being part of Asia is a joke. So too do most Australians.

The concept is flawed and always has been. Australia (nor New Zealand, Vanuatu nor the Pacific Islands for that matter) can never be part of Asia. It CAN however be part of a greater and more powerful regional power - the Asia Pacific, if only the diversity of such a great geographical mass can be harnessed. An Asia-Pacific region can not be hamstrung by even more flawed concepts like "Asian values". "Asian values" are of course a non-sequitor... The hundreds of ethnic cultural histories of China, Philippines, India, Singapore and Indonesia for example brought together by a common set of values...!? Give the Rat a break...! Yet that is the main argument used by anti-AP region spokesmen to rationalize why the Asian continent/archipelagos/sub-continent can be integrated while the broader Asia Pacific cannot.

The Australian character is a unique mix of sympathy for the underdog (lets face it, all original European immigrants to Australia were small time poverty-stricken convicts), healthy disdain for the establishment and authority based on any power base at all, an egalitarianism that discourages the emergence of any real entrenched class system, and the real cruncher - a distinct (and often undiplomatic) inclination to "speak one's mind". All these "Australian values", especially the last, clash with Asian values head on. Malaysian PM Mahathir still has trouble understanding the Australian weakness for free speech and directness as an integral part of mateship, rather than confrontation. He has seen everything from Australian films about Turtle Beaches, to mini-series about an Embassy in an un-named Asia-Pacific country, tired and emotional off-the-cuff asides by previous PM's, and voiced concerns about Anwar to be personal or national slights. One can only guess that Mahathir had an unpleasant encounter with an Australian many years ago and hasn't gotten over it.

Anyone who has spent more than two weeks in Australia knows that mates will call each other the worst names during the day, and have a beer together at night, the mateship strengthened by the whole process. Many older school Asian's however take slights very personally, and they are remembered for a life time. ASEAN embodies these "Asian Values" where non-interference in other countries affairs is the "greatest tie that binds". (and as I will outline in my next column, ASEAN's greatest internal threat)

Finally the Pauline Hansen incident, where a former fish and chippery owner turned politician on the backs of support from a crazed, naive and backward group of supporters to slip into parliament focussed attention on Australia yet again. All over Asia the call was that Australia was a racist nation for allowing these opinions to be voiced. In a region where authoritarianism reigns and free speech is rare, it was not understood that such a process is part of the Australian system of democracy where politicians (and indeed ordinary people) can make any statement they want, have it debated freely, and in the end the people decide. The Australian people decided, and Pauline was sent back to the fish and chip ship where hopefully she can fry fish better than she can assess Australian political opinion. The Asian way is to suppress alternative views, and tragically often to the extent that they boil over in tragedy (á la Indonesia). The Australian way is to let arguments succeed or fail on their own merits. Underlying dissension is given an outlet, and the quality of society improves just a little bit yet again.

Virginal Australian businessmen in Asia are initially taken aback by the élitism, secrecy, and class consciousness of Asian business, politics and society, but most adapt to this, and try to, (or realise thant they have to), acommodate the culture clash and work within Asia's rules. And there-in lies perhaps the greatest disaster of Australia-Asian policy in the past decade or two. Australia's recognition of Indonesia's East Timor was nothing more than a foolhardy accomodation of Asian values, and a cowardly genuflection to what were perceived as the Asian ruling élites with the unstated hope that political (and business) benefits would accrue.

Australia's East Timor policy is now exposed as acheiving the exact opposite of what the bright sparks had envisaged. Rather than enhancing relationships, when the heat got too much and Australia finally let Australian values preside over Asian values, Indonesian businessmen are reportedly cancelling Australian contracts, the government has cancelled trade agreements, and one report today says that wheat importers are changing all their machines to reduce their dependence on Asutralian wheat. Clearly, a policy that was meant to appease an Asian government has backfired tragically. Similarly, Keating's much publicised "special friendship" with Soeharto is now a political liability.

Time for Australia to stand on its own feet. No more "all the way with LBJ" please. No more representing the old world and more representing the new...

There is no mileage in enforcing values on others.

There is no mileage in appeasing others for short political mileage either.

Such is the painful lesson for Australia being paid for this very moment in the jungles of East Timor, the boardrooms of Indonesian companies, and the government offices of yet more Asian countries.