Back on 17
th
September, 2017, shortly after a White Paper on Australia’s Foreign Affairs
Policy was announced (see
http://dfat.gov.au/whitepaper/index.html),
I wrote an email to our Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister, the Hon. Julie
Bishop, MP, on what I would like to see included in the final White Paper – I sent
the email as I suspected life may prevent me from making a formal submission,
and such was the case (submissions closed at the end of February).
I copied the email to
quite a few other MPs, so it is not, in my view, a private communication, and
thus I have decided to repost it here. I’m tempted to tweak some of it a little
now, but have decided I “should” leave it as I emailed it …
*****
Dear Foreign
Minister,
Whilst I note some
articles questioning this
[1] , I consider that
this is
potentially a good action, depending on the details of how it is
put together
(and I note that your new Secretary of DFAT looks very capable), and
what sort of consultation may be involved
(I understand that public
consultation is commonly part of the preparation of a White Paper). I have
read some interesting articles on foreign policy and “grand strategy”
[2] , and there have been
quite a few articles on China’s resurgence after it bad couple of centuries,
and the possible significance of that for Australia
[3] .
On that, whilst I am
not an expert, as an Australian citizen I would like to have a say on this
area, knowing that this submission will be no more than one small item in a
large field where there are many well-established and better informed experts.
Perspective is the
issue I wish to begin this submission with.
Throughout human
existence, our focus has gradually evolved to broader perspectives – from the
family-like tribe of the hunter-gatherers tens of millennia ago, through the
city-state focus as agriculture and civilisation developed until the evolution
of the modern nation a few centuries ago. Now, with the growth of globalisation
in recent decades and humans travelling into space, we have an awareness of
humans as a rarity – a triumph of life on a small planet in a very large Universe
which should be treasured.
I am of the view that
our foreign policy needs to acknowledge, first and foremost, the sanctity – in
a nonreligious sense – of life. Accordingly, we should have “not doing harm” as
a high principle – much as doctors apparently aim to “first do no harm”.
The next aspect of
perspective I wish to touch on is hindsight.
Hindsight is always -
unfairly at times - a 20:20 vision exercise, and there is no shortage of such
reviews
(I have listed some examples in the footnote [4] ). Whilst it
is important to learn from such exercises, and to attempt to ensure that
properly informed and credible decisions draw on such lessons
(the word
prescient is perhaps applicable, in some instances [5] ), I consider
that it is also important to recognise that there may be times when it is not
possible to predict what will happen as a result of an action – no matter how
genuinely we attempt to learn and apply knowledge.
Possibly the most
convenient example to cite of that is the USA’s involvement in Afghanistan in
the 1980s. Although I have read several articles disputing the commonly
accepted mythology associated with that period in history
[6] , the key thought
I wish to convey here is that a decision made with the best intentions can
still be found to be wrong later.
There are a number of
points that, in my view, flow from the acknowledgement of this possibility.
The most obvious is
development and exposition of robustly considered principles, adopted as a
guide with a view to try to minimise such later problems: the first of these
should be, in my opinion, having the intention to “first do no harm”. This, in
my opinion, is important as a guiding principle for civilised life generally,
as well as for foreign policy.
I would suggest the
following as implementations of this principle:
·
be extremely wary of arms sales.
Personally, I tend towards a preference that Australia
never sell
any weapons or munitions to other nations, to the extent of ensuring that such
cost recoupment is never included in initial budgets, but that is neither
realistic, nor fair on, for instance, smaller nations who have received our
former
Attack class patrol boats.
I am, however, very aware of the enormous damage that has been done by small
arms and munitions
(for instance, Human Rights Watch
has a report on
cluster munitions in conflict zones and where they have come from at https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/09/01/cluster-munitions-fewer-stockpiles-new-use,
which also reports on progress in destruction of stockpiles; also, I consider
the damage that Da’esh has done could have been reduced had their access to
munitions not happened [along with a range of other matters such as cutting off
their sales of oil]), and I do consider that Australia, as a responsible
member-nation of the world, should be extremely wary of being involved in such
sales
(there will be exceptions, such as supplies to allies such as Iraq)
and active in trying to manage or suppress unscrupulous or dangerous forms of
such trade
[7] .
