 |
|
|
|
Neville
Roach AO My talk today will be a little controversial—at least I hope so—and it may come across as somewhat critical of Australia. Let me assure you that, although I am of Asian origin, I am first and foremost an Australian and Australia’s interest are my highest priority. So my comments, critical or otherwise, are intended to be constructive and to promote Australia’s interests in its engagement with Asia. In developing today’s discussion I propose to treat identity as the way we see ourselves, and image as the way others see us. Let me first talk about identity. Who are we and how do we see ourselves? The simple answer is ‘we are Australians’. Australia is not some outpost of the British Empire, although Britain has contributed more to our identity than any other nation or culture; not an extension of US involvement in Asia, although our strategic links with the US are fundamental to our security, and the growing US dominance of the evolving global culture means our culture is probably more influenced by that of the US than any other; nor is it Asian, although we are and always will be in the Asian region, and Asian countries collectively are, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, the major region with which we trade and the largest source of our immigration intake. The fact is, we are a unique nation, different from any other particular nation, including countries which have many similarities to ourselves, such as the UK, Ireland, the USA, Canada and even New Zealand. And we are not likely to become like any other country in the Asian region, nor like Asia collectively, assuming Asian countries have a common identity, something I believe they do, a point I will return to a little later. Well, what are the core characteristics that go to make up our unique identity? I will not present these in any particular order of importance except for the first. In any discussion on our identity, the characteristic that must be at the top of the list is that we are a free society. Our core democratic system and institutions, including the rule of law that we are all equally subject to, form the foundation on which everything else is built. In my opinion, the enormous importance of our democratic system is not sufficiently appreciated by many, perhaps most, Australians. The denigration of our elected representatives by the ‘No’ lobby during the debate leading up to the republic referendum, was only one example, an extremely bad and sad one, of this dangerous attitude. A second and distinguishing aspect of our identity is our indigenous heritage and the relationship between indigenous and all other Australians. Indigenous Australians are the only unique members of our society. The rest of us are all migrants or descendants of migrants. And our indigenous peoples are special, different from indigenous peoples of any other nation. The culture of our indigenous peoples is not only an important part of our overall culture, one that is growing in national and international significance by the day, but is the one element of our culture that clearly differentiates us from the other somewhat similar English-speaking countries. And the relationship between indigenous and other Australians is also a unique issue, fundamental to the legal, cultural, social and, in particular, moral dimensions of our identity. Whatever our individual views on this relationship, I am sure the majority of Australians realise that this is the most important unfinished business facing the Australian nation and that we cannot go forward as a community at peace with its collective consciences, unless and until we achieve genuine reconciliation. The third characteristic of our identity is that our political and social culture is largely derived from our British and Irish heritage and the circumstances of settlement. Our democratic system and institutions have evolved from those of Great Britain, as has our national language, English, and many of our symbols, including our flag and the crown—this last at least until the next referendum! Many of our core values and attitudes, especially egalitarianism, the fair go, mateship and our healthy irreverence towards authority, have their origins in our British or Irish ancestry and the complex and special interaction between convicts, settlers and the colonial authorities from 1788 onwards. The fourth characteristic, and one which has enormously influenced our culture, our thinking, our feelings, is the special relationship we have with our unique land, the world’s largest island, subject to the tyranny of distance both externally and internally, a sunburnt country, a vast continent, largely uninhabitable, with flora and fauna that are not to be found anywhere else. Between them, our early settlement mix and our distance from the ‘mother country’ have together made us different form other countries of colonial origin and have contributed to the special way in which we have negotiated differences within our migrant society. As a result, we have been able to avoid most of the excesses that marked the relationships between communities and countries from which our immigrant population was derived. This brings me to one of the most important and defining characteristics of modern Australia, our cultural