Foreign policy hubris

A common observed pattern from behavioral economics is that when asset portfolios rise people get freer and more risky about spending it than when they fall by the same amount. In other words the rising wealth goes to your head.

So it seems in foreign policy.

Britain’s foreign policy capital (i.e. ability to influence other countries and global events) has long been falling although has arguably now stabilised. You can’t get through a social sciences degree without having to read painful and detailed accounts of how and why this happened, like David Sander’s classic ‘Losing an Empire, Finding a Role’. And reports setting out the rise of other global giants like the so called BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) implicitly suggest Britain’s days are further numbered.

But for some it’s helped drive more focus in recent years. That’s in part why progressives believe in using our remaining influence to drive reform into international institutions, spend bilateral aid in a way that contributes to sustainable and equitable growth in developing countries, and (more contentiously) build institutions and coalitions ready to adopt the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine to protect and secure citizens beyond our own borders.

I think the new Rudd Government here shares many of those progressive international values. But with Australia’s foreign policy capital on the rise (admittedly from a smaller base) it seems to have gone slightly to old-Kevin’s head. Witness Rudd’s:

Desire to ‘spearhead’ the creation of an Asia-Pacific Union. Yes, because 4 billion inhabitants of this vast continent have just been waiting for an island of 20 million people totally disconnected in geography, history and culture to help lead them forward.

Demands to Russia to pull back troops from Georgia. Thanks for the help but given the combined efforts of the Europeans and Americans seem to have little effect on the Kremlin, I’m not sure they’ve just been waiting for that call from Canberra to persuade them otherwise.

Belief in a strong America-Australia alliance. Actually this is less associated with Rudd but Australians generally think that America see them as one of their first and best allies. Slightly comic really. I doubt most Americans would even have heard of Australia, except perhaps from that classic Simpson’s episode which probably best captured matters. A more serious source to indicate the relationship: Bill Clinton’s 957-page memoir covering his period as one of the most internationally engaged Presidents mentions Australia but once in a comment about ‘touring a wildlife preserve, cuddling a koala and snorkeling on the magnificent reef’.

That said, Australia does have a growing global role, so how best to use it?

First, they should have a bit of stock check and review:

• Australia doesn’t have a lot of the things other big countries have. It’s not part of the G8, it’s not on the UN Security Council, the military is pretty average and at 0.3% of GDP it spends well below comparable countries on international aid.
  
  
• But… it does have lots of raw materials and is becoming an increasing trade partner selling the materials that other countries turn into products. And the legacy of its involvement in East Timor and Afghanistan mean it’s well placed for global peacekeeping missions.
  
  
• And the previous Prime Minister, John Howard, didn’t have a very sophisticated strategy – more pro-America, and let’s not mention the Asians than anything else. So it’s right to take a more engaged approach.

Second, forget grand ideas about leading a whole-of-Asia partnership and focus down to get some real impact:

• On the South Pacific. Australia is far and away the lead nation in the South Pacific region. There are major development issues here – not just entrenched levels of poverty but also serious ramifications of climate change to contend with.
  


• Scale up bilateral aid to international levels. There’s a strong case for focusing on East Asia rather than Asia as a whole (the concept of South and Central Asia seems a little lost from the debate here). China’s a crowded field but the three of the south-east Asia countries (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) would be crying out for more engagement.
  


• Continue the conflict management role. Australian troops have been doing a good job of training up local Iraqis and could be something to continued longer term either in the Asian region or in Africa like through the African Union.
  


• Focus on sectors. No clear evidence which sector best, but with limited influence it’s worth deciding what you really want to prioritise. For example, it could be the environment, or education, technology or health. Any would do.
  


• Don’t forget the Commonwealth. One institution where Australia is a key player and a much underrated one I think. Admittedly nothing close to being an EU, UN or World Bank but at 2 billion people around one-third of the world are part of it and does have reach in places the other big organsiations don’t.
  

Looks like the Fox lawyers have been busy wiping out the youtube clips from the Simpson’s episode but the following snaps give a hint at this highly amusing show…