·
Whilst we probably do need allies
(that is a point I would like to see the experts’ opinions on included in the
White Paper), and need to be engaged with such allies to the extent that is
necessary to be reasonably confident that they will actually support us in our
time of need, following said allies into war needs to be carefully considered
first:
o Our
involvement with the First World War was largely automatic, and, in many ways,
not to our benefit; our involvement in
the Second World War was more clearly warranted – both for our defence, and as
an act against great evil; our involvement
with the wars in Vietnam and Iraq was, in my opinion, questionable; our involvement in Afghanistan, on the other
hand, was, in my opinion, justified, but has been tainted by our involvement in
Iraq.
o Canada
did not participate in the Iraq War, and, as far as I am aware, did not suffer
greatly in consequence
[8] ;
on the other hand, New Zealand’s decision of
principle regarding nuclear armed vessels led to a loss of access to
intelligence and “being on the outer” for quite a few years, but, more
recently, success
[9] ;
o If
we are supporting something as an interim step
(e.g., supporting an
authoritarian or repressive state for sake of regional stability – as is
possibly the case with Saudi Arabia {I don’t want to go back to Cold War era
examples]), I consider that we should elucidate clearly what we are doing,
why we are doing it, and what – if any – timeline we would expect the supported
state to make changes for the better in
- and I acknowledge that such
change may take decades. Admitting that, or awareness of the flaws in a
situation, may be politically undesirable, but that is a matter which
translates to better communication of the need for stability, challenges facing
the implementation of change, etc, and acceptance of the need for public debate
on important issues – such as declarations of war
[10] .
In making this
suggestion, I also wish to acknowledge the complexity of many situations ,which
is well expounded on in Ross Burns’ article
“Looking for an end-game in
Syria” [11] .
(It is also
appropriate to consider the very difficult problem of asymmetric warfare, and
the challenges of balancing proportionate response, justice and the healing of
victims or relatives of victims of events such as violent extremism.)
I would now like to
go back to the issue of principles more generally, and would like to propose
the following principles be considered for adoption, in addition to the
principle of “first do no harm”, with appropriate statements of commitment, for
guidance in our deliberations on foreign policy:
·
democracy (particularly as an expression and
facilitator of freedom);
·
equity, human rights and human dignity;
·
human dignity; and
·
empathy.
I personally define
“human dignity” as:
“the
inherently cumulative holistic combination of human rights, wellbeing and
potential, and all actions or interaction which promote, realise or facilitate
same. The converse also applies: whatever degrades, diminishes or robs humans
of dignity, is inherently undignified”.
It is important,
however, that the reasons for our adoption of these principles be clear. In my
case, the reasons I am suggesting these are that these principles are the best
means of ensuring:
·
human rights, as expressed generally in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, more specifically in the ”twin Covenants”
(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), and various subsequent
adaptations, for all;
·
the proverbial Australian “fair go” (i.e.,
equal opportunity for all);
·
efficient and effective access to
resources for the betterment of all; and
·
that we all maintain our personal human decency
– our “humanity” (when human beings object to helping our humans who are in
trouble, the greatest diminishing of human condition is in those who did the
objecting), as well as maintaining the national equivalent sense of being a
“decent” nation.
Further to this, I
also propose that our measure of commitment to this be what we are prepared
to go without in order to see these happen.
It seems to me that
the issue that is probably raised most by activists as a measure of this is
that of access to oil (i.e., are we prepared to forgo access or low cost
access to oil for the sake of demonstrating a commitment to the principles I
have suggested), on the grounds of the quest for oil having led to (in
part) past colonialism and its legacy, wars, suppression of human rights in
West Asia (aka “the Middle East”), etc, but I do acknowledge that there
are other issues to balance here - such as the suffering that would be caused
by larger unemployment in the event that our currently oil-dependent economies
lost that access, the alliance implications associated with supporting our
biggest (but not necessarily best) ally, the USA, and so on … although I
do wish to point out that I have yet to come across such counterbalancing
issues being presented in public debate, or presented credibly in public debate
(which would require acknowledgment of the issues raised by activists as well).
I question, however,
whether economic issues are the only measure of such a commitment. In any case,
the impacts of any such commitment need to be considered all round. As examples:
·
the campaign to isolate the apartheid regime in
South Africa is generally accepted as having contributed to change, and thus
the long term betterment of all South Africans overall (there could,
perhaps, have been more support of capability building subsequently – which
would have come if we adopted a principle of empathy for such decision making);
·
campaigns to isolate the USSR and Cuba did not
work, and, in fact, it was the promotion of contact with China
(at the
expense of Taiwan [12] ) that has
opened the door to some change there
[13] ; and
·
there is ongoing, intense debate over actions
such as attending conferences in Palestine/Israel, and whether that
benefits/harms one side or the other.
On a personal note, I
have worked on Australian aid projects in China and Viêt Nám (water and
wastewater treatment plants), and am pleased those have helped the
population of those places, at least in the short term (by improving
physical health), but there are also longer term, broader issues to
consider, such as whether such actions encourage repressive regimes, or
contribute to the many problems associated with population growth.
It can be difficult
to make decisions in such complex situations, and those who do so – or attempt
to do so – have my respect and admiration.