diversity and our approach to its management which is best describes by the term, ‘Australian Multiculturalism’. This policy has emerged relatively recently. While we have always had diversity in our population, for most of our history since 1788, difference was not viewed positively, let alone encouraged. Instead, previous policies initially sought assimilation and subsequently integration. Multiculturalism marks a clear and radical departure from the past. The dismantling of the White Australia Policy, who started in 1966, meant people who would always look different started coming here in large numbers. At around the same time, the 1967 referendum meant we finally decided that our indigenous peoples counted and, should actually be counted—literally! These breakthroughs were followed by the evolution of ‘Australian Multiculturalism’, a term that has now been formally endorsed by the Federal Government. In essence, multiculturalism dose not seek uniformity but accepts, values and celebrates diversity and seeks to maximise the benefits that flow from the skills, networks and creativity of a culturally diverse population. The use of the prefix ‘Australian’ emphasises the fact that our response to our cultural diversity is quite unique, clearly different from and, in my view, better than, the way other multicultural societies, including the English-speaking ones, have done it. The prefix ‘Australian’ also recognises that our multiculturalism has been the collective achievement of all Australians, not just of recently arrived migrants from a non-English speaking background. And its benefits flow to all Australians. A feature of our identity that is closely related to, but distinct from, multiculturalism is that we are and will continue to be an immigrant country. Immigration profoundly affects our nature, continually introducing different races and cultures, new ideas and the energy and creativity that migrants always bring to their new home. The final aspect of our identity that I want to describe is the one that results from what the Prime Minister calls ‘the unique intersection of our history and our geography’. Basically, our modern history and dominant culture is of a mature yet evolving western liberal democracy. But, geographically, we are firmly anchored to the Asian region. These are either permanent or very long-term realities. Geographically, we are always going to be where we are. And, despite the changes in our immigration mix, we are never going to be ‘Asianised’. English will forever be our national language, we are always going to have our largely British-derived political and legal system, and our Aussie-flavoured western heritage and culture will continue to be dominant, although we seem doomed to fall victim to the relentless march of the increasingly US-influenced global cultures which we tend to adopt all to easily. Our unique position — shared to some extent with New Zealand which should have been part of Australia anyway! — as a western liberal, yet multicultural, society located in the Asian region, gives us a very special opportunity as well as responsibility. We can develop into a model nation, where east meets west constructively and positively, with a best of all worlds outcome. We can gain huge business, cultural and social benefits by building our own relationship with the countries in our region – not as an outpost or successor of Britain with its colonial relationship with Asia; nor as an agent—dare I say deputy sheriff! — exclusively supporting the USA’s strategic interest in our region, but as an independent nation. Relationships, of course, are bi-lateral and often multi-lateral. So they way our relationship with our northern neighbors develops will depend not just on our efforts and attitudes. It will depend just as much on how they individually and collectively choose to engage with us. This, in turn, will be influenced significantly by how they see us, in other words, their image of us. Which brings me to the second part of today’s subject — our image. In looking at our image, I want to focus on the view from Asia, but before I do that, let me briefly comment on our relationship with the UK and the USA, and their image of us. A focus on Asia need not and should not diminish our traditional ties with these great countries which have contributed so much to our history, heritage, core institutions and values, and security. Going forward, the UK and USA will continue to be uppermost in the minds and hearts of many, if not most Australians, although increasingly, our region will grow in importance. What we need is balance in our relationships—not automatically choosing some and rejecting others, but dealing with all on the basis of our own self-interest and values. I think that in turn, the UK and USA see us as traditional and reliable allies, close relatives, similar but not the same. They regard us with affection as a nation which, on most issues, they would expect to be on the same side. However, our interest will not automatically coincide with theirs. Britain will continue to move closer to Europe, and America will put its own trade and other vital interests ahead of ours — as its protection of its farmers frequently shows us. I believe they will both treat us with more respect if we demonstrate