In undertaking those
deliberations, anything which continues the historical trend towards a broader,
more realistic
(as it could be termed, since it acknowledges the
interconnection of life on this world) perspective could be considered
beneficial and appropriate
(perhaps even “great”, in the sense of “punching
above our weight” – which is an attitude that could be questioned, but may have
value in promoting acceptance of foreign aid [14] ), whereas
anything which tends towards the older, more narrow focused view is, in my
view, small minded – not maliciously, perhaps, quite probably as a result of
lack of thought or fear of the immediate impacts
(such as reduced funding
for Australians), but still undesirable.
The ultimate
expression of this trend, in my view and, perhaps, that of many religions and
economists, is empathy, which helps us to:
·
unlock access to the best resources for doing;
and
·
ensure outcomes are directed to those with the
greatest need.
To illustrate how
this could be applied to foreign policy, I would like to consider China and the
USA.
Firstly:
·
the Chinese people have significant needs, and
the Chinese government has made outstanding progress in providing for those
needs (e.g., lifting people out of extreme poverty), but the Chinese
government:
o has
not met all the needs of its people;
o has
imposed conditions and methods which breach human rights; and
o tends
to ignore the valid needs of others in the region, as exemplified by tensions
over the South and East China Seas.
·
the USA is a powerful nation, with the world’s
leading economy, but:
o it
does not cater for need of all its people;
o has
problems with human rights; and
o has
a history of mixed results from its overseas actions, ranging from outstanding,
in the case of the Marshall Plan, for instance, to highly questionable, in the
case of its war against Spain in the late 1890s, as an older and thus, perhaps,
less contentious example.
If we consider these
two nations from the point of view of giving aid, I am of the view that it is
useful to “state the obvious”, and therefore consider why we should give aid to
China, but not to the USA:
·
the USA has, overall, considerable economic
wealth, and the capability (including through genuinely democratic votes)
for that to be distributed to people in need (that it doesn’t is a poor
reflection on that nation’s lack of empathy as a nation, I would
contend);
·
China, although overcoming, in recent decades, a
good deal of its problems with poverty and growing its economy, still struggles
to meet the needs of its people for a range of reasons, including corruption, a
poor governance system, and limited capability in some key areas (I have
worked on some aid and other projects aimed at addressing this issue).
The topic of aid to
China raises a few issues:
·
where the capability of a government to
effectively deliver aid is flawed, it is possible that actions should possibly
include one or more of the following:
o improving
that capability of governance as an early activity;
o ensuring
corruption is properly identified, acknowledged and addressed;
o the
use of non-governmental organisations (NGOs); and
o providing
aid that has conditions - the unfashionable “aid with strings”, which can be
seen as, and sometimes is, patronising and offensive, but may be required, no
matter how great a nation considers itself. Having a clearly established
(stated), existing commitment to empathy helps reduce the potential for this to
be viewed as such.
·
China is perhaps an exception to the norm that
giving aid reduces the possibility of instability or other problems migrating
to neighbouring nations.
That last point can
also be rephrased slightly: poorly conceived intervention can cause problems
which haunt us later – West Asia is probably the most cited example of that.
I also note, however,
that it is possible for such intervention to work – for instance, the British
intervention in Sierra Leone in the early 2000s, which a complex mix of
actions, most of which are ignored by the media for a sensationalist focus on
military events. The key is to learn what works, and what doesn’t and in what
situations (e.g., knowing what situations match particular actions, much as
– and I apologise for a terrible example - doctors will vary medicine to suit
the needs of individual patients), and then apply that knowledge.
I wish to cover a few
other issues arising from this line of thought:
·
I make a differentiation between the people of a
nation and their government. The current events in Syria and, two decades ago,
in the former Yugoslavia, which led to the expression of the “Responsibility to
Protect” (R2P) principle, have made it clear that governments do not always
hold the interests of their people with the reverence and solemnity that they
should;
·
China and the USA both consider themselves great
nations: they, at times, tend to make the mistake of conflating size and
greatness (particularly China, I suggest). I would suggest that greatness is
better measured by characteristics that perhaps used to be considered “noble” –
characteristics such as freedom and democracy
[15] , human rights
and dignity, effective education, quality of life
(including accessible
health care – which could be considered to exclude the USA), and, perhaps,
a deliberate move towards the broader world view of the future.
I would judge the latter by signs such as the presence of empathy towards all –
albeit with a pragmatic
[16] basis
(I am
aware, for instance, of the challenges for good governance of large
populations, as faced by India and China);
·
there can be concerns around misapplication /
misuse / abuse of empathy.
The latter problem
can be considered a variation of the potential problems associated with “tough
love”. There are situations where one has to be “cruel to be kind”, but this
can be a problem where that “toughness of love” is based on faulty evidence,
and thus is either unjustified, ineffective, or actually harmful.
As an example of
that, there is a balancing act between withholding aid to put pressure on a
government, and allowing the aid to proceed for the sake of people in a nation.