our independence and ability to stand on our own feet. Returning to our image in Asia, I need to first explain why I think there is such a thing as an Asian perspective. Many critics dismiss this concept on the grounds that there are too many countries, cultures, religions and languages in Asia to produce a common point of view. Yet these same people have no difficulty talking about Western civilisation or a European point of view — despite the great diversity that such groupings encompass. I believe that, just as different Western and European communities have much in common, so do the countries of Asia. Almost all Asian countries have emerged in the second half of this century from some sort of Western colonialism or, at least, dominance. They value symbols of independence such as their own flag, anthem and head of state; they are obsessed with their territorial integrity which, their history tells them, they dare not take for granted; they demand mutual respect and react strongly to attitudes of superiority, particularly from former colonial rulers and what are seen as their offshoots, like Australia; they are concerned about colonial rule being replaced by economic or cultural imperialism, hence they tend to be strongly protectionist in these areas; they are cautious in their relationships with dominant powers and are wary of exclusive alignment with any of them; they have developing or recently developed economies and are concerned that the rich countries are now trying to impose constraints, rules and values that did not apply to them in their development period, e.g. the removal of protective trade barriers and the imposition of minimum wage rates, working conditions and health, safety and environmental standards; on balance, they attach more value to community interests than to individual rights; and, to broach a delicate subject, they see themselves as non-white and despite their own racial, linguistic and colour prejudices, are extremely suspicious, judgmental and unforgiving of anything they perceive as indicative of white racism. In listing these common ‘Asian’ characteristics, I merely present them to assist you to appreciate why Asians see us or respond to us the way they do. Neither their qualities nor ours are intrinsically good or bad. But we need to recognise that Asians can and do have different priorities, world views, feelings and attitudes from ours. It is in our interest to try and understand rather than judge these differences, so that we can engage with Asia with greater sensitivity and mutual respect. It is also worth defining what constitutes Asia. From the perspective of the Indian sub-continent where I come from, Asia is geographic Asia, the worlds largest continent. Unfortunately, in strategic terms, Australia has focussed its attention on East Asia, which is then sub-divided into North East and South-East Asia. This is consistent with the popular conception of Asia in the minds of most Australians, who see Asians as those belonging to what they broadly describe as the Chinese-looking races. In these terms, Asia ends at the border between India and Myanmar. Interestingly, a similar view prevails in Japan, where they seem to equate Asia with what they see as the race they belong to. Ironically, the people of the Indian sub-continent would see their countries as being at the heart of Asia. And, interestingly again, this is the view in Britain, where the term Asian refers to Indians, Pakistanis, Bangla Deshis and Sri Lankans. My preference is to think in terms of geographic Asia. The common perspectives I spoke of earlier apply to most, if not all of geographic Asia. Apart from South Asia, as the Indian sub-continent is now referred to, the other important groupings are West Asia, including the Middle East and Central Asia. In one way or another, all the Asian regions are important to Australia, but the region where there has been the greatest imbalance between its importance and the attention we give it , is undoubtedly South Asia, especially Asia. I admit my bias, being of Indian origin. But, India’s significance stands up by almost any measure. It is home to 1 billion people. It is the world’s largest democracy and has been so from its birth. It has the world’s 11th largest GDP in exchange rate terms and the 4th largest in Purchasing Power Parity terms. It has the 3rd largest pool of technical skills in the world and is heading for super power status in the Information and Communications technologies, particularly software. It seems destined to become the back-office to the world, providing IT-enabled services by combining its technical and English language strengths with its abundant skilled resources. Strategically, it is the dominant regional power in South Asia, not only in conventional military terms, but also in terms of missiles and nuclear weapons. And most significantly for Australia, we share the Indian Ocean, which should be seen as connecting rather than separating us. Unfortunately, for most of 50 or so years of India’s existence as an independent nation, Australia’s interest in, and relationship with, India has been cool. This had much to do with different views on colonialism, White Australia, apartheid and the world order during the cold war. Australia has always been a close ally