The sanctions which
helped end apartheid are an example of good application of the principle of
“tough love”; many of the decisions to withhold aid made during the Cold War
are, I would suggest, probably not.
It is also probably
worth noting that there will be considerable resistance to the notion of
empathy. My view is that such resistance is countered by, in addition to
already advanced arguments based on the benefits of promoting human rights and
the sharing of stability:
·
acknowledging that nations can, as with
individuals, be in a situation of “unearned advantage”. I dislike the term
“privilege” (perhaps more accurately termed “social privilege”), as that
(a) generally comes across as aggressive, and (b) can hide any awareness that
the person with the unearned advantage may not be feeling privileged
(e.g., rich people also experience stress, depression, unhappiness, etc).
In the case of nations, those that gained from the industrial revolution
compared to nations which are trying to develop now, as we deal with negative
effects of that revolution, is probably the example I’ve come across most frequently,
but there are others – for instance, the benefits that England received
hundreds of years ago by taking silver from a Spanish ship, which was taking
the silver from South America;
·
the greatest benefit of being (or trying to
be) empathic is to us – it results in us being better human
beings wherever we are, and, in Australia, it allows us to manifest our proudly
held beliefs in a “fair go”, and being a hospitable people.
Senator Robert
Kennedy’s comments in response to the assassination of Dr Martin Luther King,
Jr. are, in my opinion, a similar call to the “better angels of our nature”:
"What we
need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is
not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness,
but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of
justice towards those who still suffer within our country, whether they be
white or whether they be black."
Whatever decisions
are made, for whatever reasons (whether empathy or “tough love” or normal
foreign policy principles), I consider it vital to have a well-communicated
(much better communicated than the ABS did with their
proposed changes to the Census) explanation of the decision making and
reasons involved.
One of the reasons
for the unpopularity of globalisation is that so many people do not see any
benefits for themselves and their families as a result of that, and, in fact,
consider they are experiencing problems as a result. Without entering into a
debate on that topic in this submission, it does, in my opinion, show that
there has been a failure to communicate the benefits and mechanisms by which
they would be realised (time frames etc) by those who have advocated for
globalisation.
If actions supporting
globalisation, such as trade agreements, are ultimately in our best interests,
we need a series of explanations of that which are accessible
to the complex mix of people that make up our nation.
Perhaps a better (or
less contentious) example of this need is justifying why foreign aid
budgets are anything other than the often recommended figure of 0.7% of GDP.
Finally, in this era
of computing, the Internet, and the drive for “smarter” everything, ranging
from phones through the so-called “Internet of Things” to the jobs and economy,
I would also like to suggest a
stated commitment to learning and
improving our foreign policy – not only learning from the past or mistakes
[17] , but learning
from other current events
[18] and
successes
as well – which is a principle well stated in a review of the film
“Sully”
[19] - and adapting to
the future as best can be done.
As examples of the
latter, one of the best ways Councils in Australia can prepare for the effects
of future climate is to ensure maintenance of infrastructure is done properly,
which possibly has implications for how financial aid is given, and needs also
to be considered when we provide aid for infrastructure projects overseas. Any
argument that the need for such projects to be financially sustainable as a
result (which I have come across in internationally financed projects)
misses the human benefits of possibly contributing to ongoing maintenance,
possibly by means of a lump sum initially for draw down only for maintenance
purposes, if that ensures the project will proceed effectively. If the project
does not proceed, human suffering will result for those people affected now,
and Australia’s reputation will be harmed in the future – commitment to the
principles of empathy and human dignity, however, would help us avoid that
mistake.
With regard to change
generally, our challenge is and always will be to ensure change avoids
generating a backlash on the one hand, or “throwing the baby out with the
bathwater” on the other.
To sum this
submission up, I respectfully urge that the following principles be
incorporated into our foreign policy:
·
“first do no harm”;
·
nuanced application of knowledge and a
commitment to learning and seeking to manage change;
·
well-communicated explanations of decision
making and thinking (although this overlaps the issue of “transparency”, I
see it as slightly different. It may also require a series of explanations
which are accessible to the complex mix of people that make up our nation);
·
commitments to democracy, equity, human rights
and human dignity; and
·
for sake of maintaining our humanity, empathy.
Thank you for your
time.
[12] I consider the
recent moves towards a national Taiwanese identity, perhaps as the survivors of
the regime that fled there from mainland China pass on, to be an excellent
direction for that nation.
[16] Although I consider
pragmatism important, I have chosen not to advocate for it on the grounds that
it receives too much emphasis at present.
[17] As examples of that:
Some other links in
this category are:
·
http://blogs.cfr.org/cook/2012/12/03/morsis-mistake/
(although I haven't access to the full article [budgetary constraints :) ],
I would add to any such analysis that the Muslim Brotherhood could be
considered to have made a mistake when they broke the agreement NOT to seek
Egypt's Presidency).