with the US. India’s preference was for non-alignment, which inevitably led to it having to rely on USSR for military technology and equipment and support in the United Nations. Of course, the USSR is now no more and the cold war is over. Sadly, our relations with India did not improve immediately, but went backwards as a result of our opposition to India’s application to join APEC and our exceptionally strident response to India’s nuclear tests. Fortunately, fences have now been mended, thanks to a significant diplomatic effort by Australia in the year 2000, to which the Indians responded positively. Losing the cricket—I refer to real cricket, the Test Match version — and taking it gracefully, has probably also made a world of difference! Seriously, our future relationship now looks very promising. With goodwill and commitment on both sides, we can look forward to a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship. To return to our image in Asia. How do Asians see us? One thing Asian countries do not regard us as, is ‘Asian’. This is consistent with our own sense of identity, as discussed earlier. We are Australians and have no reason or need to become anybody else. And I am sure the Asians do not expect us to become ‘Asian’ in the future, either. Even though they regard us as different from them, on the whole, they look at us positively. They see us as an affluent, stable democracy; a middle-power; a favourite destination for a holiday, education or health care; a good and safe place in which to live and bring up children. They respect our strong economy. They recognise that we have moved away from the White Australia Policy and adopted a more open approach to immigration — although they do not fully appreciate how totally non-discriminatory it has become. It is clear to them that our engagement with Asia is greater than it has ever been in the past. So, all in all our image in Asia is pretty good — good enough for us to engage with the region with confidence and in our own right. This does not mean that Asians like everything about us. In fact, there are many characteristics they see in us, which limit our relationship with them. This does not mean that we have to modify such aspects of our behavior, but we should at least try to understand their impact on our image and therefore on our relations with Asia. The perceived characteristic that I believe is the hardest for us to shake off, and very difficult for us to come to terms with, is residual racism. Even though other countries, including most in Asia, might be more racist than we are, unfortunately it doesn’t take much for us to be branded as racist. The reason is our history and the enduring influence of the ‘White Australia’ label, a stronger branding of a policy than any marketeer could ever have come up with! So it sticks, and when someone like Pauline Hanson comes along, sceptical Asians revert to their old view of us and say, ‘they haven’t really changed, have they?’ The second coming of Pauline Hanson is already getting headlines in Asia. I had hoped that this time, the stronger response of the national leaders of the major parties, particularly the Coalition, would contain the damage — both internally and externally. Unfortunately, it appears that some State and Territory Coalition parties are determined to reject the advice of their national leaders and engage with parties like One Nation in what The Australian newspaper recently referred to as ‘ dirty dancing’. As a result, the racist tag continues to stick. Our incomplete and somewhat ambivalent journey towards Reconciliation adds to this negative perception of us. Of course, we have made progress in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, but as long as the health, education, employment and housing of Indigenous Australians remain at abysmally low levels, and their rate of imprisonment appallingly high, we will find it difficult to convince ourselves, let alone others, that we have become a racially just and fair community. Other issues, which Asians perceive as evidence of residual discrimination, are our response to asylum seekers who are mainly from West Asia, delays in the granting of student and tourist visas to Asians and the restrictions we place on family reunion, particularly of spouses and parents, which particularly affect new migrants of which Asians are a growing number. Another aspect of our behaviour that spoils our relationship with Asia is that we tend to be very judgmental, frequently claiming that we are right and others are wrong — even when alternative viewpoints are reasonable. When talking about our identity, I did not mention our addiction to sports and how much we like to win and hate to lose. Now there is nothing wrong with being competitive, provided one plays fairly, accepts the umpire’s decision and the result — win, lose, draw — graciously. Unfortunately we are frequently seen as bad losers and, sometimes, even worse winners. And the attitudes we display on the sporting field seem to be reflected in the way we make judgements on other issues as well. We tend to think in terms of absolutes - our side is totally right, theirs is totally wrong. And we can be very vocal about it too, sometimes more vocal than more significant powers. A good example was when India carried out its nuclear tests. Australia’s reaction was more immediate and more extreme than even the USA’s. I need to emphasise that I am totally against nuclear weapons and wish they would all be dismantled. But, did we need to be so strident? Was it incumbent or appropriate for us, a middle power at best, an exporter of uranium to other nuclear powers, a strong ally of the most nuclear armed nation on earth, to take on a major nation like India, when more significant nations were more circumspect? Our tendency to rush to judgement and to ‘fight above our weight’, often appearing to be a proxy for the USA, is something that Asian countries find very irksome. Without sacrificing our principles, we might consider being less judgmental and more selective in choosing the issues to champion, focusing on matters that have a direct impact on our interests and where our own behaviour entitles us to take the high moral ground. If one reads the recent comments made by Dr Mahathir of Malaysia or former President Wahid of Indonesia carefully, dispassionately and impartially, rather than just defensively, it becomes clear that their criticism of us is what they perceive as our lack of mutual respect, our unwillingness to empathise with their special difficulties, our tendency to gloat over their misfortune. Little wonder that they seek to exclude us from Asian groupings. Another reason why Asians don’t fully warm to us is that our commitment to the region frequently seems tentative. Our hesitancy in engaging with Asia by ourselves is highlighted by our virtually total focus on APEC as the vehicle through which to build our relationship with the region. The implication is that we still need rich and powerful friends — in this case the USA — to hold our hand when we venture into negotiations with Asia. Our strong criticism of Dr Mahathir’s East Asia Economic Caucus has only helped to exclude us from the new version of such a grouping, namely ASEAN +3. A positive response might have given us exclusive advantage in the region. The focus on APEC as the only game in Asia has also contributed to us being neglectful of South Asia. Fortunately, as I said earlier, Australia is now treating South Asia, and India in particular, with the importance it deserves. Our unwillingness to cut our constitutional links with the British monarchy further highlights our discomfort with aligning ourselves with our geographic region. I also have no doubt that becoming a republic would have had a huge positive impact on our image among Asians, as a country that has come of age, no longer needing to cling to Her Majesty’s apron strings. And we would have ceased to be a symbol in their midst of the colonial legacy that many of them have so recently shaken off. To close, I would like to comment on one particularly important area where our image could do with improvement in Asia, and for that matter in the rest of the world. This is our level of advancement and sophistication in relation to the emerging Information Age. Our image still tends to be of a friendly and easygoing people, obsessed with sport and leisure, whose economy has not much to offer except the sun, the sea and the outback, primary produce and mineral resources. In reality however, we are a very innovative, hard-working, competitive and sophisticated nation—very advanced in the use of technology and with much to offer the Asian region in terms of the hardware, software and services of the New Economy. Our success in running the Olympic Games was largely due to our ability to manage complex projects and use technology brilliantly. Unfortunately, because we are not seen as technology leaders, the Asians look to America for most technology offerings, denying us the opportunity to gain a large market share in their emerging markets. In my view, the IT markets of Asia represent a huge opportunity for us. The recent success, even dominance, of America in the information and communication technologies has given the impression that Asia has dropped out from the technology race. This is a very short-sighted and incomplete view. Japan remains the world’s second largest IT market. The Sony Playstation is one of the most advanced IT devices in the world. NTT DOCOMO provides the most successful mobile internet solutions anywhere, way ahead of the Europeans and Americans. Taiwan dominates several of the most important hardware technology components, including mother-boards, monitors and mice — or should that be mouses? Korea is very advanced in electronic devices and produces the E-machine, the largest selling consumer PC in the USA. The growth of the internet in China is so rapid that Chinese may soon overtake English as the most used internet language. And India is emerging as an IT super-power a supplier of skilled resources and sophisticated software and other computer-enabled services to the world. The markets of Asia apart from Japan, China and Korea
are still relatively small, but are growing rapidly. Now is the
time to establish a presence in these markets. Massive investments
are being made in infrastructure and, as deregulation and privatisation
gather pace, there is going to be a huge demand for applications
solutions and implementation services—areas where we are particularly
strong. Thank you |
|||
|
|
